Doctors often use the word death in reference to those who have been brought back, it's perfectly acceptable. — Sam26

Agreed, but I still maintain that the English wordstock fails us here. In order to have a precise philosophical discussion about this, it would seem to be helpful to have a variety of terms describing the various senses attributable to the word "death", just as it is helpful to the Inuit people to have many different terms in their language to describe the differing senses attributable to the English word "snow".

with reference to an NDE, it's a near death experience, obviously you didn't die in the absolute sense. — Sam26

This is precisely my point, assuming that you are arguing for the existence of "the human soul". If our subject is, indeed, a near death experience, and not an intance of death (as I have defined that above), then any "soul" present within the corporeal person could never have separated itself from the body to have the experiences claimed by the attestors. This means that if a subject/patient has been "brought back", as they romantically say, then that subject never in fact died, any extant soul never left the body, and the only explanation for any phenomenon of perception is explained by the "stimulated dream thesis", or if you like, the "perceptive dream occurrence" which I have described above. See what I mean?

Life ending at death is less of a scientific matter and more of a semantic matter. At least initially. — bert1

That depends on how one defines "death". True death is not the cessation of cardiac function, and the flat line on the EKG monitor; such hearts are regularly caused to resume their functioning with the application of electric impulse to the torso. True death has occurred when the brain has died, and cellular metabolism has ceased. You are correct in stating that semantics fail us here...

what strikes you as preposterous about that? — bert1

Simply the idea that I might pop in and out of existence so readily, for one thing. More significantly, that the objective reality of my existence should be influenced by the subjective reality of my perception thereof. Reality, by which I mean objective reality, is stronger than perception. Perception, after all, is a fickle and imperfect instrument, and so undependable; such is why we can never know anything with absolute certainty.

I am not a person who dreams often or vividly (curiously, to myself). I most often remember nothing from whatever mental activity has occurred during my hours of sleep. Even so, I have never considered the preposterous notion that I did not exist during those hours of sleep. People while sleeping are unconscious, yet still maintain a level of consciousness. As I have noted, I have had the experience of someone saying something to me while I was fast asleep, and being able to recite their words to them when I have woken hours later. In like manner, I have experienced that situation in a case when I was the speaker to one sleeping. In addition, one, at least I, can readily percieve the low level of consciousness in an unconscious person, like a sleeper, who is yet alive. The dead, however, present as being utterly devoid of consciousness. This goes beyond reflex action or stimulatory response...one can tell when the brain has died, and cellular metabolism has ceased. From this state, this "death", there appears in my experience to be no regaining of any level of consciousness whatsoever.

Are you for real? I eat materislists like you up for breakfast!!!

Your compassion is touching but wrong fella mister! — Ambrosia

Then please, Ambrosia, desist with the emotionally charged language...

Anyway,why you so sure of the end of conciousness when you have zero experience of it? — Ambrosia

I have seen dead people; indeed, I have killed people (combat veteran) in a horrible and definitive manner (as a gunner on an M1A1 tank), and know that said victims have had no consciousness post-mortem. In addition, I have never seen anyone I know to have died regain any level of consciousness.

Regarding being "so sure", I am sure of nothing. The "certainty" you have suspected me of above does not exist. I only have beliefs based upon my experiential evidence and reason, and claim certainty about nothing.

no, I know nothing about "zero consciousness" as an English psychological, philosophical or scientific lemma. The same applies to "non-consciousness". What I ascribe to death (for myself, there is only one type...no adjective necessary) is the end of consciousness.

Look, this seems to be upsetting you somewhat. As I have indicated elsewhere, I am loath to disabuse people of their closely held eschatological beliefs, as so doing has the potential of being psychologically damaging. I would not have this conversation "on the street" unless prompted. If you feel that you are being challenged thusly, perhaps we should break this dialogue off. I do not want to be responsible for causing anybody psychic pain. At the same time, you must realize that this is a philosophical forum, where the participants must feel free to discuss challenging issues forthrightly.

not at all, death is the end of consciousness. What did I write to make you infer thusly?

I do not recall speaking of "zero consciousness", but rather remember "unconsciousness" and "semi-consciousness", both of which I have experienced often. As for proving "non-existence"...I got nothin'.

There's also the concept of an unembodied mind: — Wheatley

Functionally, I cannot discern the difference between this and "soul", "spirit", "ghost", etc. (BTW, yom tov)

My my,posters are awfully dogmatic about life ending at material death.
One wonders at the "scientific" evidence for such "certainty"? — Ambrosia

I know only what I have experienced in this world. It is he who makes the assertion that there is an incorporeal aspect of my being which can live and experience reality apart from, and after the death of, my body who has assumed (thereby) the burden of providing evidence therefore. I do not claim this to be utterly impossible. My sole assertion is that I have no evidence for these things, and am awaiting substantial evidence therefore...

dogmatically they cling to the claim even when everyone else thinks they're nuts might be a good place to start, especially when they stand to lose something by saying so and have nothing to gain. — MikeL

They do have something to lose, something very precious to them...their (apparent) delusions about living for ever and ever, and thus having to confront their own mortality, ever the horror of mankind.

allow me to enunciate that which was suggested by my prior post, my belief about what is happening during a NDE. I believe that it is quite analogous to a dream: mental activity which occurs during a state of unconsciousness or semi-consciousness. The difference in the case of a NDE, however, is that the event is not occurring in the dark and quiet of one's bedroom at night, but rather in an environment wherein there is a great deal of sensory stimulation, most notably auditory, occurring while this unconscious mental activity is happening. Such stimuli are percieved by the unconscious person, and subsequently incorporated into this type of "dream occurrence" which has come to be called a "near death experience". I am sure that many of us have had the experience of somebody talking to us while we sleep, and later upon waking, being able to recall their words, no?

As a matter of fact, even if there exists such a thing as the human "soul"/"spirit", it would naturally be expected to remain "within" the body throughout an event called a "near death experience", and only exit the body following the "death experience"...the death of the body, do you not think? The only possible resolutions of this problem are that either we must rename "near death experiences" to reflect the actual death of the subject, or we must recognize that no soul or spirit has left the body during the time in question, for either there is death or there is not, and death must be held to be irrevocable, despite the Catholic Catechism's insistence on the eventual "resurrection of the body" (not to pick on the Church, but I was raised Catholic). If no soul has ever left the body, which situation is suggested by the term "near death experience", my "stimulated dream thesis" would appear to be the only apparent explanation.

@Sam26, please correct me if I misstate or oversimplify your argument. I believe you to suggest that if a person who had a NDE seemed to experience hovering over his body in a hospital room, surveying the scene and hearing himself pronounced dead by a medical doctor, that this actually happened in fact...that an incorporeal part of his person actually had said experience. Am I to suppose, then, that if tonight while I sleep, I dream vividly of being in Kathmandu (Nepal), that subsequently when I wake up tomorrow morning, I will have a valid claim that some part of my being, my "soul", my "spirit", my "ghost", or my "astral body", call it what you will, will have actually been there in reality?

The gift of the existentialists to some extent is that modern people could use the same language/customs/rituals of their forebearers but understand them in fundamentally different ways, i.e. give them their own meaning. Existence precedes essence - the past is gone and has no claim to the meaning we make in the present. — Ennui Elucidator

:up:
My, I didn't realize that I had so many typos in my post...partly the fault of a bothersomely autocorrective AI, and partly my fat fingers on a tiny keyboard!

The need someone like Dawkins apparently feels to tell everyone there is no God strikes me as no more appealing than the need others feel to tell everyone there is a God. — Ciceronianus

I feel the same. To my mind, the Dawkinsian/Hitchensian imperative reflects the difference between atheism and antitheism. The atheist arrives at his stance based upon what I call "the (Bertrand) Russell rule": the acceptance of supernatural claims demands supernatural proofs, the atheist being he who has discerned no evidence for the supernatural claim of a divine being of any type (but in the instant case, one which is conveniently incorporeal...omnipresent...as well as omniscient and omnipotent), and so does not believe the claim for lack of evidence, yet allows for the possibility of the supernatural, including of deity, which has not yielded any evidence. In contrast, the antitheist is he who is opposed to the very concept of God, believes affirmatively that there is no such thing, and often scoffs at those who choose to believe, as well as those who allow for the unverified possibility.

As far as alternatives to what seems to be our common upbringing in the Catholic faith, for me, the immanent deity of the Stoics has an appeal, or some form of pantheism or pandeism. — Ciceronianus

Hmmm. I have been giving this problem of alternatives some thought recently, because I believe that religion adds a great deal to human life. Regarding the Stoic concept of deity, I have but meager knowledge, and even less understanding. I have read Seneca's De Providentia, but as I was studying Latin at the time, my reading thereof was more focused on the Latin grammar and sentence structure, and not at all on actively synthesizing the ideas presented into a coherent whole. My reading was of the Latin text, in an extremity of fits and starts, and with frequent but disjointed references to the parrallell English text. Luckily, I still have the Loeb Classics edition, so I can revisit that work by reading only the English text. I wonder, which other of the Stoic authors may I turn to for an exposition of this topic?

Certainly, there exist religions which present non-theistically. Buddhism, for instance presents itself as a non-theistic alternative in the eyes of many. It is not a theistic religion per se, but it seems to have it's own ideological and epistemological problems, nonetheless. For instance, it presupposes reincarnation, which itself is steeped in the concept of "the soul" as an eternal, incorporeal part of every living thing, something which we have no more evidence for than for God. Within Buddhism, the achievement of "moksha" involves the breaking of samsara, the cycle of reincarnation, and this is the ultimate purpose rendered to men by that religious observance. In addition, I feel that Buddhist ideology places an impossible task on it's adherents by injuncting them to renounce all attachment and all desire, even while there are evolutionarily established, genetically determined desires which are inherent in homo sapiens. In so doing, it is creating an imperative for men and women to renounce an integral aspect of their humanity, which I fear an impossible task for most.

As science exposes more and more of the nature of our universe, it appears that theistic religion shall become less and less tenable for many, the fact becoming more and more apparent that there is no evidence for the existence of any gods. My supposition is that the future of religion lies, ironically in my view, within the sphere of what would most aptly be called "neopaganism". I, as well, have considered the pantheistic idea, but the principle of deification, even of nature, inherent in that term throws me a bit. The tendency might develop to deify every star and mountain individually, which sends us from the apparent delusion of monotheism right back to the greater delusion of polytheism. Do you not suppose that the conception of Dyeus Pater, essentially a deification of the sun, by the Proto-Indo-Europeans proceeded directly from the pantheistic mindset? We all know where that led: Zeus, Jupiter, and all their preposterous colleagues. I think, rather, that an effective religion can be nature-based, universe-based, or existence-based without deification of any kind, perhaps by observing and reverencing nature and the universe that we can percieve, without engaging in any kind of "worship" of anything.

Such are my thoughts pertaining to this, to religion in general. Sorry for rambling on...it's not often that I have occasion to express these usually solitary ruminations.

I think factual correctness isn't and shouldn't be the goal of religion, because its subject matter is largely ineffable (as is that of art). But I think that a religion should be at least reasonable to a degree, i.e. that it shouldn't require those who believe in it approve of and accept assertions, concepts or ideas that are clearly absurd. It's a personal opinion only, I suppose, but I think one of the goals of a religion should be to avoid being ridiculous. — Ciceronianus

I quite agree with you, save that I would rather a 'high degree' of, though not necessarily absolute, factual correctness in religion. I feel thusly because of one of the three purposes that I ascribe to religion in general, namely the provision of vital purpose...of a sense of purpose in peoples' lives. The three valid reasons that I have been able to discern for religion are: (1) to bring people together as a community in a world of diverse nation states and mega-cities, both of which tend to thwart the formation of reasonably sized communal structures, (2) to provide significant and meaningful ritual to the observance of the milestones of peoples' lives, and so render those milestones increasedly significant, and (3) to provide people with a vital purpose which can make their lives more meaningful.

If we are to tell people that the purpose of their lives is to one day live in "heaven" (which, after all, is the old Anglo-Saxon word for "sky") with God, the angels, and the redeemed, which assertion appears to be unfactual for many reasons, then I think we do them a disservice. This, because we initially delude them, and because if they are eventually able to rationalize away said delusion, they are left with the horrible feeling of living an utterly purposeless life (this I know from experience, as I have experienced that "dark night of the soul"). Even so, it is for this last stated reason that I am not in favor of disabusing people of what Dawkins called their "God delusion" unless I have some alternate belief system to replace it, and so avoid the deficit of purpose which might arise as a consequence of my actions. All in all, I think it better to live with delusion than with purposelessness. So, when people tell me that they believe God, or Jesus, or Saint Jude, etc., is going to help them with some problem, I simply nod affirmatively, and tell them that "I hope so", since I have no "religion" to replace what I might damage.

For reasons involving the foregoing, I would rather we inculcate religion within our yor children which does not stand in essential opposition to any known or reasonably theorized fact of reality. What such relugion might look like, I am unsure as yet, but it is something that I have been giving much thought to recently.

not that it has anything to do with the topic of this thread, but yes, yes, it was Saul/Paul, he of Tarsus, dogmatist par excellence, who put this all together in his own creative way. It was Paul who created "ex nihilo", as it were, the "Christ", which can bear but little resemblance to this man Ye'shua (Jesus), whom Paul never knew in life, and whom we really know so little about. Paul actually created an entirely new type of religion, very much without precedent, getting a great deal of pushback from the leaders of the "Jesus movement" in Jerusalem along the way, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Protestant Christians eliminate the Mary and saints problem quite handily, but having been raised Roman Catholic myself, I am very familiar with the issue, as well as the conundrum posed by Trinitarianism. The usual recitational formula is "three persons in one God". The problem with this for me is that the Church refuses to define what if means by using the term "persons". English "person" has a variety of meanings and senses, a wide semantic field, and the Church never specifies what sense it might be ascribing to the term in their use of it. "Three persons" here cannot mean "three distinct beings", as that would be tantamount to describing a pantheon. Perhaps by "persons", they mean "emanations"? This is never advanced as the meaning, though. It is a huge unresolved doctrinal problem for the Church, usually minimized or explained away as "a mystery of the faith". Not that I myself mind a little mystery, I just don't like it served as an explanation for an assertion which is irrational on it's face, and an apparent mathematical impossibility.

Reality is entirely the observer's concept thus without the observer, there is no reality. As simple as that. — RAW

That is part of the truth, but not the full picture, for there are different "realities" which attend an "observation", one which is utterly independent of the observation and one which is the product of the observation.

Does reality require an observer? If by "reality", you mean "objective reality", then I say no, for whenever there is an observation, there is created a subjective reality which is dependent upon both the objective reality and upon the faults in perception attending the observation. In fact an observer, because of the limitations of it's sensory perception, cannot actually discern objective reality, but is the perciever of a corrupted reality. An observer merely interprets objective reality by means of it's sensory organs. The result of this is inevitably the illusion which we may call "subjective reality", but this is often quite divergent from the (objective) reality itself, as the discoveries and theorizations of scientists have demonstrated. These two realities are intimately and causally related, but they can differ significantly. The difference between them is a result of a deficit of perception on the part of an observer. This deficit of perception means is the means by which the observer creates subjective reality. So, while "subjective reality" is dependent upon an observer, is indeed the product of the observer, "objective reality" remains utterly independent of the observer. Said subjective reality is the universe, which is to say the "world", as we know it, and the experience thereof had been very useful to us as a species, to say the least. All of human experience and endeavor is based upon this subjective reality. Because it is dependent upon objective reality, it cannot but be said to be a type or form of "reality". Even so, an observer can but be said to be the perverter of objective reality through the creation of it's subjective mirror.

Are you chasing after Truth? After a more complete understanding of Reality? After happiness? — leo

I have already decided that "truth", especially ultimate truth and truth pertaining to remote phenomena, will ever elude me. For one thing, my perception of reality decieves me...for another, I am limited by the extent to which I can percieve; at some point in time and space, perception yields to speculation. I would say, that by reading philosophy, I hope to have a better understanding of reality, of the extent to which I can know the nature thereof, and of how I should best speculate beyond the limits of my ability to know.

What's so funny? I just started a book (Sapiens) by him. Should I stop? WTF? — TheMadFool

If you can get past the pap about the hunter-gatherer lifestyle being one of bucolic wonder, and the development of agriculture being one of the worst things ever to befall mankind, you've got "Sapiens" licked. But the follow up book, entitled "Homo Deus", is so highly and fantastically speculative, that one can only refer to it as "science fiction".

Much has been made about Harari by the 'vulgus', but the work in question is really not good academic history....popular history to be read as entertainment only, I would estimate. My assumption is that N.H., obviously possessed of a significant intellect, fully knows this, and having decided that populist solvency is preferable to academic insolvency, has decided to "give the people what they want".

Have you read Buber? — Ennui Elucidator

Yes...with some relish, but a long time ago.

Harari
— Ennui Elucidator
Israeli historian. — Wheatley

Maybe "speculative historian" is a more apt description.

I almost posted the Oven of Akhnai for them, — Ennui Elucidator

Haha, just read it. Reb Eliezer would have made a poor litigator...all of his argumentation would employ circumstantial evidence!

. I am simply trying to bring nuance to a conversation... — Ennui Elucidator

There is a famous joke about two men, Goldberg and Schwartz, who are walking to synagogue. They are stopped along the way by someone who asks them where they are going. They casually tell the man that they are both on their way to synagogue.

The man responds, “Goldberg, I know why you go to synagogue. You believe in God, and you’re an observant Jew.” Then he adds, “But Schwartz, you don’t believe in God, why are you going?”

Schwartz responds, “Goldberg goes to synagogue to talk to God, and I go to synagogue to talk to Goldberg.”

The point of the story in this context is that religion is about community at least as much as it is about theology. — Ennui Elucidator

Well then, I'll call that adding nuance, and a great point of observation, especially at this hour (t's late here), and it actually addresses the OP more directly than the rather more historical tangent we have embarked upon.

Wanting to address the final two chapters of this certain novel, I'll sign off for now. More discussion later...

And even atheist Orthodox Jews, but who is counting? — Ennui Elucidator

I am utterly unfamiliar with that, but upon consideration, can imagine it, and can only imagine the difficulty of that situation.

...using it for the purpose of defining away a substantial sect of Jews... — Ennui Elucidator

Such a "defining away" of a segment of the Jewish population is not my intention. Rather, I was focused on addressing the origin of the concept of the "limitless" God.

...that do not believe the “essence” of their faith is a misattributed god concept. — Ennui Elucidator

Regarding this, I would be interested to read any exposition which you might provide. I find this highly interesting.

I’ve already referred to Maimonides. Go read the 13 principles of faith (which were heretical in his time) and see which of those harkens to Ya. — Ennui Elucidator

The incorporeality of God and the eternity of God, which combined sound like omnipresence to me, are two of Maimonides principles. Look, I do not claim to be an expert on Judaism, and have myself ultimately had to resign myself to atheism, but I have many Jewish friends, and I don't know one religious Jew who does not concieve of God to be omni -present, -scient, and -potent. For chrissake, they will not even write the word "God" for fear of giving offense!

I don’t think he cares, but maybe he will read about Jewish pluralism in the modern world. Much easier to simply treat “Jews” as a monolith. — Ennui Elucidator

Monolith, is it? Pluralism, is it? Now, you are unfairly putting words into my mouth. I thought we were talking about the conception of God amongst the ancient Israelites and the religious (particularly Orthodox) Jews of today, not about (for example) Noah Harari's conception of God... Of course, there are secular Jews, even atheist Jews like Harari, but they lie somewhat outside of the instant discussion, right? I would have thought this tacitly understood.

What sort of evidence would you like? Do you want to read a few chapters laters how god learns things? Or how god makes mistakes? Or god creates evil? Or god kills people for sport? Maybe we can read about the embodied god that walks or the disembodied god that needs to be carried from place to place. The descriptions of “God” in the Bible are inconsistent and evolving... — Ennui Elucidator

As somebody noted above, the "Bible", a collection of diverse writings, contains many diverging conceptions of God. Even the pentateuch, which is redacted from several source literary traditions, contains conceptions of God which conflict. The God of the Yahwist is not the same God as the God of the Elohist, is not the same God as that of P1, is not the same God.... Even so, this changes not the fact that the idea that there is a "God of the universe" which is the "Omni" God, arose, along with other conceptions of the nature of God, amongst the Israelites, as can be discerned within the Biblical texts. It is this conception of God that has come down to, and is embraced by the Jews of today.

do you suggest that the God of the Yahwist, who wrote well before Hellenization among the Jews, which God created the world (the universe?) in "six (assumedly metaphorical) days", appears to be otherwise? Seems fairly Omni to me...

Besides that, the traditional Greek conception of the gods of their pantheon was as discrete beings, and decidedly not "omni" anything. I assume that in ascribing a Platonist/Aristotelian etiology to the concept of the Omni God, you are referencing a belief that the "monist" idea, as well as Plato's idea of the "demiurge", was applied to the God of the Jews. But, was not the God of the Yahwist the "Omni" God to begin with? Did this conception of God not gain in influence as those like Baal, Chemosh, and Ishtar dropped away with the passage of time?

P.S. The Greeks screwed it up for everyone. — Ennui Elucidator

Yes, there was a certain corrupting influence from that quarter. A lot of said corruption, though, was first fed to the Greeks by Saul/Paul and his fellow missionaries, who had some extremely un-Jewish as well as...ummm..."religiously innovative" ideas. Make no mistake about it, Christianity as we know it today is far more the brain child of Saul of Tarsus than it is of Ye'shua/Jesus of Nazareth. This Saul is, with the exception of Prince Siddhartha over in India, probably the greatest religious innovator to ever have lived.

Christianity is not Islam, Judaism, or the Israelite understanding of God. — Ennui Elucidator

The very concept of a solitary, omnipresent, omnipotent and onmiscient God developed first among the Israelites of old. Christianity, largely thanks to the fact of the first Christians being Jewish Christians, as well as the influence among the Greeks of Saul of Tarsus, took that conception of God directly from the Jews. Later, Muhammad created Islam and recited the Qur'an based solely upon what he knew of Jewish history, theology, and mythos, having learned it all from Jewish traders in the Hijaz. Islam is largely an imitative religion, tailored to reflect the values and sensibility of a seventh century Arab man. That is what I meant.

Because the intolerance of the Jews was limited, and primarily local (to Israel). Rome for the most part tolerated the Jewish religion because their weird, peculiar, god usually was just that--their (the Jews) weird, peculiar god. The Jews weren't inclined to compel everyone to become Jews (unlike Christians, who wanted all to be Christian). — Ciceronianus

Quite right. Nor do the Jews proselytize to this day. Judaism is not a religion which seeks converts to it, and proselyzation is universally considered by Jews to be contrary to Halakha. As a matter of fact, there is a tradition which some Orthodox Jewish Rabbis maintain even today: to thrice reject someone expressing an interest in converting to Judaism before finally accepting him or her as a candidate for conversion. The reason for this is quite simple, Jews (especially Orthodox Jews) consider their religion and their Tribe to be one and the same, and they understandably don't want anybody joining their Tribe of people halfheartedly. Among Jews, Torah (God's instruction) is only meant by God for members of "the Tribe", the Tribe of Judah. Jews consider that anyone who converts to Judaism is joining their Tribe. Despite the diaspora and despite living in the statist, democratic and scientific western world for centuries, Jews comprise one of the few remaining tribal societies in the world today. I know from personal experience, that when an Orthodox Jew wants to query as to whether you might be interested in converting to Judaism, he will not ask, "hey, Mike, I was wondering if you might be thinking of making a conversion to Judaism?" No, no...he instead will ask, "hey, Mike, I was wondering whether you might be considering joining the Tribe?" Jews are not opposed to someone joining their Tribe, they are simply opposed to someone joining their Tribe in a half-hearted or whimsical manner, who is not utterly serious about so doing, who is not "all in", said "all in" in this case meaning "having the proper philosophical orientation, and that in an absolute manner".

That's the very essence of Christianity. — DanLager

Yes, quite...that and the Jesus bit, but you are right, the foundational premise of all monotheistic religions, especially those based upon the Israelite conception of God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, etc.), that premise which requires the initial act of self-delusion, is indeed that.

People who claim to be Christians have been trying to reconcile the preposterous with the rational for a long time- — Ciceronianus

That phrase is going straight into my "bag of tricks", thank you very much...

The effort to make Christianity "reasonable" requires the rejection of its claim to exclusivity and of the claim that Jesus is God. — Ciceronianus

...and of the claim that there is a "big man in the sky" (or existing anywhere else, or existing otherwise) who created all, and who takes a part in human affairs.

Giving moral guidance...wrapped in an intriguing story of a hero living out those believes — stoicHoneyBadger

Of course, this is the old mythological "hero's journey" studied by Joseph Campbell and other mythologists. It is a theme as old, perhaps, as homo sapiens.

what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion? — stoicHoneyBadger

Yes! This is very good, an excellent observation. I have noticed, in discussing matters of "ultimate concern", eschatological issues, with certain Orthodox Jewish friends and acquaintances of myself, that there does not seem to be the same feeling of a need for escatological certainty, or for precise escatological definition, that I have noticed within Christianity. This fact begs a question: what, in your opinion, was the origin of the "dogmatic certainty" which seems to pervade Christianity, and appears so needful to Christians?

The typical voter who identifies as a party member, though removed from the functioning of their actual party and probably not dues paying, is not in a position to change power by merely winning one election, regardless of the significance of such office. — Ennui Elucidator

That's true, but it'd "be a start", would show the vulnerability of the two party system, and would be a breath of fresh air as well.

Not that I am pro-parliament. But supporting one of the two parties seems the only rational choice unless you want to be a protest vote. — Ennui Elucidator

That reflects and feeds the attitude towards our electoral system of which I spoke above. If the electorate believes that only the two parties are viable, then all voters are simply going to vote against the party, the one of "the two", which they percieve as threatening their vision for "America"...for what our society should be. If everybody would just overcome their fear, and vote Libertarian, we'd all be alot better off... :joke:

The two parties have rigged the system, including outright legislation, that makes it difficult for a another camel to get his nose under the tent. — James Riley

The fault is ours, the electorate's. There ARE third party candidates, but nobody supports them at the polls. The reason for this is that American politics is largely preventative: in a climate which has seen centrism fade from view, and the right and left become increasingly polarized, we don't vote for a candidate or a platform, we vote AGAINST a party and it's platform. Democrats won't cast their vote for a green party candidates largely because they are terrified of the Republican candidate winning. Republicans won't cast their vote for a Libertarian candidate because they are terrified that so doing will result in the Democratic candidate winning. That seems to be the nature of our politics in America, and so the conundrum in which we find ourselves.

...hope in one hand and shit in the other... — James Riley

Hahaha, now you sound like my nonna; I haven't heard that phrase used in a long time! My maternal grandma used to say that whenever I made a statement beginning with "I wish...". Riley, you must be Irish in actuality! When I'd ask her where she got that from, nonna used to say that that saying was "something that the Irish say".

Perhaps we should consider a return to paganism; or worship of the sun? — Banno

Emperor Julian lives! And, in the person of Banno (who ever knew?)

Actually, I rather wish he had lived, and driven Christianity back into the Levant. Not that the purported teachings of said Ye'shua are without taste and merit, but that the theosophic soup in which they are served is most unflavoursome. Coming into, say, the nineteenth century, I think that worship of the sun, even a deified sun, would have been a preferable situation to worship of a God which is but purely a figment of the imagination. I believe it would have made the (eventual) transition to non-theistic religion much easier than it will be now (I hope).

If you are arguing that we're returning to religious based reasoning, your concern would be of a re-enchantment, where we are devolving back into a theocratically and mythologically based epistemology for understanding basic facts of day to day existence. I really don't see mass scale movement in that regard. — Hanover

I agree...I doubt very much that our societies shall return to belief in "knowledge by divine revelation". Such appears to be warranted, but I can discern, however, a need in our secular age for what I would term "quality mythos", not necessarily epistemological in nature, but rather for the same reason that we need poetry...for the exemplification and elucidation of truths regarding how to live, how to percieve and approach problematic life issues, and how best to meet the challenges of life. Our culture seems to want for this type of quality mythos (unless you consider Louis L'Amour novels to fit that bill, which I do not). Certainly, scholars as diverse as Joseph Campbell, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Robert Graves have expounded upon the place within a culture of quality mythos, even within the culture of ourselves: homo rationalis.

...just like any other phenomenon in the history of histories of human civilizations -- science is cyclical. — Caldwell

Here we have the old notion of all cultural phenomena being "cyclical", as if they were resurgent beings. My opinion is that this represents a fallacy of misperception, albeit one fairly common within society...what one might call a "social legend", an example of "pop philosophy" tinged with superstition. One might say that the perception of "cycles of cultural phenomena" is no more than phenomenological!

...violence can defeat science — Caldwell

Quite true. Violence backed by sufficient force can "defeat" or demolish any human undertaking. Even so, there appears to be little danger on the horizon to scientific inquiry from human violence, at least as far as I can see.

There is a tipping point after which, it's just all decay. — Caldwell

This, based upon the notion of "cyclicality", appears a fallacious expectation. I would think that the future limitations upon scientific discovery will be the cause of technological limitation, rather than cyclical "decay". Scientific inquiry rests upon the foundation of technology; scientists can only inveestigate what advances in technology will allow. As technological advancement speeds or slows, so scientific inquiry.

...science is anathema to other, equally powerful, schools of thoughts. — Caldwell

Perhaps to theistically religious fundamentalism of various types. With theism on a slow retreat in the "western world", though, I think this poses little danger. Here in the States, I would worry more about the future of Christianity than about the future of scientific inquiry. Biblical creationism, despite it's cultural embeddedness in some parts of the U.S., has become no more than a sideshow...a curiosity, and Christianity no more than a cultural tradition largely devoid of belief. Nor would I worry much about science in the Muslim world; quite a number of scientists continue to emanate from South Asia and, to a lesser degree, the middle East. There will always be your Afghanistans, but that situation is more of a failure of culture, of the failure of a culture to adapt to a changing world (or alternatively viewed, the failure of the world to accept the permanence of a particular culture), much as in Somalia, than it is the result of religion. I see no reason to bemoan the future of science in the Muslim world in general.

The bottom line: there's way too much money to be made as a result of scientific inquiry for us to be worrying about it's future, at least here in the west. When all is said and done, "the bottom line" is, indeed, "the bottom line". To tell the truth, society may eventually (soon?) have to "push back" against science in the area of technological innovation, particularly in order to protect our individual privacy in an age characterized by the monetization of information.

I’ll start by mentioning that I define adultery to be a situation where a member of a romantic couple in a closed relationship, whether married or unmarried, decides to have sexual contact with another person without consent from their partner. When understood in this manner, it seems that adultery produces obvious harm to lots of people... — TheHedoMinimalist

Not having thought much about "adultery" in the past, I find myself wondering if our definition thereof is not dependent upon the concept of monogamy. I wonder, how might the above definition be required to change within a polygamous society, there being many societies on Earth (most Muslim, and many non-Muslim African societies, for instance) wherein polygamy is both legal and socially accepted? What should the definition of "adultery" be within the context of a "polygamous marriage"? This question might be somewhat off-topic, as I assume the OP is defining "adultery" in terms of the characteristic "western" marriage. Nevertheless, the question occurs to me...

The only person comparable who enjoyed such a life, would be, to myself, Nero(?) — Shawn

I rather liken Nero to Agamemnon: vain, selfish and ruthless in his pursuit of power. Let us not forget that Nero had his own mother killed, upon viewing her a threat to his political position. Agrippina's famous last words, spoken to her assassin, at least according to the account of historian Cassius Dio: "smite me in the womb, whence came such an abominable son". Grisly stuff, that! Grisly man, Nero.

I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology. — Christoffer

Well, you are not wrong about that, and it is a valid and important point that you make. It is true that these two are, indeed, concepts...particularly political and sociological concepts; in that way, they differ little from such as "democracy", "monarchy", "socialism", and "Bolshevism". None of these words describe natural phenomena. This recognition serves to demonstrate that such socio-political concepts as the forementioned, though they are not natural phenomena, yet have the power to exert a profound influence within human societies.

Save in the human realm, neither "patriarchy" nor "matriarchy" exist in nature per se, since the concepts of government and the body politic do not exist among the animals apart from ourselves. What does exist in nature almost universally among mammaliam species, is the phenomenon of male dominance, based upon physical power and the hormonal differences between male and female mammals. While patriarchy and matriarchy are simply socio-political concepts, this phenomenon of male dominance among mammals is a biological fact.

Attendant to these considerations, it should be recognized that patriarchy in human societies naturally evolved and grew directly out of the male dominance experienced by our non-sapiens hominid ancestors. This is why virtually all human cultures throughout history have been patriarchal, and why that status mundi has been so seldom questioned until the modern era. Moreover, the argument in favor of patriarchy, among those who would so argue, is based largely in natural male dominance. I feel that in expressing our own opinions regarding these socio-political concepts, we should take into consideration that, because male dominance is natural, it is (both naturally and understandably) found difficult by some men to be subordinate to a woman, whether in the business or political environment; it engenders a vague resentment within them. Should we just tell these chaps to ignore millions of years of their own evolution, and to "get over themselves"? I would argue that such advice could only be given with blinders firmly in place...not to say that I have an answer for them, either. The difficult fact is, that our human cultural evolution has been so acceleratorily rapid that our physical evolution has been "left in the dust" by it. So, all that babble is by way of noting that, while it is true that both patriarchy and matriarchy are simply socio-political concepts, it is equally true that the concept of patriarchy seems to have a basis in the natural world not shared by the other, and that such conceptualizations do have an effect upon real human societies.

I am so glad you referred to all social animals. I don't think we should be discussing anything about humans without an understanding of being one of the mammalian species. — Athena

Oh, absolutely. Anybody who considers questions of human sociology without including the facts of biology by giving primacy to the sociobiological aspect, is quite remiss, in my view. This is particular true because we humans are animals who have largely ceased to behave like other animals, a fact which tends to obscure the importance of the portion of our human mind which we share in common with other animals: the primal mind, the "Id". Even so, that primal aspect lies at the core of our mental complex, and recognition of it's power over us is necessary to understand how men can sometimes be so brutal, so savage. Truly, we have evolved, but we have by no means left "the beast within" by the side of the evolutionary way. Rather, said beast continues being tenuously repressed by the Super-ego, the higher man, and remains thinly covered with a veneer of civility.