It doesn't matter how many universes there are, one or 10^100, it doesn't change the probability that life will develop in any one particular universe. — T Clark

This isn't relevant. While it is true that If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 1 million, it doesn't matter how many others play, my odds remain fixed, but the more I play, the higher my odds of winning.

If there is a random array X that must exist for life to occur, the more attempts made to create X, the higher the chance of life.

No one particular universe ought have better odds (as you note), but a system with more universes would have better odds for life to exist. That's why I say your comment isn't relevant.

This is why many argue there is probably life outside earth. They reasonably argue that due to the vastness of the universe it is unlikely there is life somewhere else.

This is not known to be true. There is no evidence of biological organisms currently living on Mars, but there is evidence that organic compounds and water are present and have been present for billions of years. It is still possible that life exists on Mars in an area not open to examination or may once have been present in the past when conditions there were different. — T Clark

There is no evidence of life on Mars. If you simply mean there is carbon, then OK, but that's not life.

This is the fine tuning argument for either 1) the multiverse or 2) intelligent design/creationism. It is based on a misunderstanding of how probabilities work. — T Clark

I'm not arguing either. Buti if I've misunderstood probability theory, then correct me.

Evolution, creationism, intelligent design, Big Bang, whatever can't offer an explanation for the first cause. The best you can do is explain how things behave now, but not where they came from.

For evolution to work, you must have billions of years of trial and error. That's not a difficulty, because you do have that time span.

But if you wish to ask the question of where a system that operates as ours does came from, you can't answer that. But, if you wish to apply the same logic, you've got to argue the same trial and error theory.

No organisms developed on Mars, so it is not simply a product of time that assures diversity, but the fundamental components within the system for evolution to occur must first be present.

This is easily answered by by the fact that the Big Bang created a multitude of environments, so much so that at least one was capable of sustaining life. That is, we are still able to rely upon our theory that given enough trials, most every combination will occur.

The next question though, is whether it was possible that the primordial mass that constituted the Big Bang could have lacked the components to ever yield life. If the answer is it could, then the only way to assure it was statistically likely it would, would be through the existence of many Big Bangs.

That is, if we're locked into the argument that given enough time most everything will happen, then we'll need to accept there was a Big Bang that happened and it yielded no life only to be over-ridden by one of billions of other Big Bangs that yielded life.

This analysis I've done is not generally accepted, but it does seem b to logically follow doesn't it?

Perhaps realising that the sun does not actually 'rise' at all, EVER! would be a good start. — universeness

Yours is a worse delusion in that you actually think you contribute something to this conversation.

[

Thanks for articulating your perspective. I always find it fascinating to hear from believers who are not led by dogma and dominated by fear.

Can I ask if you consider your reasons to be located in an aesthetic context? It almost seems that you are saying the world appears more captivating, agreeable or attractive when viewed in this way. — Tom Storm

The scientific method at its most fundamental level holds to a theory of causation, which, as Hume noted, is not an empirically based conclusion. Kant attempted to remedy that by declaring causation a truth about the world that is known prior to experience (the synthetic a priori). The basis for that remedy was a recognition that we cannot organize our thoughts without such an acceptance. This jettisons though those that organize their thoughts around the teleological. The sun rising because the earth spun is the causative explanation. The sun rising to provide energy to the plants the teleological one. We assert the former without explanation of what the first cause might have been and the second without explanation for the final purpose. That is, we look no further than the surrounding causes to know the cause and we look no further than the surrounding purposes to know the purpose, but, in either instance, we assume much more remote causes and much more remote purposes.

My point here is only to point out a logical basis for a belief in the teleological exists as much as the causative, but, I'm less committed to that reason than the pragmatic implication of the teleological.

When I ask why the sun rises today from a causative perspective, I would be overwhelmed with the response, as those causes go back to the first cause. It was going to happen as it did under such a determined system. (And I do realize that indeterminate events at the quantum level made resulted in some predictive determinacy, which I point out not because it's relevant here, but to proactively respond to the detractors.) But to ask the first cause for having the sun rising would not yield any known answer other than that there must have been because here's the sun today.

So, what would a world look like to someone who instead of simply remarking "every event has a cause" (the causative position), but also "every event has a purpose" (the teleological position). It would sound something like this (from the Reform Jewish prayer book):

"Days pass and the years vanish and we walk sightless among miracles. Lord, fill our eyes with seeing and our minds with knowing. Let there be moments when your Presence, like lightning, illuminates the darkness in which we walk. Help us to see, wherever we gaze, that the bush burns, unconsumed. And we, clay touched by God, will reach out for holiness and exclaim in wonder, “How filled with awe is this place and we did not know it.”

Start there, and you're left with the idea that there are no coincidences, and that all has meaning. We study the Bible, therefore, not because it is more holy than the blade of grass or more imbued with meaning, but simply that it has been studied more extensively for the purposes of finding meaning, and we benefit from history's most insightful from having previously studied it. The same can be said of the sacred texts of other traditions as well.

Is this aesthetics? In a way I suppose, but the beauty is found in the meaning.

And from this theology, much else follows, which is a trust in the perfection of things and an optimism terribly missing throughout the posts here.

As I've noted also, I'm not primarily concerned with the accuracy of theology, although there is a meaningful ground to hold to it logically, but just as much so with the pragmatic implications, which I have cited to in other posts and alluded to here.

Can you give me an example of a way that religion tells people how to live, which could not be delivered by irreligious moral humans? What moral exclusivity do you suggest religion or god (in any of its descriptions, ancient or modern,) has that humans cannot equal? — universeness

I'll try my best to answer, but the question goes against a fundamental tenant of my beliefs, which is that I think religion is at its worst when it tries to convince others to be religious. It's an anti-proselytizing view I have, both because I don't believe in it, and "proselytize" is hard enough to spell that I have to keep trying until it's close enough for spell-check to have a clue what I'm trying to say.

That is, if you are a good, upstanding, moral person who has found a meaningful and fulfilling life, then all is well. You don't need to hear from me and you really wouldn't care to. In fact, I would ask that you not attend any religious service. You'd be annoyed and you'd be annoying.

So, now this turns me to telling you why I believe, which would obviously be personal, idiosyncratic, filled I'm sure with psychological insights into all that is Hanover, all of which you'd consider to be oversharing, and none of which would have any application to you. The best I could do is to say that I derive significant meaning from the idea that there is meaning behind everything big and small. You might find that quaint, stupid, curious, or just simply unnecessary, all to which I wouldn't care.

None of my beliefs are based on fear of societal condemnation or of hell. I reject an actual Jesus entirely, which means I couldn't care any less of this worldly or next worldly condemnation. It's for that reason I find these criticisms of religion generally just so many words of presumptuous nonsense, as if the word "religious" means that certain beliefs must follow.

This is to throw back at you my belief system, which is why in the world could you personally care if I adhere to superfluous beliefs if a positive result in maintained, and why feel the need to cast aspersions upon the religious if a pragmatic result is achieved. As I've indicated in previous posts, William James says it better than me.

What I can say is that the aspersions typically cast by the non-religious are about as accurate and impactful as the aspersions typically cast by the religious upon the non-religious, so blame lies at the feet of both sides, but not of mine because I don't buy into the simplistic nonsense of religion and I find the attacks on those simplistic belief systems pure strawman.

Nevertheless, that post you quoted and disputed was a direct response to:
It's simply embarrassing to me, that despite the fact that humans are smart and now have a mountain of scientific data, some of the people can still be fooled by theism and/or theosophism, all of the time!
— universeness — Vera Mont

I had no way to contextualize your question to me as a response to something @universeness said to you in another part of this debate.

— Hanover

But all of this is to say the answer to your question
— Hanover
I didn't have one. — Vera Mont

Yes you did, you asked this question below:

So, how does that relate to the question: Why has science, which explains so much, not displaced religion?
— Vera Mont



That was the question I answered, which was the question you asked.

So, how does that relate to the question: Why has science, which explains so much, not displaced religion? — Vera Mont

That was the specific question of a prior thread, but less so this one.

But to answer the question the best I can muster, I'd say (1) because they answer very different questions and respond to very different concerns, and, even if they didn't, (2) an organization's survival is not dependent upon its validity.

That is, as to #1, one generally does not look to science to respond to existential or moral questions. I don't know what sort of lab would look like that would search for answers like that.

As to #2, there are in fact plenty of people who continue to use religion beyond questions of meaning, purpose, and defining good and evil. For example, there are the Creationists and what not, who use religion to answer questions best addressed by science. The reason they continue to exist is because politics is the driver for an organization's success, not just the pure power of logic and truth. While science does have wide acceptance, and a certain amount of that acceptance is based upon the fact it seems to work, its acceptance is also attributable to politics and social issues.

There are areas of the world where science is rejected, which speaks to educational issues, but an emphasis on education, as we understand that in the West, happens to be our social norm due our history and political forces. We therefore treat AIDS with pharmaceuticals instead of the shaman's sagebrush.

However, even in our society, you see all sorts of naturopaths and homeopaths that should have been cast away years ago by medical science, but they haven't been. Their survival is a social phenomenon as complex as the society we live in, which means it's not always adherence to the truth that leads to survivability. That is to say, I'm not committed to the longevity of religion as a basis for suggesting it has value in ascertaining truth. A particularly terrible reason to do something is just because that's the way it's always been done.

But all of this is to say the answer to your question that I broke into 2 parts is combined as: Because science has won the political battle in our society that prizes an objective sense of truth over an imparting of meaning into every event, and so we resort to it when we want answers it can address, but don't when it cannot.

This would be different if we lived in a primitive society that valued finding evidence of the miraculous design of God in every event. And this is why I find the biblical criticisms that appear here often inapplicable, where people read these stories and think they're fraudulent, as if the goal of the authors was that of a 20th Century university trained journalist, whose charge was to provide an objective statement of the facts, offering a balanced view from all perspectives.

It is for that difference in worldview, where people aren't looking for objective statements of fact, where they are looking for meaning in everything, that they still insist upon a 6 day creation. They are not educated in modern ways, or, as we often say from our perspective, they are simply not educated.

Once upon a time, when I was a high school junior, a priest had told me "Reason is for living in this world and faith is living for the world-to-come". (Some months later I recognized I'd not only lost "my faith" but also that I'd never had any "faith" whatsoever.) — 180 Proof

This summation by your priest seems incorrect, or at least overly simplified. Not that I'm any sort of Catholic theologian, but just thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas' reliance upon Aristotelian thought and the role reason plays in the knowledge of religious claims, I don't see how what your priest said is consistent with that. That is, Catholics do place a high regard for faith in living in this world, do believe that faith has an important place in knowing truths in this world, and believe the opposite as well, which is that many religious views are supportable through logic. That is, there is a very developed Catholic theology that tries to bridge reason and faith, which isn't at all well described by your good priest.

https://iep.utm.edu/faith-re/#SH4e . Subsection "e" of this article describes Aquinas' thinking on this in considerable detail.

I would also say that the emphasis on the afterlife is particular to Christianity, especially some strands of it, and it's not an ideology existing in all religions, especially Judaism.

Ask a Christian day school student about the significance of heaven and hell, and he can probably recite to you the entire story of the fall of man. Ask a Jewish day school student about heaven and hell and he'll likely not be able to explain much to you, maybe giving you a vague statement that he knows that souls are eternal. Ask him though whether you can eat shellfish, and he'll say "Are you crazy? They don't have gills or scales."

That is just to say there are religions that are very this worldly, and that is not something essential to religious thought. It's also to say that your priest gave someone who deserved a more detailed response a not very researched answer.

Science is the tool used to understand and manipulate matter. Organized religion (which bears only the most superficial resemblance to prehistoric or tribal ritual) is a tool used in support of stratified power structures. — Vera Mont

This observation would be universally applicable to all human institutions. Humans are social animals, and hierarchies always arise, which includes political wrangling and control of power.

That is, what you say about religious organizations applies to governmental organizations, and to lesser or greater degrees based upon the authority they wield, things like the APA, the AMA, or other organizations.

But this is to compare apples to oranges when you compare religious organizations to scientific methods. An apt comparison would be to compare either religious organizations to scientific organizations or to compare religious methods to scientific methods.

Personally, I refer to purposes, meaning the purpose of science is to tell me about the world. The purpose of religion is to tell me how to live in it

No, I'm still not letting you off the hook for this nonsense. Saying that war is one of the typical methods for resolving theological dispute is to raise alarm. That you cannot accept the implications of your posts, but instead feign your position has been improperly represented and so you needn't respond, is just your way of hiding behind your inability to logically and substantively respond.

You presented an OP, failed to respond, and so now the OP is left far behind where we talk about your inability to post and what you think you can demand in order for a response to be warranted.

I'm happy to defend what I posted. If you disagree with something in the original post, please cite the specific sentence(s) and we can proceed from there. — Art48

This is just a profoundly bad faith post. My every post cites to your posts, often cites to external websites for support, offers my basis for describing your arguments, and yet yours ignore the bulk of my responses with poorly formed "that's not what I said" type comments. You then try to end by saying we should just shake hands and walk away, and now you say we should start entirely over, as if you can't just scroll up and read what we've been talking about.

My reason for not letting go of this and continuing to respond to you is that religion threads on this site have been notoriously low quality, so much so that some have questioned whether they should remain. I'm replacing my former tact of ignoring the nonsense to responding until some sort of meaningful response can be provided.

Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? — Art48

If you don't tag me, I don't know you've posted, so there's that.

I don't see that your factual inaccuracies are subject to reasonable disagreement, so I don't know if that's what you're asking that I agree to. In any event, if you're going to post an OP, it would seem reasonable that you defend it and not just simply try to declare a truce.

As I mentioned, religions can and do change their teachings, by reinterpreting or ignoring scripture but not by repudiating scriptural verses. If you disagree, can you provide an instance where a religion admitted a scriptural verse was wrong? — Art48

Sure, let us start in the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, and then he spent the next 6 days creating all of the plants and animals, and then on the 7th day he rested.

That is not accepted by most major religious groups, but instead evolution is.

"[Evolution] is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church (United States), and some other mainline Protestant denominations;[3] virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups#:~:text=This%20view%20is%20generally%20accepted,lack%20a%20literalist%20stance%20concerning

I could go chapter by chapter if you'd like. It is generally accepted by non-literalist traditions that the Bible is historically inaccurate.

What denominations reject scriptural passages? Witches and slavery demonstrate certain scriptural passages can be ignored. But that's not the same as saying the passages are morally wrong and not from God. — Art48

Again, many religions do claim that homosexuality prohibitions are morally wrong. Some very much so.

https://religionnews.com/2015/06/30/ranking-churches-on-acceptance-of-homosexuality-plus-their-reactions-to-scotus-ruling/

There are many religions that do not believe the Bible to be the word of God. That view is limited to certain conservative religions.

It is quite clear to whom? The following verses are from Leviticus:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13 — Art48

I indicated that it is clear the Bible is unkind to homosexuals, and then you questioned that, and then you offered support for my position. This comment just doesn't make sense by you.

Wow. Another view I do not hold. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? — Art48

My only way of understanding your comments here is that you are not able to deduce the logical implications of your view and you therefore deny saying what you did in fact say. You continuously state what "religion" requires, yet at no point do you divide these various religions into their specific theologies to see whether they are applicable to your criticisms.

So, when I say that you have asserted a monolithic opinion as to religion, even though you haven't expressly admitted that, it's abundantly clear that you do, considering you speak of religion only as a single indivisible belief system that cannot vary from certain essential elements.

When you say "religion can't admit that certain scripture is wrong," or "religion relies upon the concept that the Bible is the word of God," you assert exactly as I've indicated, which is that religion must be X. I'm saying that view is wrong, and then you say you never said you held it, but you did. That you repeatedly cannot identify the logical implications of your view is apparent, but, what I'd propose instead of your just asserting that you did not say something, explain how my conclusions are not logically demanded from what you did say. That would be a meaningful conversation, as opposed to your refusing to understand my comments.

I'm not missing anything here, and I'm not putting words in your mouth. You simply are not following the conversation. That is not meant to be insulting. It's just true.

Hanover, — Art48

My previous comment regarding your using the functionality of this website was not meant as an insult, but it was so that I would properly be flagged to know you had responded to my post. Take a look at @Wayfarer's recent thread in that regard.

Physicists can say Newton was wrong. Can you cite a similar instance in religion?
Of course, religions change. But do they ever repudiate scriptural teachings? No. — Art48

Of course they do, and they do it often. Take, for example, the Protestant church, which dramatically changed scriptural interpretation compared to its Catholic predecessor. Reformations are common as are new denominations.

As I've acknowledged, the scientific method is not used to form moral beliefs, religious or otherwise, so the analogy to science is not apt. To the extent we agree that the epistemological definition is that knowledge is a justified true belief, I do think that we alter our religious and moral views and our scientifically held views consistent with the same epistemological definition, meaning that new justifications result in new beliefs.

Christianity no longer kills "witches". But has it ever said "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Ex 22:18) is wrong and not of God? Of course, not. It can't because of its epistemological method.

Has it repudiated the chapters of Exodus which give rules for enslaving? No.

Revelation's first chapter (as I noted above) has a false prophecy. Can Christianity acknowledge that? No. — Art48

Of course religions can deny claims made in their scripture.

Your comments only point to your lack of knowledge of those denominations that do allow for the complete rejection of certain religious tenants. It is very clear that the Bible has nothing kind to say about homosexuality, yet there are many biblically based religions that are fully embracing of homosexuality, and they have no qualms about admitting that such primitive morals have no place in today's society. The idea that morality evolves and that the Bible can still hold relevance is a view that is consistent with more liberal religions, but they remain religions just as well. This means, as I've noted, that your objections are to certain religions, but not as to religion per se.

You are arguing an immutability of religious views, and, while that is a stated standard that some religions claim to have, a historical analysis usually defeats those claims when you actually see that the religions actually have changed and evolved, even the most orthodox ones.

You are also arguing that there is this monolithic structure called "Religion" that each and every organization under that category must meet in order for it to be a religion. This leads to an impossible effort on your part to explain how Fundamentalist Baptists, for example, are similar to Reform Jews to the extent they both hold to the same interpretative systems.

But this is all besides the point, which is that once a religion accepts certain writings as scripture, then the writings cannot be repudiated. — Art48

This is just false. It assumes literalism, divine creation of the text, inerrancy in interpretation, and the actual history of change within many religions.

You act as if all Abrahamic religions truly believe the 5 books of Moses were handed down literally at Mt. Sinai by God, written exactly as God said, and the same Iron Age beliefs and rituals exist today.

You also ignore that within even very traditiona theyl often provide a means to reconsider text through their leadership.

You also treat religion as this single unified belief system, as if the Mormons, Unitarians, Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Reform Jews, Episcopalians all have consistent methods of interpretation and belief.

If you know of a religion which is not based on purported “sacred” writings, then let me know what it is. It’s certainly not Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or the various Hindu religions. — Art48

You need to learn to use the quote function and the tag function.

Basing a religion upon a writing does not suggest the writing has a divine origin, which means it is not inerrant and can be held to criticism, which makes it subject to the same epistemological standards in terms of deriving meaning as would any highly regarded writing.

My epistemology when searching for meaning, morality or really most of anything is whether I have justified belief of it, and it will be considered knowledge if it is true. As I noted, my justification is not that I was told it and therefore I believe it uncritically. As my post indicated, unless one were to adhere to a religion that demanded uncritical acceptance of rules from a divine origin, then they would not be adhering to your strawman created religion.

As I noted, if you want to attack the fundamentalists, you may, but that's an attack on fundamentalism and not on religion. Telling me you don't agree with the Pentecostals is a very different claim than that you don't agree with religion.

If you want to shift the focus to itemizing those religions you find childish, you can provide us that list and we can sort through it, but your approach wasn't intended as that, but it was intended as an attack on religion per se.

If the Bible says Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, but the Quran says God neither begets nor is begotten, then, at best, followers have no choice but to agree to disagree. At worse, they can have a war to decide who is right. — Art48

Why is their disagreement cause for such alarm? The pages of this forum are filled with disagreement.

Religions’ epistemological method is childish. Mommy or Daddy is the way children decide what is true and what is not. If my Mommy says a politician is golden but your Mommy says the same politician is human crud, then we have no choice but to agree to disagree. At worse, we can have a playground fight to decide who is right. Religion’s epistemological method is fundamentally the same as the child’s epistemological method. — Art48

You might say there is a foundational belief the faithful adhere to that the unfaithful do not, but you can't then say that the theology that follows is not subject to criticism and debate within the particular ideology. While you may find some particularly fundamentalist belief system that relies upon one or a small number of prophets to decree what is right and wrong, that doesn't describe religion generally, but just some particular ones.

The point being that you're rejecting religions that insist there is one simple reading of a particular sacred work and that it is not subject to debate or interpretation, but that criticism only works insofar as you choose your religions to criticize.

What epistemology do you use to determine morality? I would suspect it is not the scientific method. I ask because it is very likely that the method you use varies little from the ones used by religious systems, which, as you note, is reliance upon historical wisdom.

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God. — Art48

The other option is to acknowledge that you're not the first to realize this and try to figure out how a rational, non-deluded person could resolve this. Otherwise, you posit yourself as a special someone who was able to see the emperor wears no clothes where others could not.

So, if I'm Christian (and I'm not), I would have to admit it seems that my belief did not come from an exploration of all religions, and by the force of logic, I fell upon Christianity. I would have to acknowledge the incredibly strong correlation between the belief of my family, my community, and my larger society and my beliefs. That is, is seems Christians beget Christians and Muslims beget Muslims. So, if I'm that honest, I must take the next step and ask why I insist upon Christianity's myths and not Islam's. The reason is likely that it comes to me with a certain credibility that I am willing to take seriously (where I am not willing to take others so seriously), and from that, more significant truths can be found. Will all the truths found from Christianity ultimately mirror those of Islam? Doubtful. The question though isn't whether I'm exploring trying to convince others who disbelieve, but it's whether I'm exploring trying to find what resonates with me, which then must allow me the ability to reject those conclusions in conflict with my other beliefs.

What is going here is not a whole lot different than what you probably do when reading one philosopher or another. Maybe your views are closely aligned with Kant's, so much so that you declare yourself a Kantian, read Kant's works closely, debate Kant, find subtleties within his writings that you insist you better understand than others, etc. And, occasionally you realize that what he just said was bullshit, so you reject it, but you're still a Kantian.

And what makes Kant so believable and credible? It's not the scientific method to be sure, but it's some other epistemological method being employed, but it's not the sort of epistemology you described in your OP, which is that you see Kant as your parent who tells you what to do. Maybe there is someone who actually uncritically accepts everything Kant says, but that's not an interesting person to speak to Kant about, and it doesn't give rise to a reasonable argument that Kantians are like uncritical children. In fact, I would suspect a Kantian to be the opposite of uncritical, but to be of a philosophical mindset, else he'd be doing something other than reading Kant..

: religion gets us started on the path, but eventually we realize it’s fictional. At that point, we arrive at a fork in the road: atheism lies on one side, a personal search for genuine knowledge and experience of God lies on the other. — Art48

You miss a key distinction between fiction and fraud. If you read A Christmas Carol and your primary criticism is that you've searched the world over and could find no Ebenezer Scrooge or Tiny Tim, I don't think you followed the purpose of the story. It is no doubt fiction. That you decided to treat it as a non-fiction narrative is your misstep. It can only be considered a fraud if you personally start with the notion that it attempted to take itself literally.

If you want to criticize those religions that do that, have at it, but that would be a criticism of certain religions and not of religion generally. That leaves open the possibility of accepting religion, but denying the very simple criticisms you assert in the OP.

In short, relations that are inimical to the development of character, which is not the same thing as identity because it suggests a particular mode of instantiation of identity that is strong and stable. Character is what happens when identities work together in a coherent and sustainable way within selves. Character, if anything, allows for the resistance to identity structures that offer temporary physiological validation. It doesn’t have to be good or bad in itself but it is at least a way for us to immunise ourselves against social processes that themselves seek to immunise themselves from the types of social change only characters are strong enough to bring about. — Baden

Central to your theory then is the primacy of "character," which isn't fully defined, but the term means in the vernacular someone who adheres to certain moral standards regardless of external influences, exhibiting a certain integrity to principle. Maybe the Platonic virtues of wisdom, justice, fortitude, and temperance satisfy your definition.

It should come as no surprise that your position (here on a philosophy forum) is philosophical-centric, even positing the users here as separated from the vacuous masses. The concept of separateness from the mundane is a workable secular definition of the sacred. That is, you are pointing to a higher purpose, which you do describe as a development of the self, which equates to a declaration that a certain tragedy exists in someone not living to their full potential. You point out that the tragedy is typically measurable in terms of the lack of happiness and fulfillment such a person will experience, but I'd go further and suggest the tragedy would exist regardless of whether we could show a measurable negative byproduct of a person not living up to the potential of his creation, but that has to do with my perhaps idiosyncratic and extreme views regarding the sanctity of humans.

Regardless of how I might be projecting well beyond what you meant to convey, I do think we share the same concerns when we look at the Kardashians as too many people's role models, where they believe that standard is perfectly fine and that some sort of fulfillment or happiness can be found emulating that. And so you might ask why some migrate to that modeling and others don't. Is it just a matter of genetics or family upbringing, or, as is often the case, was it formed in struggle? There is a noticeable correlation between those who have suffered and immunity from pettiness, likely arising from a revelation of a secret knowledge of what is truly important and meaningful.

Where we place the credit for those immune isn't clear, but you do place the blame for those afflicted directly on society's shoulders. It is certainly something that is arising from society, but society is reducible to its members, so that question is who are these corrupting entities? It is likely such corrupting entities have always existed, but I suppose your theory is that they were always sufficiently suppressed and controlled, but with the advent of social media, they have risen to power and overwhelmed traditional value systems such that it has run amuck.

Before I read anything you wrote, I threw out an accusation of your harkening back to the good old days, which isn't entirely inaccurate, but what do you offer as a solution? If we buy into the ultimate power of Darwinism, then you would expect those who are buying in to an inferior path to eventually be relegated to the dust bin. That is, if you are correct that you've identified a devolution in societies, then the theory of evolution would demand those losers drop from the radar. The other possibility is that you're not seeing a devolution, but just a distressing evolution, meaning the adherents of Karsahianism will ultimately prevail. I don't think that, which is why I remain optimistic in terms of what you've identified. I cannot believe that the path of accepting societal influence without resistance is the path to success or describes how the future will look.

One day I wish to retire so I could become a farmer, which is something a farmer never said, and something no one ever said is that they wanted to retire so they could become a lawyer.

How many do you have? I recall it was two? — Banno

Tater, Cornbread, Biscuit, and Jasper makes 4.

Speaking of goats.

Tiff still going through difficult times. I'm sure you will all join us in looking forward to her return. — Banno

Tell her if you have a chance, we're thinking of her, and to stop back by when she's up to it, at least to read these posts. I think she'd get comfort from it.

He's closed off that road completely, but my thesis doesn't rely on an acceptance that society must be moving backwards, — Baden

I'll concede the point that engrained worldviews impede objective analysis, particularly as it relates to optimistic versus pessimistic outlooks. It's very obvious here how that impacts many posters.

It's the source of the confirmation bias I would expect to creep in if we attempted an empirical analysis of the issue, with our looking at examples of social change over time. To some all would be proof of positivity. Others the opposite. To others all data would conceal inconclusive nuance.

I'll concede too that refusal to consider the possibility we're headed in the wrong direction and insist we can't get things wrong is a foolish approach. As they say, the pessimists came to America, the optimists to the gas chamber.

I do though think we're on the path generally to getting it right, but that doesn't mean I refuse to believe we might have diverted on a terribly wrong path.

This point is why if we wish to turn from philosophical to empirical, long term change must be analyzed. I realize though that the thrust of your thesis isn't what is, but is about a certain type of what you see cas a pervasive personality,

But we need thise people too in our perfectly constructed universe. :wink:

might be willing to pursue that with you somewhat though if you actually have read the OP by now and have any interest at all in what I'm saying rather than a simple urge just to inject your own brand of positivity into the conversation — Baden

Having had a creative burst, you adopted some crazy writing style that couldn't hold my attention, so I waited until you started talking normal before I engaged, and now you chastise me for my well laid plan.

Lackaday..

That's my new resigned expression. Expect to see it often.

My brand says that there is a wealth of unlocked potential in people, particularly creative potential, and many of our confusions and anxieties aren't due to personal deficits or inevitabilities of social conditions but contingent factors that remain in place due to our inability to believe we can challenge them, due to how they obscure themselves from us. Not necessarily in any conscious or conspiratorial way but largely due to the mechanics of how social reality works and reinforces itself. — Baden

No question what you say here is true. I see my job as a lawyer as less me having great expertise (which I of course have in spades), but just as stepping forward and articulating their position and refusing to relent. What people accept as their fate due to reluctance to challenge their designated place in society is the source of such abuse. These limitations are engrained in their morality, where they truly believe a life of compliance and submission are righteous.

It's their obedient acceptance of the slave morality by their masters.

Lackaday.

This describes the same thing as what you observed Baden is writing: you THINK many do this or that, but you can't count them or establish a proportion based on empirical studies. — god must be atheist

Scroll up. I posted to a site supporting my claim.

@Hanover was indeed instrumental in making a success of this place. His immediate enthusiasm for the move was unexpected, and the fact that he didn’t become a moderator until weeks or months later must have been, and must remain, a source of deep bitterness. — Jamal

I was such a humble servant, wanting nothing but maybe a smile cast my way, constantly ignored, always striving, never good enough, to today to still be reminded sarcastically of those months of. Impenetrable blackness.

Bitter, no, I'm not bitter.

demand a more significant place in the myth building. It were me and Hanover who originally battled against the evil Pharaoh Porat, leading the first sheep from Egypt PF into exile. Yeah a few goats followed later and Jamal built Jerusalem PF, whatever. — Baden

It most certainly was a small group of us, easily identified by scrolling back in the membership logs as to who first joined here.

I have had few enough moments of integrity in my life that I'm willing for them to be written out of history, so I'll state here that I bolted immediately from the old site when it was clear my posts were to be treated as a commodity for Porat"s I'll fated plan to make the place a source of financial profit. If he was to get meaningfully paid, I wouldn't be his volunteer for his enterprise, especially when he was who he was.

And no doubt @ArguingWAristotleTiff was a part of keeping what she saw as her community together, yet she seems to be away for a long time now, as we all patiently await her return from her troubles. Anyone have any updates on that they can share?

My personal opinion is if we've started to go backwards, it's very recently. I — Baden

But you say here:

Refusing to countenance even the possibility of measuring social progress in any scientific manner is baffling to me. — Baden

Which means your desire is for an empiricaly based claim, not just for a general sentiment. I think many believe things have deteriorated, but unless you can offer a before and after comparison, you can't describe what that deterioration is.

And you've got to insert some judgment here on what is worse and what it better.

If the preacher counts empty pews as his criterion for our going backwards, at least he has offered an empirical basis for his claim, even if I think his religious attendance offers no proof of going backward, but I do get what he's saying.

So this now will be me prodding you and annoying you to list your criteria for how we're regressing and then I'll Google your criteria and see if they actually are getting worse.

My sentiment, which I'll express, is that the world is moving in a positive direction. I see areas in need of course, but I see those working to improve it, which gives reason for my sentiment, and is why there is a certain irony in your statement.

It's as if someone complains to me that no one cares for the poor anymore as he helps the poor. His statement contradicts what is revealed before me. So every time you complain about the lack of X in our world and make efforts for others to see that, you move the world in a positive direction, so you defeat your argument by making it.

There is no way out of my positivity trap.

Refusing to countenance even the possibility of measuring social progress in any scientific manner is baffling to me. — Baden

But that was my twofold point: (1) the question cannot be meaningfully answered scientifically unless we identify what we're measuring, and (2) there is a propensity to believe today's miseries are worse than prior ones for a whole host of reasons I'm sure, but one reason is that we only actually experience today's.

I cited to the article that showed that many criteria show socieral improvement over time.

The better analysis for me would be to ask what could society be like if we maximized our resources because that measures how well we're running the show. Whether things are better now than in the dark ages isn't helpful because we had a whole lot less to work with.

It's akin to the tragedy on the personal level where someone lives well below their potential, even though they may be outperforming someone very limited.

Do you think societal health is increasing or not? Why or why not? — Baden

If you asked whether my personal health was increasing or decreasing, I'd provide you my annual health reports and you could compare my blood test results, heart rates, urinalysis results, medications, diagnoses, etc.

That is, we would have objective criteria to compare.

If you want to do the same for society, you have to find objective measures and compare. Which criteria you choose and the respective weights you provide would be where some debate may lie.

But, if you create a societal health index, you will be able to measure year to year changes and could use it to promote certain policies, which I assume has been done.

What we might show is that all objective factors show improvement, but most think it's getting worse, just because we love to talk about the good old days.

For example: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/23/14062168/history-global-conditions-charts-life-span-poverty

Dr Fau..ci <>Dr Fau..stus. I suppose you think that's a coincidence... — Baden

I don't believe in coincidences in our perfectly constructed universe.

Can you explain to me how any legislation is ever going to get passed seeing as anything the HFC don't want to veto will never get through the Democratic senate?

As in what is even the point of being speaker if you guarantee your own legislative impotence? — Baden

Anytime you have divided chambers, you have a certain amount of gridlock, and that gridlock has progressively grown over the years with increased polarization. It's especially a problem where the margins of control are so minimal, so that you can have a group of 5 or so radicals who can hold their entire party hostage unless concessions are given. You saw something similar in the Senate where the Democrats had a 50/50 split, with the tie being decided by the Democrat VP, so Democrat Manchin seized complete power by not voting lock step and making himself the deciding swing vote.

Where I do think there is strong Republican alignment is over their disdain for the Democrats, meaning this will not result in increased harmonization where the parties actually start working together so that moderate factions can gain power through consolidation. That would expect a very Parliament type reaction from the American sharply divided system. Diverse groups do not pool their resources under the American system to increase their power. They fight until their mutual death like God intended.

The American system, IMHO, is designed by intent toward maintaining a status quo, especially in times of political discord, restraining the government from instituting significant change when there is disagreement. Handicapping the government is intentional because it is generally distrusted, as it was created by a bunch of rebels who thought government was inherently tyrannical. Your ancestors know that well, having been left behind with the tyrannical British for all those additional years. Damn those bastards!

What we're seeing is the system functioning as expected, and it's really (I'm hoping) the final fallout of the Trump years, where the party divided into two groups, one the traditional Republicans and the other Trump Republicans, where the traditional ones had to hold their breath until Trump went away. Trump's vindictiveness for lack of loyalty by attacking members of his own party and subjecting them to primaries destroyed the cohesiveness and makes this break today in the House not that unusual. You have a good number of Republicans (who seem to be symbolized by McCarthy) who are ready to take the party back to where it was prior to Trump and this is hopefully the beginning of that, with fuckheads trying to stop it.

The winners from the infighting and division are obviously the Democrats, who stopped the red wave from happening with a pretty lackluster and unpopular President. I'm rooting for the Democrats to make some real gains during this so that the Republican party can implode and erect as something not so stupid. The only platform I can decipher that the Republicans have at this point is that they want to investigate Hunter Biden. That's super duper important apparently. As if to be a Republican means you like investigations so we can know shit, fuck legislating over anything else. Even Desantis, the great Trump expected replacement, announces he wants to investigate Fauci. Can they just fucking stop? If I learn in 3 years I wore a mask I didn't really need to wear, I guess I'll be really proud to have been a Republican to now know that.

Thanks! So why aren't the Dems making a deal? Seems they benefit from a split GOP instead of letting them reach a deal where concessions are made on who campaigns where. — Benkei

The Republicans are infighting for power, trying to portray it is ideological, but it's far from consistent.

McCarthy, it is argued, is an old school lobbyist controlled Republican who the newer right (Trump like) Republicans don't like because they want to "drain the swamp," meaning clear out the old guard power structure.

There are at least 5 Republicans (supposedly far right) who have declared they'll never vote for McCarthy. There are 20 or so who said they'll always vote for him.

Here's where it stops making sense entirely. Marjorie Green is a hard core Trumpian, yet she is heavily aligned with McCarthy. Boebert has moved away from Trump after winning by only 1000 or so votes last election, but she's aligned with the never McCarthy group. Trump himself supports McCarthy. Gaetz is a never McCarthy person and he nominated Trump for speaker and then cast the single vote for him.

So, while they pretend it's about ideology, they're really just supporting the person who will give them the best committee assignments and that's what they're making deals over right now.

They will never cede power to the Democrats or align themselves with them. They're just selfishly taking advantage of the power vacuum and trying to fill it.

current ideologies of identity obscure their own function, which is to serve the social at the expense of the self). — Baden

If this is a summary, then I needn't read any more, and so I won't. Instead I'll attempt to further summarize your summary as:

The individual is defined by his role in society.

This summary summary clarifies the unexpected result. Individuals are not fully definable autonomous separate units, but are meaningless without reference to the whole.

An example: A transmission gear cannot be identified without reference to the car it is a part of. It can stand alone, but what it is in a world without cars bears no similarity to what it is in a world with cars.

That is, Hanover cannot be described without reference to this forum, as it is here where he was created and given all form and meaning. Blessed be this sacred lair

Maybe I've correctly stated what the OP states, maybe not. Maybe I'm on a different tangent. I'm not sure. There were a lot of other sentences I didn't read.

So it's good to hate? To hold grudges? To fantasise about all the types of revenge and punishment? — Benj96

That is not a Christian virtue, but it is a Jewish one.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/02/the-virtue-of-hate

"Regarding a rasha, a Hebrew term for the hopelessly wicked, the Talmud clearly states: mitzvah lisnoso—one is obligated to hate him."

The term "mitzvah" means commandment, indicating it is sinful not to hate the wicked. Love is a sin in such circumstances.

You really need to think this stuff through.

If you wish to discount all reports of subjective experience and rely entirely upon objectively measured data for fear of dishonesty, you must apply that objection globally and not just to those you disagree with.

That is, if you reject studies that show high correlations of gender reassignment surgery satisfaction, you must reject those reports that state the opposite.

To be consistent, you must be agnostic and you cannot make such claims as:

It shows that gender ideology is based on untrue foundations. — Andrew4Handel

No, nothing shows anything under your stance. If the subjects of my polling can't be trusted, then your smattering of friends you've talked to can't be either, nor can we trust Money's admission he lied.

Yes, Thailand is interesting and it does seem that there is increasing intolerance to those who question the binary. It may be partly that more people are wishing to express androgyny. On the other hand, I do wonder if so much opposition is about a gradual wish for more totalitarian powers and suppression of human freedom. — Jack Cummins

I don't know why people care about what other people do, like how someone can be so mad about men acting as women. I can understand why people may think it odd, but I don't understand anger at oddness.

In some cultures, like India and North America, there are gender neutral communities. These may comprise people who are born intersex or choose to live as the other gender than they were assigned to at birth. In Western society, gender dysphoria is probably approached differently because the medical technology is there to enable them to be more physically at ease witg their bodies, especially if social attitudes reflect intolerance of people's choice of gender identity. — Jack Cummins

Then there's the example of Thailand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey

Now both brothers have committed suicide. The parents admitted lying to researchers about progress, there was sexual abuse by Money
but this was long one of the most influential cases on gender issues. — Andrew4Handel

You presented an anecdote of a biological male raised as a female, and it seemed to indicate that transitioning at a very early age was enough for the child to accept all female social attributes, but then you indicated that the history provided by the parents was entirely false and the children were sexually abused by the researcher, which completely invalidates whatever results there were from this single example you provided.

My questions are why did you post this and what do you think it shows?

So homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness due to a compelling body of evidence showing homosexuality to be a normal, natural, and healthy variation of human sexuality. — busycuttingcrap

But see:

The NYT article quoting an APA committee member explaining his reason for the shift in views on homosexuality as follows:

"The criteria I propose applies to almost all of the conditions that are generally considered psychiatric disorders: The condition must either regularly cause subjective distress or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning."

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/23/archives/the-issue-is-subtle-the-debate-still-on-the-apa-ruling-on.html

This makes explicit reference to social functioning, which implicates societal reaction to the behavior and the stress it places on the person. That is, we might need to treat homosexuality not because it is per se unhealthy, but because society makes life very difficult for the homosexual to function in. It would follow therefore that if we can have societal acceptance of transexuality, that would alleviate the need to categorize gender (which is a social construct anyway) dysphoria as an illness.

I took that to be @unenlightened point, which is that he was troubled by the categorization of illness being based upon social acceptance. This does not diminish the suffering of transexuals, but recognizes that suffering is caused by social forces and not internal ones.

This would then draw a distinction between certain types of mental illnesses, as those related to social ostracization and those that appear to be organic disorders, like schizophrenia, for example, where the dysfunction will occur regardless of how accepting society is of the schizophrenia.

Gender dysphoria cannot exist in a society where gender roles are not identified. Schizophrenia isn't so societaly dependent.

This makes the diagnosis of gender dysphoria a social statement with a severity dependent upon the society one lives in. Medicalizing the defiance of cultural norms is to medicalize non-conformity. I would expect therefore that the APA will eventually stop viewing transexuality as a medical diagnosis, with its primary reason for not now doing so is that treatment cannot be authorized or paid for without the diagnosis, which now implicates political reasons for its classifications.

EDIT: It's interesting how on the issue of homosexuality the label of it being a disorder was lifted to eliminate the stigma, but with transexuals, the label is demanded for validation. I don't know what this means other than that psychology forms its diagnosis for pragmatic reasons and that likely leaves some questioning the validity of it as a field. I don't, but I can see how forming decisions on the basis of non-scientific reasons raises flags for some.