The puzzle being when it's appropriate to transfer judgement from worshipping a God who is believed to have a murderboner for stoning to the moral character of the worshipper? (@Hanover - you seem to be taking on an easier version of the problem where a believer doesn't believe in the horrible bits of doctrine, which isn't the target of the OP's article) — fdrake

My position is that it must all be read for its underlying message, not as an account of what happened. It's not that I don't believe the horrible bits didn't literally happen. I'm not committed to any of it actually happening. Whether it occurred or not is entirely irrelevant. It's metaphor.

If it is rejected in other places, that is despite it being in the scriptures. — Banno

Yes, it is literally in the scriptures, yet it's not advocated by the overwhelming majority of those who read the scripture, which means what I've been saying all along: you're misreading it as if the literal meaning is where the meaning lies.

Where do you think they got the idea...? — Banno

Stoning simply is not part of the Western tradition, at least not for 2000 years. You've offered no examples of the death penalty being carried out by any Western religion or theocracy in thousands of years. It's a part of our secular tradition however, but not by stoning. None of those examples in your Wiki article contradict that. Why stoning exists in Muslim nations, I don't know, perhaps there's a historical reason I'm unaware. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

To the extent you argue the OT has caused these abuses, you have to explain why the other Abrahamic religions don't do it. The special case (i.e. the exception) appears to be in certain Muslim nations, but I no more attribute that to the Koran as I do to the OT. Politics typically offers the best explanations.

In any event, I believe you realize it's possible to be a devout Jew, Muslim, or Christian while fully condemning the exact things you currently do, so what is your point here? That to be a good Jew, Muslim, or Christian. I must accept that stoning is just one of those things I'm going to have to do from time to time?

I can comfortably invest in a Roth-IRA into some index fund into the S&P-500 or Dow Jones Industrial Index for the rest of my lifetime and devote my time to leisure and comfort from dividends, which I suppose is the ideal thing to do for anyone in my disposition — Shawn

I think that's a good idea. The max IRA contribution is $6,000 per year, so you should be able to funnel your tens of billions of dollars into your tax free investments in a couple of billion of years. Well, maybe less because it increases to $7,000 I think at age 50.

But anyway, congrats on your big payday!! Was it your year end bonus?

Taking that back to the OP, the upshot is that religious belief is categorically distinct from factual belief. The result is that belief in eternal damnation is not a factual belief so much as an imaginative act. As such belief in hell does not appeal or respond to truth or evidence. — Banno

But this comment again literalizes the metaphysical content of the religious document. Yes, you are correct, the world was not created in 6 days, there was no ark that housed the entire world's creatures, and the sea did not part. There therefore is no actual hell. To the extent some accept these simple literalist notions, you've made your point that they are the thoughts of the unsophisticated or those who were raised in such insular environments, they cannot fathom there might be another perspective. You've put as many nails in that coffin as you need to.

Let's move then away from the metaphysical and to the ethical and existential and disregard the literalism you fall back on. We're looking for meaning, purpose, good, and evil and the meaning of life well lived, none of which are described as "factual beliefs" in the way you're using that phrase.

Can I ask why? Why would you search for existential meaning? Why there? The book opens with a vengeful God putting babies to the sword, advocating the stoning to death of just about anyone who has sex without his say so, demanding sacrifices etc. What is it, after reading all that, that makes you think "I bet there'll be some great existential nuggets in here, if only I can get past all the blatant misogyny and homophobia and see the bigger picture"?

There's a great 'big picture' message in the Lord of the Rings too, but very few babies being put to the sword by the main protagonist - and it's got fight scenes. — Isaac

Initially, let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that ancient religion typically stoned people, at least not for the past 2000 years. If you want to use the biblical accounts as evidence that the stoning actually occurred, you would be taking a literalist approach to the OT and would be accepting is historicity. To prove the actual existence of stoning, you need a real historical source, not the OT.

The rabbinic view of the death penalty made its use so limited, that it was de facto impossible to ever occur. For example, the person who was committing the crime must have been instructed at the time he was committing it of the possibility of the death penalty and he'd have to acknowledge understanding it. The Talmud lists the last death penalty as having occurred in 28 CE. The exact date is debated, but we're looking at an ancient religion that was not quite as barbaric as you're suggesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Judaism

Regardless of that, you've asked a few questions I'll respond to:

Why I would search for meaning is in itself a teleological question, asking for what purpose would I make such an inquiry, which presupposes that meaning matters. So my initial question back to you would be why do you seek meaning in my behavior unless you're assuming meaning matters. But, to answer your question more directly, I want to understand the meaning of life because it's personally important to me for likely the same reasons it's been important to milliions of people over the past thousands and thousands of years.

I think Frankl answered this question better than me, describing the significance of the "will to meaning."

https://medium.com/mind-cafe/7-viktor-frankl-quotes-to-motivate-you-to-find-your-purpose-2ece0c64f1d8#:~:text=It%20was%20based%20on%20Frankl%E2%80%99s%20observation%20that%20those,find%20meaning.%20He%20called%20it%20%E2%80%98will%20to%20meaning%E2%80%99.


I look to the bible for meaning because there is a rich tradition over the millennia of scholars using it as a means to derive meaning and purpose. I can benefit from those efforts and that wisdom by reading what they've said. I also grew up in a Jewish environment, so the wisdom from that tradition comes to me with a higher degree of credibility than other sources, which is why people typically remain in the traditions they were raised in.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the book opens with God putting babies to the sword. That's not how it opens.

In any event, you are not limited to using the Bible to search for meaning. You could use the Koran, the Book or Morman, the New Testament, Dianetics, Lord of the Rings, Winnie the Pooh (which was attempted in The Tao of Pooh), or even Green Eggs and Ham to find meaning and inspiration. I'm not claiming that all other traditions are wrong, but will admit to multiple paths to finding meaning. I do think if you choose the Lord of the Rings as your primary source of inspiration, you're going to be limited in terms of the scholarship you can rely upon for your learning and there won't be much of a community you can share your beliefs and discussions with. There's also the possibility you won't take your mission quite so seriously, as it's doubtful your identity will tied to the belief system of Lord of the Rings as perhaps a Christian's identity is tied to her belief. If your quest is the search for meaning, and you honestly have found it through the Lord of the Rings in a comprehensive way, I'd find it unusual, but I wouldn't think it impossible.

None of this is meant to excuse any bad conduct on the part of any religious group. Subjugation on the basis of gender, sexual abuse, physical abuse, or any other criminal behavior is criminal whether in the name of religion or not.

If there were then Christianity is a polytheistic religion, too, Satan being the creation of the Lord. — Banno

If the father, the son, and the holy ghost are three separate entities, Christianity is a
Polytheistic religion.

Christians claim the trinity is three in one and therefore monotheistic. If you're not Christian, though, and reject the trinity as incoherent, I think the conclusion is that Christianity is polytheistic.

I would conted it is.

IF you like. It does appear to be the link between Akhenaten, Zoroaster and modern monotheism. — Banno

I think the argument from Akhenaten to modern day monotheism is weak. That was the belief of a single kingdom for a short period of time as opposed to Judaism's evolutionary advancement and long term acceptance. But anyway, such is ancient history. Much speculation.

Sound. And is this the way it's commonly read and thought about, in your experience? — Srap Tasmaner

Different traditions read it differently. An orthodox Jew would read it literally. A reform metaphorically.

In essence I'm not even judging Christians at this point, I'm judging us, as a secular society for holding such a religion in any esteem at all. — Isaac

You can't myth bust if you're opponent admits it's all myth to begin with. If you hold up the Bible and declare it's not what it presents itself to be, that the emperor wears no clothes, my snarky response would be to point out there is no emperor either. That whole story about an emperor with no clothes never happened. George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree and the native Americans didn't enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with the settlers.

I'm looking for existential meaning when I read the book. Stop pointing out the trees. I'm learning about the forest.

I'm with you on this to the extent the OT is clearly a compilation of at least 4 different works and the early religion was not monotheistic, but it's been monotheistic for well over 2000 to 3000 years, certainly since "modern" judaism. And by "modern," I'm referring to the post temple era (in the first century AD), which is the rabbinical era, when we Jews stopped offering sacrifices and whatnot.

Way out of my league here, but maybe one could imagine the jealous God of the Old Testament as a different sort of thing altogether, a god that can kick the ass of every other god, our guy, not necessarily the principle of goodness — Srap Tasmaner

Jumping in midstream here, so if what I say misses the point, ignore me.

The OT God is considered by all contemporary traditions as monotheistic, so he can't be posited as just the strongest god, but must be accepted as the only god (this is the monolotry versus monotheism distinction). The consequences of this distinction are significant. Yahweh is a significant departure from Zeus and the many other gods within that tradition.

If you begin with the notion that the text of the OT isn't meant literally and that it is meant as a guide to ethical behavior and a meaningful life, I don't think you'll be burdened by any particular passage. That is, read it with a positive bias and metaphorically, and you won't run into the problem of a horrible god unjustly punishing the weak.

Yes, you are pretty much representing this view here: — schopenhauer1

Reminds me of a song:

If you accept the notion that financial success is attainable thorough individual choice, which rests heavily upon motivation, education, persistence, and choosing a lucrative field, many of these concerns dissolve.

If, on the other hand, you feel the system is rigged against success despite your doing the same things as those who are successful, the disparities are not acceptable.

I lean toward the first paragraph, although I realize my chances of being a CEO are slim, but I do believe I can, through my choices, live a genuinely happy life.

It's clear that poverty is miserable and that a certain income is necessary for survival and basic happiness, but beyond that, additional wealth provides minimal extra happiness.

It's for that reason I have little concern over what a CEO makes, an NBA player makes, or how much the neighbor makes. I'm all aboard for providing assistance to the needy, and I realize that aid will likely be paid by those with the most to contribute, but as far as having animosity for the rich, they're not on my radar. What's important to them isn't important to me.

...but my advice to you, dear reader of this post, is that if you want to express an opinion that might be construed as racist or sexist or misogynist or—whatever—in this forum, just be sure to couch it in a fiction: then it will be overlooked. — Leghorn

This isn't good advice. The advice I'd offer everyone, specific to the question of misogyny, is that you shouldn't post misogynistic comments on this site or you'll be banned. The advice that you should express your misogyny in a way that avoids immediate detection is not what we're looking for here, so if that is your objective, please leave. You're not welcome here.

Should you post stories or present posts that are ambiguous enough that it remains unclear what your objective is, I'm sure you can for some period of time remain unmoderated, but all the moderation team can do is to try our best to enforce the rules despite posters' best efforts to avoid detection.

The light wave is something in the environment. If we wanted to, we could touch the flower to our eyeball, though I don't think it's necessary. — NOS4A2

You can't see the flower without light. The eye detects light. That's just how it works.

You can perceive with your ankle, I believe. If I tap my ankle with a finger I can feel it. — NOS4A2

Not sure why you're telling me this. I said you don't taste with your ankle, which you don't.

It’s all direct contact. Without it we wouldn’t perceive anything. — NOS4A2

It's direct contact with the lightwave, not the flower.

To me, the act of perception is performed as much by the taste receptors and nerves as it is by the brain. — NOS4A2

What about your ankles, are they part of the perception?

We can touch the flower, we can taste it, even passing the flower through our digestion system. You cannot get much more direct than that. — NOS4A2

You're referencing how the brain is stimulated, which can occur by touch, but also by light or sound waves, so it's not direct, and differing senses provide inconsistent input. Lightening strikes are visible well before you hear their thunder.

And once you start measuring the eyeball and neural networks, you’re measuring the perceiver, not any sort of space between perceiver and perceived. — NOS4A2

Of course I am because a closed mouth doesn't taste, so I must assume you accept we don't taste until the food passes the teeth and at least reaches the tongue, although it is later than that because it has to get to your brain first. If we sever the nerves from your tongue, you won't taste, so I can assume the stimuli was traveling through my tongue but blocked before it reached the perception faculty of my brain.

How is what I'm saying at all controversial?

So there is no image, no medium upon which it appears, and no little perceiver to look at it. None of that exists when we physically examine the biology. Upon further examination we find that the biology is in direct contact with its environment, the perceiver in direct contact with perceived, no gap between them. — NOS4A2

There is a gap between the perceived and perceiver. You can take out a measuring stick and determine how big a gap there is between the flower and your eye. You can then measure the length of the eyeball, the neural networks, and get a final measurement back to the brain. Over the course of that 10 feet, there are all sort of things happening, from variations in light, curvatures of lenses, to reduction of stimuli into electrical impulses. The evidence is that those mediating influences impact the images (or smells or sounds or whatever) as we can see that other organisms perceive objects differently than we do. In fact, variations in perception occur even among humans.

I am certain there is an image of the flower. It is indubitable. My certainty that I am experiencing an image I believe to be a flower greatly exceeds my belief that there is a flower.

A Concise Introduction to Philosophy by William Halverson. It was my Philosophy 101 textbook from the University of Georgia in 1985. I've kept it. I remember being amazed that every original philosophical thought I ever had already had a name and an argument disproving it.

So why should we insert this image into our discourse it those who assert it is there are unable to produce it or even point to it? — NOS4A2

Every experience arises from stimuli, whether that be the bird you experience or the freedom you feel.

Where is the freedom you experience? Point to it, since you've taken the impossible stance that every experience is equivalent to its referent, even though it is not a necessary property of nouns that they have a referent.

Vision is just one sense that informs us of reality and it happens to be a human being's primary sense, but my visual stimuli received of the bird is no more the bird than the sound of the rustling of its feathers is to my cat, who goes into attack mode when she hears a small animal scurrying about.

If we stipulate that a "substance" distinction between two objects means the two objects are incapable of acting upon one another, then the mind/body interaction problem is logically unresolvable if we claim minds and bodies are composed of different substances. Logic 101.

To salvage dualism and maintain the explanatory power it provides in separating conscious states from ordinary objects, the typical response is to assert the mind and body are different enough entities to require they are to be categorized separately, yet admit they share a common physical element that allows for interaction.

This approach is known as property dualism as opposed to substance dualism, but, in terms of the actual difference between the two approaches, it's hard to meaningfully decipher because the essence of the "physical" is undefined. That is, if one asserts the mind and body are greatly distinct, but both ultimately physical, then scoop me a sample of whatever that shared substance is so I can see it under my magnifying glass.

This is to say, all this talk of physical monism versus physical/non-physical dualism should require someone explain what it means to be physical and what it means to be non-physical.

What I think is going on here is that "physical" is being used to designate those objects that are able to interact with other objects also designated as "physical."

Ergo, what makes minds and bodies similar is that they can interact with one another, but I'm not willing to commit there's actually a physical similarity beyond that (that you can put under my microscope to see). That is, the shared "property" of minds and bodies is that they can interact

We do not need to insert some image between that which sees and that which is seen — NOS4A2

It's a scientific fact that we experience an image as the result of some sort of stimuli. I don't understand your use of the phrase "we do not need to." Need to for what? In order to offer a coherent explanation of the bird even if that means denying an obvious scientific fact?

You and your dog see the same bird, but in different ways. — Banno

3 things here: (1) what I see, (2) what the dog sees, (3) the bird.

Describe each for me so I know what you're talking about. Tell me about the sort of feathers each has.

What if someone says, flat-out, "I hate New Agers" or "New Agers are stupid, worthless people"? — baker

Here

For example, if a poster were to express a very negative view of, say, New Age, would that make them a New-Age-phobe, and thus, bannable (instantly)? — baker

As a general matter, we don't render declaratory judgments, meaning there must be an actual case in controversy for us to rule. That means we don't entertain hypotheticals and then declare some sort of binding precedent. What we do is when there is an actual case, we read the rules and we interpret them, relying to some extent upon the way they were interpreted before.

To do otherwise would result in our continually responding to "what ifs," which we don't have time for, and which often wouldn't be helpful anyway because actual cases have all sorts of nuances that have to be considered.

Disturbing but compelling.

Here's wisdom: One who looks out for thier own interests at the expense of others is, quite literally, an idiot. — Banno

This is awful. And by awful, do I mean filled with awe (its ancient use) or that it's terrible (its modern use)?

Must the OP have a point (an important meaning) to have a point (a sharp end, like on a pencil)?

Homonym equivocation games, right? My point being that the etymology of words doesn't command meaning, but usage does. What words mean in one time period or context can be different than in others.

Other words that have changed dramatically over time: https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/10-english-words-that-have-completely-changed-meaning/

I wonder whether Descartes ever read Buddhist philosophy, specifically the part where it talks about anatta (no-self). The self, as per Buddhists, is an illusion. Therefore, Descartes' argument is invalid: — Agent Smith

Illusion/delusion is central to Descartes' analysis. Logic dictates that to be deluded or to experience an illusion requires that there be an entity so deluded. He very specifically asked if he could be deceived of being deceived, but he could not. That fact proved he existed as a thinking thing.

Whether another tradition denies some substantive component of the self will have no bearing on the logic of the cogito or of his argument.

That is to say, Buddhism poses no challenge to Descartes' logic here. That isn't to say there are not some who argue his logic is flawed (in that it is tautological), but that argument isn't based upon Buddhism.

What effect does it have on the mind, body and spirit when practicing it? — TheQuestion

Death.

This has nothing to do with liberals. Any systematic analysis should reveal that. People busted windows, beat up police officers, destroyed and took things like podium's out of the house, and all with the aim to stop the election from being certified. Thank goodness people in congress got out. Can you imagine what would have happened if they had been caught? Can you imagine if someone had brought bombs, or a foreign spy had tagged along and found this to be his opportunity?

Conservative, liberal, or independent, it should be condemned by everyone. — Philosophim

The left has gotten carried away with taking their hyperbole literally and now has lost even further credibility. They are trying to use this riot as their best evidence of a right wing world gone crazy. Theat narrative serves only to reinforce their position and get ignored by the right.

What is an insurrection? That's when legislative bodies break away from the nation and artillery is fired upon a federal fort. That's a good description, If you want to know what civil war looks like, we have a great example to look at.

The insurrection the left speaks of never was. At no time was the US in jeopardy of a coup or overthrow. What happened is that Trump lost, but he didn't want to cede power, so he scoured the great land for someone to give him the power he lost, from Governors, to local elections officials, to Secretary of States, and most notably to the courts. Over and over and over he lost, until the final day arrived and there was going to be an official change of administrations. Even his loyal VP wouldn't play along, and so as a final desperate act by a desperate man, he summoned his most gullible, comprised of a ragtag group of misfits, and they rallied upon the Capital, some more malicious than others, but all generally inept. If that is what revolution looks like, I feel safe.

None of this excuses Trump. He's a piece of shit and has repeatedly spread his lie that he won the election he lost. The capital riot was an outgrowth of a terrible human being putting his own ego over the democracy he was supposed to represent and trying to ignore the citizens who rejected him.

It wasn't an insurrection. It's laughable to call it that. The left has figured out a way to overplay what should have been a hand that couldn't be overplayed.

My understanding of the basic theology is that humans were born into sin as the result of violating God's command in the Garden of Eden, so God, through his infinite grace, sacrificed his only son to save mankind from the consequences of that sin, with the only requirement for that salvation being faith.

Heaven therefore is fairly easily obtained and hell the consequence of sin, not the consequence of lack of faith. Salvation is the gift, the solution to The Fall, obtainable through faith.

I don't hold to this theology, so I won't defend it, but the responses to theodicy questions are involved theological discussions, which would require delving into the various positions taken by the various Christian denominations.

Do you really want to, for example, learn of the Mormon response to this and debate its consistenty and coherence? Would that be at all interesting to you?

I find generic attacks inaccurate caricatures, treating religion as this monolithic belief system, as if they are all the same. Some religions largely reject the literalism you find so repugnant, denying the literal eternal damnation you attack.

That is, if your atheism is the result of the evil you find in the God you describe in the OP, you might be better served to find a more suitable religion for you. It's not as if religion must rely upon the sort of God you describe.

Do you think he believed in the Demon, and that he had no hands, or eyes and all else he said was entailed by the Demon's illusion? — Ciceronianus

I think he believed it possible he were so deceived.

Intentionalism is a form of direct realism. While other direct realists might say one sees a cup, an intentionalist would more accurately say that one sees it as a cup. — Banno

This is pure Kantianism as I read this.

If the intentionalist insists upon drawing a distinction between "it" and the cup, but references only what he sees, the phenomenal obtains description and the "it" remains a descriptionless indescribable entity. This is classic phenomenal versus noumenal talk, just dressed up in a more palatable way.

On the other hand, if the referent of the intentionalist's "it " is simply the cup, it would be superfluous to say "I see the cup as the cup." He might as well just say "I see the cup," and stop repeating himself and making vague references to an "it."

This is to say you haven't found a comfy middle ground between direct and indirect realism. You must pick your poison

Some examples of crimes against society: — L'éléphant

What you say here is true, but I'd go further and say all crimes are crimes against society. Should I assault you, the court caption would not read "Caldwell v. Hanover," but it would read "The State v. Hanover." If a federal offense, "The US v. Hanover." My lawyer would be whoever I hired, but you wouldn't have one because you're not a party. The state would be represented by a prosecutor.

That's not to say you wouldn't have a private right to sue as well, but that would be a civil action and not a criminal one.

Society has the right to enforce its laws is, I agree, a basic and fundamental notion for the preservation of that society.

The tension to these assertions arises when an unjust law is passed. The idea arises that the law itself must answer to a higher authority to be considered just, but injustice alone will not unravel a society. What will unravel it is the loss of power of the government over the governed. Injustice alone in free societies offers a basis for enough pushback by the public to change the laws. That isn't so in less free societies, where only forceful overthrow would be effective.

I'm with Peirce when it comes to Descartes — Ciceronianus

I don't know what you mean by "pragmatism", — Ciceronianus

From Wiki:

"Charles Sanders Peirce (/pɜːrs/[8][9] PURSS; September 10, 1839 – April 19, 1914) was an American philosopher, logician, mathematician and scientist who is sometimes known as "the father of pragmatism"."

You're quoting the father of pragmatism yet aren't sure why I'd be interpreting your position as pragmatism?

if we in doing philosophy claim to doubt what we do, and are, and think, and believe, and confirm every day of our lives, we're pretending to do so, as as our own conduct, our own lives, establish that we don't doubt that at all. — Ciceronianus

Is the point of using this strained meaning of "pretending" to disparage the position to imply an intentional dishonesty? I get up every day expecting the sun to rise so that I can go about my day. I act just like it rises and greet the rising sun as if it had risen, totally pretending as if it rose.

It turns out the earth is spinning and the sun is sitting still. Sometimes things aren't as they appear. Who'd have thunk? Maybe I should question other things, or would I be accused of pretending?

How's this then: They claim to have no hands (or eyes, etc.) or to doubt they do, despite the fact that the see them, feel them, use them, and in every way act as if they know they have them and do not doubt that they do. But perhaps you don't think they acted as if they had hands or believed they had them. — Ciceronianus

The question hinges upon the correlation between the perceived and the actual, so your questioning how hands, eyes, and any other object you might choose exists is ambiguous without clarifying which worldview you accept. If you accept the view of the direct realist, the two are the same (i.e. the hand you see is the hand there is). If not, you don't (i.e. the hand you see is distinct from the hand there is). Unless you are a direct realist, the question of doubt that exists between the perceived and actual remains critical and it for that reason you have a good number of philosophers who inject the skepticism you object to. Your objection arises entirely because you reject their worldview, but that does not make them disingenuous in their skepticism.

Your last sentence is a shift away from metaphysics insofar as you cease attempting to decipher the nature of reality and instead turn toward pragmatism. Again, I think that shift just ignores the question of what the composition of reality is and it instead asks how do we react to certain stimuli.

Regarding a pertinent hypothetical, I think this is more apt: "Doctor, assume an Evil Demon has caused you to think the plaintiff exists, and is your patient, and that you have treated him, but all this is but an illusion. In that case, would it be your opinion the plaintiff has sustained a permanent injury?" — Ciceronianus

That we don't engage in such extreme doubt in every day matters doesn't mean that asking such questions in other contexts doesn't yield important distinctions and understanding. It is conceded that no one delays their day to day interactions in order to reconfirm their corporeal existence, but that again is a reference to pragmatism. That is, the fact that attorneys don't try to reestablish reality as a foundational matter before asking more specific questions doesn't make me pause and wonder whether Descartes, Hume, Berkely, Locke, and Kant really had anything meaningful to say.

He had reason to doubt he had hands, eyes, blood, senses (though using them all to write that he doubted them — Ciceronianus

Yes, and not just him. Berkeley, Hume, Locke, and Kant did as well, some to more degrees than the other, just to name a few. If you'd like, I could create a long list of philosophers who have conteded that the hands, eyes, and blood they see aren't as they appear to be.

I appreciate you disagree with them, but to the extent your disagreement rests upon your claim that they were simply disingenuous, there's no proof of that, and the argument is entirely an as hom.

don't think it can be said a hypothetical situation is one in which we're asked to assume that everything is an illusion. What would be the hypothetical situation in that case? There could be no situation at all. He's doing more than asking a hypothetical question.

Imagine yourself asking this question in court. "Doctor, assume that your patient didn't exist. Would it be your opinion in that case that he had sustained a permanent injury?" — Ciceronianus

But your first paragraph here shifts from the second. In the first, you ask about illusions, in the second, you ask about existence itself. You can hypothesize about illusions, but not of existence. Existence is not a property that can be hypothesized about without entailing a contradiction.

To clarify between a meaningful hypothetical and a meaningless one:

Meaningful: "Officer, assume the witness claiming to observe the murder was a hallucinating paranoid schizophrenic, do you still believe him?

Meaningless: "Officer, assume the witness claiming to observe the murder didn't exist, do you still believe him?"

Come now. Are you seriously claiming this is comparable, or analogous, to saying this? — Ciceronianus

Isn't the nature of a hypothetical that we assume something for the sake of argument, regardless of truth? Hypotheticals themselves appear in the subjunctive, indicating they are not statements of fact, but are, as you say, "pretend" (e.g. "If I were you" versus "If I was you.").

When we have no reason to doubt, we pretend to doubt. — Ciceronianus

We all have reflexive reactions to things that upon later thoughtful reflection we realize might not have been valid. Those who are most reflective and thoughtful are generally the ones we go to when we have a difficult problem. That something might seem immediately obvious should therefore not be a reason not to look closer. This matches well to Hume's distinction between the "vulgar view" and the "philosophical view," with the former being what is immediately accepted without consideration and the latter what has been arrived at by thought.

Your attack here was upon Descartes, but it would also be against Hume, as his result was to say that neither the direct realist view (i.e. the vulgar view) nor the indirect realist view (the philosophical view) are correct, but the truth lies in pure skepticism of the external world.

I'd also point out that your position is also opposed to Berkeley, who concludes there is no corporeal world. That is to say, the idea of skepticism and questioning what might seem at first glance to be indubitable is part of the fabric of philosophy generally, and good examples could be given in scientific inquiry as well (e.g. Ptolemy versus Copernicus or Newton versus Einstein). It is through doubt of the seemingly obvious that we arrive at new theories.

In any event, Descartes did have reason to doubt. He set out his reasons very clearly in the Meditations.
http://eddiejackson.net/web_documents/Descartes'%20Meditations%20on%20First%20Philosophy.pdf Saying he had no reason to doubt hand waves past all his arguments to the contrary. I'd think to make the argument that his reasons were not valid reasons would require actual laboring with the text.

In any event, I take the thrust of your objection to be that you don't believe Descartes when he says he had doubt, and you suggest he's dishonest at some level in having asserted the doubt he did. Your objection is therefore an ad hom because it hardly matters whether he specifically did doubt what he says to have doubted. The only question is whether the things he doubted were arguably doubtable. I don't follow how it's illogical to question the validity of the senses.

Since your objection does not rest on logical invalidity, it must rest upon some type of pragmatism, where you just don't think this matters at a practical level. That might be, but I don't see an objection that something might not have an impact on my life critical to the question of what is the truth about the world.

Man, Hanover’s stuff hasn’t received any credit. — javra

I know, right?

The evolution of humanity is toward greater life expectancy, less hunger, less strife, less war. I extrapolate from what I see a trajectory toward perfection, not destruction.