No matter how vast the pile of fairytales, fact-free scriptures, testimonial anecdotes, and "scholarly" pursuits of the wrong, or pseudo, questions, IMO this mountainous accumulation is conspicuously insubstantial (except as contributory data points to cultural anthropology & social psychopathology) in comparison to libraries and laboratories of evidence-based studies and research (pursuing answerable questions) on what is and is not the case. Make believe whatever you like, sir; reality is not faith-based, or subject to magical thinking. — 180 Proof

This isn't responsive though to our discussion. You may be correct that the mountain of theological literature doesn't amount to a hill of beans and that a single middle school experiment might trump all that was thought to be the case by religion, but that doesn't address your comment that making shit up is easier than scientific study. The tangled web the theologians may have weaved might be horseshit, but that doesn't mean it's simple.

I do like that you called me sir though. Such respect is well overdue.

'Making shit up' is far easier than struggling to find out what is and is not the case. — 180 Proof

But there are entire universities devoted to theological study and millions of pages of analysis have been provided by thousands of individuals over the millennia attempting to answer all sorts of questions. How is that far easier than mixing a few chemicals in a lab and charting your results? Seems like sometimes the theological system is more complex and sometimes the scientific study is more complex, but I don't know that one per se requires greater intelligence or work than the other.

Yes, the application of science has brought about much that is unwanted. Nevertheless, science is our best understanding of what is going on, and hence our best chance at ameliorating negative results lies not in rejecting science but in following it. — Banno

You've got two competing categories here: How does the world work versus how should I live my life. The first is a how question, the latter an ought question. As much as science might provide us explanations for how our world works, it doesn't begin to explain how we ought to live in it.

The two have competing epistemologies. Science gathers data and analyzes it and follows the scientific method. We "know" something when the conditions of that method have been met. The ought questions rely upon introspection and wisdom, relying upon ancient texts and time honored traditions. We "know" something when we've satisfied ourselves our decisions comport to that wisdom.

The conflict arises when the religionists use their sacred texts to answer the how questions and then insist they know the world was created in 6 days and evolution never occurred or when the scientists suggest they've found the meaning of life, which typically is summarized as there really isn't one.

I have pointed to some religions that have struck a balance and have figured out a way to work science into their belief system. It is possible, of course, for someone devoted to science to do the same, which is to find a place for religion within his belief system. The point being, there ought be no conflict if each stays within its lane and we can therefore ask ourselves whether a particular scientific discovery ought enter our lives or not without coming off as anti-scientific.

Perhaps raising it will amount to throwing the religious blowfish back. — Banno

This position is entirely consistent with religious belief, but I do suppose it matters which religious belief we're referencing. Some do believe the world is getting better, cite the same data as you and Pinker, and even believe it headed toward perfection:

First I referred you to the Amish, now to the Hasidic:

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2752144/jewish/What-Makes-You-Think-the-World-Is-Getting-Better.htm

https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/4405247/jewish/Chapter-29-Where-is-our-World-Heading.htm

It might sound presumptuous to say this; but, are people becoming less emotionally intelligent? — Shawn

If EQ is quantifiable like IQ, the question is an empirical one. You just compare today's numbers to yesterday's. If EQ is a nebulous concept dressed as a scientific one, then that's the bigger problem with EQ.

Do you not deserve to be satisfied?
— counterpunch

I just wallow. :blush: — Shawn

Had you said "I just swallow," it'd have been much funnier.

Christianity and Nazism are related by the simple fact that most Nazis were also Christians. — Fooloso4

That's not a correlation. The vast number of people in Western civilization were Christians. Most Christians were opposed to Nazism. You have to establish a link between the belief system of Nazism and Christianity to form some correlation. It'd be like saying having 10 fingers is associated with Nazism.

Many Christians were also anti-semitic which was one reason Nazism was attractive. — Fooloso4

Nazism wasn't a religious movement It was a minority position among Western nations, and it was defeated by Christians. In fact, it was defeated by a large percent of people of Germanic descent. To the extent you define "anti-Semitic" as anti-Jewish, again, it's obvious that in the West they'd be Christians, considering the overwhelming percent of the population was Christian, with only few percent being Jewish and an even smaller percent being of other religions.

But none of this has anything to do with Nietzsche's notion of slave morality. — Fooloso4

Nietzsche was openly critical of Christianity and he would describe that religion as being consistent with a slave morality.

You claimed that Nazism and Christianity go hand in hand, so it appeared you were making the argument that Nazis and the Christians, whose hands were clasped together, were all members of the same slave moral mentality. It would be in that regard that all of this has to do with the slave morality, but, for some reason, you now declare your prior posts irrelevant.

I don't share in the general view that the site has deteriorated over the past few years. I think it went in the direction we moved it, which was to become more philosophically oriented and less of a social media outlet. What we had in years past were the expressions of a bunch of interesting personalities, some hostile, some manipulative, some dramatic, some irritated, some provocative, some absurdist, some calming, some humorous, etc. Those who didn't move in the direction we pushed it either left or were removed.

I don't harken back to the good old days when the front page of the forum was filled with he said/she said remarks and constant bickering over policies, but I do see some value in those free for all days in that it enabled us to better know one another. I think of those I consider friends here, and it is true those were formed a while ago when the sandlot was a little less monitored.

So, I welcome the return of the Shoutbox to front and center, but also realize these things do need to be checked at some point because one or two people can really derail things quickly.


.

This thread is a fishing expedition. I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno

I'd imagine you could fish out some instances where certain scientific discoveries have led to a worse state of human affairs, but it would be an extreme minority view to suggest that science is an overall bad thing, and there'd be a real irony in them posting that opinion here, considering such can only be accomplished with a computer, an internet, and all the underlying technology.

No objections even here:
https://dallincrump.medium.com/what-the-amish-are-teaching-me-about-how-to-use-technology-aa8bd1816260#:~:text=The%20Amish%20don't%20believe,shed%20somewhere%20on%20their%20property).

What should not be overlooked is that Nazism went hand in hand with Christianity. — Fooloso4

This is very much a minority view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism#cite_note-SG-19

The consensus is noted to be that Christianity and Nazism are not related. The article does note that at some point, likely for political reasons and not theological ones, the Nazi party did support "Positive Christianity," which bears little resemblance to what many would consider Christianity, as it appears its chief aim was to cleanse it of any Jewish context:

"Alfred Rosenberg was influential in the development of Positive Christianity. In The Myth of the Twentieth Century, he wrote that:[20]

Saint Paul was responsible for the destruction of the racial values which existed in Greek and Roman culture;
the dogma of hell which was advanced in the Middle Ages destroyed the free Nordic spirit;
original sin and grace are Oriental ideas which corrupt the purity and strength of Nordic blood;
the Old Testament and the Jewish race are not an exception and one should return to the Nordic peoples' fables and legends;
Jesus was not Jewish, because he had Nordic blood which he had inherited from his Amorite ancestors."

No. It merely repeats itself.

A bachelor is an unmarried man. Identity.

A bachelor is a bachelor. Tautology.

The latter does not convey any information, the former is a definition of the first term by the second. — 180 Proof

The cogito is the latter. If the former, it would read, "I think, therefore I think."

Descartes' "I exist" is, at best, a tautology; he concludes only what his conclusion already necessarily presupposes. Saying "I exist", therefore, doesn't actually say anything. — 180 Proof

A tautology does say something. It defines.

Nevertheless, it can't be denied that people with Cotard delusion present a direct challenge to Descartes' cogito, ergo sum argument. Here's Descartes, confidently asserting, "I exist" and there's patients with Cotard delusion insisting, as — TheMadFool

Why is someone's illogical refusal to accept a logical conclusion a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the conclusion?

The answer is that ownership is a function of social intentionality. Property is owned only with the agreement of those involved, and hence enforced in virtue of that agreement. — Banno

So what you've done here is to pull out certain types of offenses, namely property related ones, and declared them not subject to moral analysis. So the argument goes: Theft in my country may be different than yours, but there is no objective right and wrong when it comes to theft. I assume you draw no distinction between real property issues (like who land belongs to) and personal property issues (like who a loaf of bread belongs to).

For further elaboration of your position, we now then have to isolate which wrongs you believe are subject to moral analysis and which aren't.

Using the Georgia Criminal Code as my guide to finding all the terrible things people can do to one another, I have listed out 6 categories of wrongs with examples of those sorts of wrongs. I left out property crimes because we've already decided those are not subject to moral analysis.

So, looking at the 6 categories below, I ask that you place each category into one of two buckets: Bucket A: Moral Question or Bucket B: Social Conventions:.

1. Crimes against persons (assault, battery, kidnapping, cruelty to children, feticide, stalking).
2. Sexual crimes. (rape, child molestation, sexual assault, necrophilia, bestiality, pimping, pandering, masturbation for hire).
3. Forgery and fraudulent practices (deposit account fraud, deceptive business practices, false statements, credit card fraud).
4. Offenses against public administration (obstruction, perjury, escape from prison, abuse of government office)
5. Offenses against public order and safety (treason, invasion of privacy, dangerous instrumentalities and practices, loitering, terroristic threats, unlawful assembly, harassing phone calls, public drunkenness)
6. Offenses against public health and morals (gambling, obscenity, abortion, human trafficking)
Controlled substances

If everything goes in B, then you're arguing for moral subjectivism. If some in A and some in B, then you'll have to explain your calculus as to how you've decided which go in which. If you can't provide that basis, then my objection seems valid, which is that your designation of property crimes as non-moral is arbitrary.

I don't. All things being equal, one ought abide by agreed conventions. That's what an agreed convention is. — Banno

Ought references what morality demands and therefore an objective standard unless you adhere to subjectivism.

The problem is that there aren't mutually respected conventions. If there were, bombs wouldn't be flying in and out of Israel. If one side's conventions yield a different result than the others, do you remain agnostic as to the question of right and wrong, considering there is no principle applicable to all?

And let's be clear here, "convention" simply describes the rules imposed by the ruling power. Convention didn't dictate that the 13 colonies be the possession of the English except to the English. The natives certainly had other conventions and thought the seizure of their land unconventional.

It also seems we could have immoral conventions, like if the US barred blacks from owning real estate or England only allowed certain classes to own land.

Ownership is conventional.

When folk disagree as to the conventions in play, there can be no final arbiter. — Banno

I'm assuming (but correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't subscribe to moral subjectivism, but do believe there is a moral right and wrong that can be generally deciphered when a moral question is presented. My question then would be why you isolate ownership specifically from ought type questions.

Why is it that you can say it's morally wrong for me to murder, for example, but you can't say it's morally wrong for me to take your land (i.e. why is "thou shall not steal" a proper moral imperative?).

Should I take your bicycle from your garage and hold it as my own, would you be incorrect in asserting my thievery were a moral wrong? Was my theft really just a violation of convention (i.e. the convention not to take other's belongings?).

If I murder, is that a different sort of wrong, or is that just also a violation of convention? Describe the difference between moral wrongs and violations of conventions?

From my position, I would say that either you or Kierkegaard has misunderstood the nature of faith. Empirical evidence is irrelevant to faith. My belief in justice is not increased by the discovery that it occasionally prevails, or decreased by the observation that it commonly does not. — unenlightened

As to whether I have Kierkegaard right, I don't know, but I took his position that Abraham showed the perfect faith in God when he unquestionably agreed to sacrifice his son without objection. My point was that he didn't show faith as we understand it in a contemporary sense because Abraham had no reason to question God. God's existence didn't require any leap of faith. He was as obvious as the sun and sky in Genesis. The Old Testament figures didn't engage in an ongoing battle between theism and atheism. The question was whose god was best.

But to your other comment, do you not have a rational basis (as opposed to an empirical one) for believing in the existence of justice or must faith also play a role?

Isaac was 37 when Abraham took him up the mountain to sacrifice him and Abraham was 137. That the story states God had to intervene to stop the sacrifice indicates Isaac was a willing participant, considering he could easily have fended off his old as shit father.

As to Kierkegaard's argument that this story shows faith in its purest form, I don't get it. Abraham didn't have faith in God, he had empirical evidence of his existence. God told him he'd allow Sara to become preggers at 99 years old, and then she did. That'd make me a believer.

It's just bizarre that some here think the idea of proportionality has no moral relevance — Baden

The proportionality limitation is imposed in a retributionist model, where we want to limit the punishment to fit the crime. That doesn't apply in deterrence based model, where the concept of punishment itself is irrelevant. If the goal is to deter future attacks, the limit on the response would be set at doing the least harm to achieve that result. Unfortunately, the current response, as aggressive as it is, seems to still be insufficient.

That is to say, we limit our attacks upon our enemies only when they stop attacking us. This is especially the case when we are pure, just, and righteous in all other regards and our enemy is the opposite. It is obvious both sides assume themselves righteous here and it is not part of either side's calculus to limit their attack to the degree they might be second guessing the morality of their own position.

This is a specific response to your wondering why some find proportionality irrelevant in this context. It's because it is. It's also not bizarre. What is morally repugnant to you is the unrestrained Israeli response in light of what you see as a morally bankrupt Israeli apartheid state, but it shouldn't appear at all bizarre if you assume the Israelis reject your assessment and believe their right to exist in the form in which they do is just as legitimate as any other nation.

Greed is not good. — Lif3r

The counter argument is that what you describe as "greed" is better described as striving and that those who achieve more for themselves also produce a net gain for everyone else from their hard work. That's not to absolve those who outproduce others of their duty to provide to the common good, but it does challenge the notion that an individual's relentless desire for wealth must equate to others being deprived. It also challenges the notion that those who produce more shouldn't keep more so as to incentivize them to continue their labor.

It's really a matter of degree, as in how much the greedy may morally stockpile versus how much society can morally extract from them. Justice does not lie at either extreme but somewhere in the middle.

The fallacy fallacy fallacy: The mistake of thinking/inferring that the conclusion of an argument is false because you think it contains a fallacy but then think it didn't but it did.

Like Banno said, the solved philosophical questions have migrated into the realm of sciences. They are no longer philosophical questions, though they may have been that some time ago.

For instance: What creates wind?

Why do things fall down, instead of up?

How can the Earth be round and not have things fall off at the bottom?

How does the sun get around to the east again after setting in the west?

God lives in the country of heaven? (Sky, clouds.)

What makes the sun disappear on a clear day, with no clouds, for eight minutes or so, every few dozen years?

Why have the sun's coal reserved still not burnt out? — god must be atheist

While I recognize you probably presented these questions in order to present examples of solved problems, I think I'll take a more literal approach and answer these questions for you.

Wind is created by fans. Know why it's so cold at the baseball field in San Francisco? They have Giant fans.

Things do fall up, like helium balloons. Also, if you flip upside down and hang your head over the couch and stare at the ceiling, up is down and down is up. I do that sometimes, less now since grammar school.

Your question about the earth is a good one, but I think it has to do with how they attach the houses into the ground so they don't pop up, but that's not the same for cars so my explanation might not be completely right, but it is a good start I think.

The sun sets in the west so the cowboys know to go toward Texas where they live. If it didn't come around each day, there'd be cowboys in New York City eventually and that's stupid because their horses would be killed by gangs.

Heaven isn't a country. It's technically a county, a legal subdivision of earth.

Not sure what the hell you're talking about with the sun disappearing. You might be blinking and that's what you're noticing. If you blink real fast, it'll look like a strobe light.

The sun doesn't run on coal. It runs on Dunkin. That's a reference to Dunkin Donuts. Look it up if you're not from America. If you are from America, you can laugh knowingly at this joke.

I don't read whatsoever. What does that make me to be? (PLEASE DON'T SAY IT.) — god must be atheist

It makes you a bibliophobe. See, that's how you make up new words, unlike the gibberish you put out. It's so pratotonic how you do that.

Nice, So all the other problems are the solved ones. — Banno

I Googled for a list of solved problems in philosophy, but nothing came up, so I guess there are none, or maybe Wiki is still assembling the list.

You need to read more. — Banno


Yes, defiantly. — forrest-sounds

One should always read with defiance. Those who read in compliance are sheep I've always said.

Here's a list of the unsolved problems in philosophy all organized for you by Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy

They are neologisms. — god must be atheist

A neologism has to have a meaning. I think a better description of these words is gibberish.

The hair stands on end hearing your insanely misapprocated, unrelentingly non-introceptive, and altogether parapleptocal arguments. — god must be atheist

What do these underlined words mean?

I just heard this this morning and I came to this thread to post just this, but you beat me to it, so here's to synchronicity.

Not just the lyrics, but the title itself, the imagery of being tangled up in blue, so difficult to get out of, but you know will, you just have to keep trying. I think we've all been there, making not such great decisions along the way.

And this line I always thought humorous:

"She was married when we first met
Soon to be divorced
I helped her out of a jam, I guess
But I used a little too much force."

Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and others (State and Revolution, Terrorism and Communism, etc.) clearly base their ideas on Marx and Engels' own statements.

Quite different from Christianity, really. — Apollodorus

My position wasn't to equate Christianity to Marxism, but it was to respond to your post that Marxism did not respect the rule of law. You're pointing out in this post that the law followed by Marxist nations has been historically brutal, but that's a concession there is a rule of law, the thing you deny.

Christianity, on the other hand, from a Protestant perspective, is not rule oriented. A believer is saved. A denier damned. It's not that complicated. Judaism and Catholicism, on the other hand, rely heavily upon rules and rituals for their practice.

Christianity posits the wretched state of the unsaved soul and the glory of God for sending his son to earth to die for our sins. Whether there is beauty in a theology that claims a divine being created us in a despicable state in order that we be saved is in the eye of the beholder, but I do agree that Christianity when practiced by the kind hearted is a lovely thing. Whether Marxism would be a lovely thing if practiced by the kind hearted is an unknowable thing because it seems to attract the worst of our kind. But what should be clear from this is that it matters less what system you subscribe to, whether it be the idealism of pure Marxism or the kingdom of Jesus Christ, but more so upon whether you are a kind hearted soul or not.

Correct. Christianity at least believes in the rule of law, Communism doesn't. — Apollodorus

I'm not a Marxist, so I don't defend it, but I don't believe it a tenant of communism that there be anarchy with the absence of law. Those nations I've seen claiming to be Marxist tend toward totalitarianism, which is a superabundance of law.

Christianity, on the other hand, freed its adherents of Mosaic law, and, from a Protestant perspective at least, allows salvation from faith alone, meaning adherence to any rule, or the performance of any particular act, is eliminated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

People should fear the Lord -- the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. God shouldn't be treated as one's buddy. — baker

The three levels of fear: http://www.puretorah.com/resources/Fear%20of%20G-d.pdf

No! "spiritual salvation" delivered in the absence of love (agape) or absent concern for the person's wellbeing, results in the missionary position of ramming Jesus down their throat or up their ass, whichever you prefer. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for the visual.

If the premise is that the acceptance of Jesus as one's savior is a necessary component for eternal salvation from damnation, then the absence of immediate concern for the person's wellbeing would be of little concern. That is to say, I would welcome a good anal or oral Jesus rogering if it meant saving me from an eternity of teeth gnashing. Sometimes, I suppose, the medicine one must take to save one's self from a horrible outcome is a bit painful, especially when taken rectally.

Your post makes more sense if I were to assume you think the acceptance of the Jesus part is largely superfluous, but the part where people actually care for one another critical. That makes sense, but it might not be Christianity you're espousing.

Any explanations? — Banno

If you begin with the premise that God is infinitely wise and complex and that certain texts are a direct expression of his knowledge and that those texts contain explanations for all the mysteries of the universe, doesn't it logically follow that a man made discipline would be child's play in comparison?

Joy here is impersonal: it doesn't belong to me, but I partake in it. — StreetlightX

I'm not as interested in those posts that are parsing out the meanings of words in how they are actually used and I'm comfortable with your use of the words "joy" and "happiness" in your idiosyncratic ways in order to draw important distinctions.

So, to take happiness to be an internal state and joy an external state, I'm not sure I agree, but I would draw yet another distinction here between happiness and pleasure, which is a distinction Mill drew. The intellectual pleasures can be considered happiness even if a certain amount of angst flows from living an intellectual life. I think we all find greater happiness in the struggles of meaning than in being a satisfied pig, to paraphrase the quote. So, while happiness might not be pleasurable, happiness is worth striving for. Pleasure I take as immediate state of having your animalistic drives satisfied.

But, back to your distinctions, you use the term "joy" in an objective way, as if there are joys out there in the world to be experienced much like there are trees and art to be enjoyed. Obviously, though, the enjoyment of the joy is entirely a subjective feeling. That means the joy lies in you, not the thing. The carnival might be called a joy, but it might not be a joy to me while it might be a joy to you. So, do we say there is joy out there in any meaningful way?

What if you are a Jewish settler in the West Bank and the neighbor a Palestinian? Or you are a Moroccan in Western Sahara and your neighbor a Sahrawi?

People still have these ideas of some people being the "rightful owners" of some area, whereas others are occupiers, invaders. Even if the "invasion" has happened ten, hundred or thousands of years ago. Is it wrong to think like that? — ssu

The distinction I draw between your question and the question of the OP is that your question asks how to deal with those who have stolen land whereas the OP asks how to deal with racists. Yours includes an actual act, whereas the the OP includes only a mindset.

You then follow up your question with an entirely separate question, which is to ask what constitutes theft of land, which is a complex question asking whether a particular act constitutes a violation of an existing rule. That is to say, your concern is whether a particular act is bad or not and what corrective action should be taken. The OP's concern is whether a particular mindset alone is grounds for corrective action.

But, as you say:

Ideas and views aren't a crime, actions and instigating others to act might be. — ssu

So, trespass to land is a crime. Simply wanting to trespass to land is not. How "trespass" is to be defined and how it is to be distinguished from "rightful occupation" is a matter of the laws a society wishes to set.

Indeed. But can you be on good neighborly terms with someone who believes you should not exist? — baker

That it might be difficult to tolerate those who hate me, that doesn't provide a basis for their expulsion from my presence. I don't know that the object of the law ought to be peace and harmony generally but only that it should be a demand that a certain level of minimal conduct be adhered to. I emphasize the word "conduct" because in the OP, the only violation I could decipher was a depraved heart. Until there is an act, or even a reasonable belief an act might occur, I think we are stuck letting Archie Bunker rant away.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for? — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think he should be expelled. A guilty mind absent a guilty act doesn't equal a violation.

A real man is someone who is a father, an Olympic champion, a stepfather, a husband, a multi-millionaire, someone who raises billionaire daughters and step-daughters, an international celebrity, and someone who will be the next Republican governor of California. He is all that and America's sweetheart.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leo-terrell-advises-caitlyn-jenner-to-run-like-a-trump-republican-in-bid-for-california-governor

The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry. — Ciceronianus the White

I take this to mean that there are moral laws and man made laws and whether the man made one exists is not dependent upon whether it comports with the moral law. I think we both agree with that. The confusion only arises when we use the unmodified term "law" and suggest that "man made law" and "law" are necessarily synonymous. That seems to be the entire debate.

The belief that the law must conform to an "assumed standard" of some kind, and isn't the law if it does not, ignores the law; it doesn't explain it. It leads to a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the law and its operation. — Ciceronianus the White

My response has been that you could have a legal system where that is not the case. I'd think the law within the limits of the Vatican are the sort that demand an analysis of a higher power. But to both yours and my experience within the confines of our system, the law is not stricken or claimed null and void simply because it violates the rules of nature. I don't think the same holds true within theocracies.