Hitchens and Dawkins covered this but they presented it as though a murderer could simply repent on their deathbed and get instantly into heaven. That's a strawman of Christianity that conveniently leaves out the idea of purgatory. — emancipate

Further, it's a strawman that leaves out that someone who has lived their life killing, raping, and pillaging isn't likely to repent on their deathbed.

Anyway, the point is that in monotheistic religions, killing, raping, and pillaging isn't the kind of automatic disqualifier from living a good life (forever) they way it is in a humanistic outlook.

Goodness - I think the answer to this is obvious. Kinkade, Eco and Gaga made the artistic choices they did not to subvert anything but to make money. In case you haven't noticed, the biggest market on earth is for the mediocre and the kitsch. — Tom Storm

People typically try to earn a living by what they do. It's hardly an ignoble outlook.
As to how much they earn with their art, this is not within their control, or otherwise plannable.
So your objection strikes me as rather shallow.

What is really fascinating in live music is that a lot of music that you wouldn't otherwise listen to and would immediately change the channel while listening to the radio while driving, suddenly feels great when you hear it played live. And naturally the smaller more intimate the music session is, you naturally focus even more. — ssu

I don't listen to music while driving. I focus on the road, the traffic, the engine.

However good our headphones and audio systems have become, there is so much more to a live performance. It just shows there's more to music than our ear sensoring the vibration of acoustic waves.

A recording is mastered for optimum sound. What you hear in an actual music hall depends a lot on where you sit. The overall sound quality is worse live than it is on a mastered recording. Live, sit a bit too far to the left, and the right side of the orchestra will be too quiet and the violins too overwhelming. Sit too close, and the sound will be off entirely (the front row is only for when you know exactly what you're doing).

But listening to a recording, it's easy to forget there are actually people playing this, making this music, so the music gets a surreal, mystically pure quality.

Ok! I take my words back. I think it is you who got bored with the people... — ssu

I had a Gary Oldman moment, like here, in The Professional, starting at 2.40.

Your front row experience make's me remember when I was a child, I was dragged to see ballets with my father and his cousins family. Actually I liked it, but we we're always at the cheapest seats high up many times on the last row sweating. Few years ago my wife bought tickets to a ballet with seats on the parquet actually close to the dance. And for the first time I saw that the dancers had expressions. The classic Swan lake was far more awesome to see the expressions of the dancers.

I've always been fortunate enough to get good seats. The programme was published for the entire season in advance. I had the time to study the music pieces (with the help of the library mostly, there wasn't that much on the internet back then yet) and I knew the acoustics in each of the halls, so I bought the tickets for the seats most suitable for each piece.

So you really, genuinely believe that anyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, can be the appropriate audience for a classical music piece?
If yes, what is the basis of this belief of yours?
— baker
If they genuinely like the music, why on Earth not?

I only need to remember my music teacher and my literature teacher from elementary school! And then some teachers from college, and the general attitude among the academics and the intelligents.
In their view, people like me are not able to "genuinely" like the music. I mean, there are essays and other texts written on how people from lesser socio-economic classes (ie. "peasants") can have only a shallow and sentimental understanding of art. One of my college professors convinced me to never go anywhere near a theatre again or to read a book by a notable author.

So yes. Assuming the person doesn't mind the "what the hell is a person like that doing here??!!!"-looks from others and people will try to ignore you. You see, people won't be thrown out because of their socioeconomic status in any open event. A private club is a different matter.

Of course. One can even sufficently externally blend in and "pass for" a suitable audience. But in one's mind, the severe judgment reverberates.

lesser animals' abilities of awareness pale in comparison to our own — javra

Why do you consider this a matter of awareness, and not of something else?
— baker

I take it that greater intelligence, for example, endows an animal with greater awareness regarding what is and could be. Conversely, in the absence of any awareness, no degree or type of intelligence could manifest. — javra

Do you see humans as "the measure of all things", that humans are the ones who decide what is and could be, and humans get to decide this for all other beings?

And again:

lesser animals' abilities of awareness pale in comparison to our own

On what do you base this claim?

When the sentient being inhabits the universe of self, don't we call this solipsism? — ucarr

The link I see between solipsism and atheism is this:

In theism, knowledge of "how things really are" is received from others, and, presumably, originates with God. It's a top-down process. Someone else tells you "how things really are", you don't figure it out by yourself.

In atheism, no such higher authority is envisioned or made room for, man is left alone with his senses and his mind and whatever he can achieve with those. He believes it's up to him and him alone to figure things out. This way, atheism implies at least epistemic solipsism.

In self-help groups I've frequented, there's common talk about learning to love oneself as a remedy to paralyzing insecurities, debilitating anxiety and self-destructive behavior.

I have serious doubts about our ability to love ourselves. In our particular universe, I suspect we're disbarred from expressing and experiencing love as a reflexive action. As reflexive actions, we can care, trust and esteem ourselves, but no, we can't love ourselves. — ucarr

There's an old word for this "self-love": pride. But it's out of favor by now, it's not politically correct (although things seem to be looking up for it lately.)

You really only need allies when you're fighting for your life. Otherwise, why care what Europeans want or need when they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire?

That's just the 21st Century reality I think. — frank

Not 21st century reality, but American mentality. They've been hyping themselves up with anti-Russian paranoia for seventy years. It's a miracle they haven't exploded into action by now.
Americans need an external enemy, this is how Americans feel like Americans, this is how they have an identity. And if no external enemy is in sight, they'll cultivate one.

But then again, something like a large invasion of Ukraine might trigger that and the countries could see that "enough is enough". — ssu

But whence this idea that Russia wants to invade Ukraine??

This is pure provocation on the part of the US and their EU allies. They've been treating Russia as if it was a rebellious teenager who needs to be put in place. They've been pretty much telling Russia words to the effect of "You're bad, and you're doubly bad because you don't admit that you're bad".

I love your line 'you see no problem with such non-involvement' at some point I'd like to explore this. — Tom Storm

Then hurry up, because I have less and less time for this forum.

Why do you assume subversion? — Tom Storm

Because Kinkade had the formal education that enabled him to paint in a variety of styles, yet he chose as he did. I'm quite sure that he knew full well how severely his works would be judged by the world of high art.

If a person without a formal education in art would paint like that, nobody would bat an eyelid. If Kinkade would be "an ordinary good person" with no vices, nobody would question his work.

I find it interesting that some art can only be understood as subversion or ironically for it to be 'enjoyed' by people.

If they thought the artist was totally sincere the work would be hated.

I don't think so. The general attitude toward naive art or folk art isn't hatred. Of course, the devotees of high art might snobbishly shrug their shoulders at naive art or folk art. It's classed as a different genre, and that pretty much settles the matter.

It's when a work of art, or an artist, in any way cross the boundaries of genre or class that they evoke mixed emotions. Of course, provided that the audience knows this.

How is it that, for example, Lady Gaga, who, given her education and musical experience, should know better, nevertheless makes such mediocre music?

On the other hand, one can feel betrayed when one discovers the background for some work that one had considered to be the work of true genius. For example, I used to absolutely adore Eco's The name of the rose. Later, when I learned that Eco studied the principles of detective novels and that he carefully pieced together The name of the rose based on those principles, I felt betrayed. A novel I used to consider so sincere, so genuine, so genius, now struck me as merely a matter of craft and lost all appeal.

Seems you don't go to classical concerts, I presume, when you write it like that. — ssu

By now, I know my place.

In the past, I would regularly go to the monthly concerts of the resident symphony orchestra, the chamber music groups, and the occasional fancier performances held by VIP guests or at VIP venues (like an organ concert at the cathedral).

Back then, I was quite naive and wasn't all that aware of the class issues. I actually stopped going to the concerts mainly because I saw myself becoming a snob and didn't have the money to justify it. For example, for a piano concerto, I would pick a seat in the front row right before the piano, so that I could focus on the piano best. Or I would collect and compare different interpretations of the same piece, and I would get a thrill out of watching out for how each interpretation handled a particular passage. I just don't have it in me to "sit down, relax, and enjoy" the music. I don't know how other people do it. For me, it has to involve some work, or I get bored quickly. Other than that, my ears eventually began to give in; the music was never loud enough, and gradually, it was too soon so loud as to be painful.

And that kind of attitude "What is she doing here?!" is quite present in any kind of pop / trance / hip hop / whatever concert.

Absolutely.

That music would have "appropriate socio-economic status" is one way we build up these perceptions of others. Basically it's nonsense.

So you really, genuinely believe that anyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, can be the appropriate audience for a classical music piece?
If yes, what is the basis of this belief of yours?

In my youth, ending in let's say, 1968 at 22. I had not seen much in the way of serious films or serious dramatic or cinema art. I grew up in a very small town in rural Minnesota and attended a state college in a relatively small college town. "Art films" were few and far between. But about this time a boyfriend in Madison, Wisconsin introduced me to Bergman. Madison was then a much more radical left bohemian place than in recent years. Leonard was trying to educate me into being a more sophisticated boyfriend. I appreciated it.

The upper midwest, places like Minnesota and Wisconsin, are kind of Bergman territory -- chilly Scandinavian influence all over the place. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Fanny and Alexander and Secenth Seal are my favorites. But since the early 70s I've seen hundreds of film, most of which were not particularly Bergmanesque, and my tastes aren't the same now. Bergman got at a kind of gloomy religiosity which feels very familiar to me. — Bitter Crank

For me, it's quite different. Growing up, we would watch three national televisions (in three languages; it used to be normal here), now it's two (the Austrian one is coded now). National televisions typically have a wide selection of programmes. Films from all languages, genres, and time periods. Every few years, they have a retrospective of films of big directors (where they show a director's entire opus within a couple of months), or a selection by theme or genre.
All in all, high art everywhere, and strict divides as to whois the proper audience for it and who isn't.

Bergman got at a kind of gloomy religiosity which feels very familiar to me.

Frankly, Bergman seems downright mundane to me, so ordinary. Not to go into too much detail, but his films are about things I know personally, so they seem all too familiar. But I have a nagging feeling that this familiarity is misplaced. My art teachers would certainly frown upon my having any such feeling; for them, I am barred from being able to relate to high art.

The question was how come you said this thread was a nightmare.

No wonder it's a nightmare! — Agent Smith

Why do you say that?

Since I don't really accept the idea of an enlightened person in the first place, I have nothing to explain. People are flawed and support ideas and do things that cause suffering. — Tom Storm

So you believe that there is suffering, but that potentially, there is no respite from it, no end to it?

There's a second group who are consumers of truth. From what I have seen they do ask those questions already and these are generally buried inside the question 'Is the teacher a charlatan'. When you drill down, which I have sometimes done, they generally will say things like - "I don't want to be deluded by false ideas or by a teacher who is misguided or a hypocrite who just tells me what I want to hear.'

There's always been the inherent problem that if you are not enlightened yourself, how do you, a flawed creature, have the capacity to wisely asses what path to follow in the first place? Surely it is bound to go wrong (sometimes horribly so) for most.

I think this is nowhere near the problem that it is often made out to be.

A question like "Is this a genuine teacher or a charlatan?" and seeking an answer to it conveniently externalizes the whole issue, presenting the prospective student as an innocent (!) consumer (!) of spiritual guidance. A person with such an outlook never looks at their own intentions and actions. And when something goes wrong, they blame other people. It's a question that essentially puts in place a no-fail strategy, so this is part of its allure ("if I succeed, I will take credit; if I fail, others will be blamed while I am innocent").

In a person with a normally constituted conscience, looking at one's own intentions and actions should have both a sobering and a guiding effect. Such a person will not make grave mistakes in their life.


Also, problems typically occur when someone tries to take on more than they can carry, tries to make a bigger step than they have the capacity to make. For example, when a person feels enormous pressure to decide about whether a particular religion is the right one and to resolve the matter within a month. They ponder and ponder, read, discuss, and debate, but get nowhere, while the pressure keeps rising. This is a clear case of trying to do something that one, at that point, is unable to do.
In such a case, the wise thing to do would be to pare things down, minimize, to the point when one arrives at the level of decisions that are actually actionable for one at the time.

What exactly those decisions and actions are will vary from person to person. I think most people are not in a position where they could meaningfully, actionably answer questions like "Which religious path should I follow?"

What do winners read (or what films do they watch)?

If a person argues that there seems to be just to options to pick from, ie heavier than or lighter than or more likely or less likely, and invites his opponent to pick one, and the opponent says "i don't need to pick one because you have not proven there are only these options", what is that fallacy?

Surely it's their burden to demonstrate that their objection has grounds by showing that there could be other options, rather than just claiming, but i've ran in to this countless times and I don't feel I am very effective at dealing with it. Can anyone explain it more effectively than I have, or direct me to a resource that I can just send people to, to show that my logic is correct? — Jon Sendama

What are you, this person's boss?

I am not philosophically educated. — Jon Sendama

Then you should get thusly educated.

It's rather strange that as a lawyer, you don't see life as a struggle for survival/the upper hand.
— baker

Well, we're pretty strange, sometimes. But lawyering can be a kind of contest or struggle, especially in the courtroom, and there's an audience as well (though an unwilling one, mostly, but now and then there are interested spectators). I play chess, and that's a kind of struggle as well. But I don't see life as a struggle comparable to blood games, because to the extent life is a struggle I don't think the struggle is normally one that is admired and lauded by others, and one's participation in life is simply expected. — Ciceronianus

Of course. My point is simply about the relevance of seeing life as a struggle for survival/the upper hand. As opposed to some more humanist ideas about what life is or should be about.

There's something about the idea of purposely killing or harming someone before an audience that makes characterizing it as virtuous or as art objectionable, true. But I have the sometimes disturbing feeling (and that's all it is, perhaps) that there can be something virtuous in the conduct of the participants, and that the combat may evoke responses that aren't merely bloodlust, and that this evocation might be something similar to what art can do, and this is part of the appeal. — Ciceronianus

Gladiator games as catharsis for the masses. A logical continuation of the ancient tradition of tragedy, but tailored for the masses.

Mistaking the pleasure of watching well played-out combat sports for the pleasure of bloodlust — javra

Why else would one watch combat sports, if not for the pleasure of bloodlust?

Religious people and non-religious people live in a different world. Any supposed agreement between them will be based on a new misunderstanding. — Eskander

Axioms are self evident true statements we use for a foundation. — Eskander

To monotheists, "God exists" is an axiom.
To someone who is not a monotheist, it's at most a hinge proposition for the purposes of a particular conversation.

(Not all atheists believe that when they talk on the topic of "god", they are engaging in something that is merely a "language game", do they?)

Do hinge propositions have a special status ? — Eskander

Rather, it's that a conversation on the topic of "God" between a monotheist and someone who is not a monotheist has a type of "special status".

Like you said:

Religious people and non-religious people live in a different world. Any supposed agreement between them will be based on a new misunderstanding. — Eskander

Should these then be elements be taken into account, when selecting recipients of organ transplants? — Cobra

There are already criteria in place for selecting recipients of organ transplants. There is an official waiting list and a board of doctors who decide on a case by case basis.


Also, do you know what is the actual probability that in the same region, at the same time, there are two or more people who need the same new organ, and they also have the exact same medical predispositions for it?
How many prospective recipients does any particular donor organ have at any given time?

IOW, how often does the type of situation you describe in the OP actually happen?

I am essentially asking if the elements of ones past and history where they have demonstrated to be indifferent, or at least, disinterested in preserving the well-being of others, should be taken into account when giving someone an organ transplant, that may prolong their life further, when there are demonstrably better candidates to pick, but may not be "next in line". — Cobra

At least in the past, convicted felons were not rarely used in medical experiments. It's how they can be useful to society. This practice is nothing new.

The prolonging of their life isn't so much interesting, but instead the decision to select over another, and whether or not that is the best one to make.

This recent xenotransplant wasn't a standard heart transplant, but an experimental one, so the situations aren't actually comparable. (Who payed for the pig heart transplant? Surely not an insurance company.)

The actual dividing line here isn't between who is more deserving of a life saving medical procedure and who isn't, but where the line is between an experimental medical procedure and a standard medical procedure (and who pays for these things).


Importantly, also, we're talking with the benefit of hindsight: In this case, the man with the pig heart is still alive. Had he died during or soon after surgery, many people who are currently opposed to him getting the pig heart, would then feel vidicated and would view the situation differently.

Like, the machinery itself has rotted. It's terrible. — StreetlightX

When Donnie resumes power, we will have a new triumvirat: Donnie, Borrie, and Scotty. Firmly holding the entire planet in their grasp. Horrible things are in the making, while people politely watch from the sidelines.

You have again mistaken me for one who cares. — Banno

You you you you you, you, and your you language.

Why would a female perspective be better at determining which morality ought pertain to women than a man's would? That seems to imply subjectivism, like if a Frenchman refused to consider the moral judgment of an American because the American didn't understand what it's like to be French. It would seem we ought have one standard, and even if we should find reasons to offer different moralities based upon gender (or whatever distinguishing feature), we would need to objectively justify it and not just defer to what the subgroup thought ought apply to them.

Seems a slippery slope to allow each discernable group the right to dictate which moral standards ought apply to them. — Hanover

For example, in our culture, it is considered moral that women should use hormonal contraceptives (despite the known dangers they pose to the health and life of women and despite not being completely reliable).

So to you, it seems a slippery slope to allow women the right to dictate which moral standards ought apply to them?

For women generally, I would suggest that most action (as well as inaction) is a social event, whether charitable giving, getting vaccinated, seeing a stranger or loved one in need, grieving, feeling sick or filing for divorce. Most women have recognised, to some extent at least, that isolating themselves from their qualitative relation to the world is an illusion.

For men generally, as you have described here, most action (as well as inaction) seems to be a transaction between themselves and the world as two separate entities. Philosophically, though, this seems to be outdated thinking.

Consider - how much less violence, hatred, oppression, abuse and neglect would exist if everyone viewed each of their actions/inactions as social events? — Possibility

No less, or it could even be worse.

Something being seen as a social event doesn't automatically make it good or at least unproblematic.

This claim was made, for example:

Charitable giving is higher in women than in men, and this is due to findings that in women, charitable giving is a social event, but not for men. — L'éléphant

but no discussion as to the motivations for this "charitable giving". It could be an act of charitable giving motivated by a sense of a burdensome obligation, or in an effort to improve one's social image and standing, or out of a psychological compulsion to be seen as a "good person", or, specifically, a "good girl". All these motivations are social in their nature, but it's hard to claim that they are wholesome.

It's probably possible to act socially also out of wholesome motivations, but here, specifically, I'm addressing your point on the positive consequences of viewing actions/inactions as social event, as if doing so could/would have only positive consequences.

The externally observable action (in this case, charitable giving) doesn't say anything about the person's motivations for doing it. Yet it's the person's motivations for doing something that determines the quality of the action for the person doing the action, and for the one on the receiving end as well.

Doing things for the social reasons mentioned above (burdensome obligation, an effort to improve one's social image and standing, a psychological compulsion to be seen as a "good person) is more likely to lead to violence, hatred, oppression, abuse, and neglect.

A case can even be argued that women are generally more aggressive and more violent than men, because even though women may be more charitable than men, they generally do so for unwholesome motivations, and the quality of those motivations eventually has negative repercussions in one way or another.

You can play hide and seek with a dog; try that with an alligator. — Bitter Crank

Your dog most likely wouldn't play hide and seek with a random stranger off the street. Instead, she'd probably behave more like an alligator -- fight or flee.
Why do you think that is?


In studies of animals, the researchers (and their followers) usually forget the role of the specific relationship between the particular animal and the particular human that are being observed.

My cats come when I call them. They wouldn't come if some stranger were to call them.

So often in studies of animals, non-selective obedience is regarded as the mark of intelligence. The question we should be asking why people think that non-selective obedience is the mark of intelligence.

Is our intelligence uniquely better or just a magnitude of cognitive qualities greater? — TiredThinker

If anything, humans appear to have an enormous need to feel special and to deem themselves above animals.

This way, they can justify the horrific manner in which they so often treat animals.

lesser animals' abilities of awareness pale in comparison to our own — javra

Why do you consider this a matter of awareness, and not of something else?

What seems more far-fetched (1) something from literally nothing (2) an infinite past?
What seems more far-fetched (1) something from literally nothing (2) an infinite past? — Down The Rabbit Hole

More far-fetched than either of the above is the conviction that by answering the above question, we will find the meaning of life and end suffering.

egrees of awareness rather than divisions between. But these degrees relative to our surviving closest evolutionary kin are so astronomical in magnitude that lesser animals' abilities of awareness pale in comparison to our own. — javra

How do you know that animals aren't aware?

Since humans only live for a finite number of years (and can commit only a finite number of evils during this time), they can commit only a finite amount of evil.

Rejecting god is an infinite offense, an infinite evil.

/.../
6. Anyone who thinks it’s okay to treat Hitler (and Stalin!) so shabbily, is also morally suspect. — Srap Tasmaner

What the OP @Banno and D. Lewis are forgetting is that in no major monotheistic religion is killing, raping, and pillaging an automatic disqualifier from getting into heaven eternal (!!!). It just isn't.
You can kill, rape, and pillage and still get to heaven just fine.
Now how's that for "divine evil"!


In actual monotheistic religions, what is said to be the cause for eternal damnation is the act of rejecting god. Different monotheistic religions specify different criteria for what exactly counts as a rejection of god, but they do agree on this one point.

This way, for example, a person who has lived a pious, harmless life (one without killing, raping, and pillaging) but has a change of heart on their deathbed and rejects god, goes to hell, forever doomed to suffering, while even serial killers can go to heaven and enjoy eternal happiness in heaven as long as they repent and accept god.

Again:

Is the Darwinian struggle for survival immoral? If you don't think it is, then based on what can you consider the literal interpretation of the Bible immoral??

The fact that the immoral literal interpretation — Banno

It's still not clear why you consider it immoral.

Is the Darwinian struggle for survival immoral? If you don't think it is, then based on what can you consider the literal interpretation of the Bible immoral??

Your pointing out plain (and I mean screamingly obvious) absurdities in the Bible, as if believers could not have seen them as absurdities had it not been for your helpful guidance, must be missing something, unless you truly are baffled as to why such a large segment of the population could be so very blind to the obvious.

The best source I can cite to you for the position I'm arguing is The Case for God, by Karen Armstrong, which I've begun reading recently, whose position seems very much aligned with what I've been arguing.

From a review of her book at: https://religiondispatches.org/religion-is-not-about-belief-karen-armstrongs-ithe-case-for-godi/

“Until well into the modern period,” Armstrong contends, “Jews and Christians both insisted that it was neither possible nor desirable to read the Bible literally, that it gives us no single, orthodox message and demands constant reinterpretation.” Myths were symbolic, often therapeutic, teaching stories and were never understood literally or historically. But that all changed with the advent of modernity. Precipitated by the rediscovery of Aristotle and the rise of scholasticism in the late middle ages, rational systematization took center stage, preparing the way for a modern period that would welcome both humanistic individualism and the eventual triumph of reason and science." — Hanover

This discussion has been hopelessly hampered by political correctness.

There is no easy answer at the ground level. — Ennui Elucidator

Yet this is the level that matters.

People typically know little more about their religion than they do their government or political party - they are just engaged in tribalistic behavior

I refuse to just let religious people get away with this.

But no matter how you feel about Christians, stop dictating what religion is, was, or can be. Especially stop questioning the legitimacy of someone's religion because it doesn't comport with your understanding of bad religions.

Oh, I don't think they are "bad" religions. It seems more likely they are accurate, evolutionarily advantageous religions.

If Tom can't handle the religious bullying in his otherwise nominally secular workplace, and quits his job and accepts a worse, less payed one, then this is a victory for the religious. Who laugh at him.

Religion will long outlive us both, maybe we should be fostering better religion (however you understand that) and not just kicking it.

You're mistaking me for someone else. I believe religions are generally evolutionarily advantageous, in that they provide justifications for the Darwinian struggle for survival.

Hinge propositions have to be taken as factual or given in the language game you are playing and you cannot change their usage/status with certain moves in a language game. — Eskander

In another discourse, they are called axioms.

An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek ἀξίωμα (axíōma) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.[1][2]

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4]

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

In a culturally homogeneous setting, could self reflection pose as a mode of psychological analysis? — john27

No:
In a culturally homogeneous setting, psychological analysis poses as the mode of self reflection.