You have a gut feeling that moral realism is false. — Michael

No. My gut feeling is that there might be a misnaming going on.
I suspect that some people merely pose as moral realists because it is often advantageous to do so.

Neither has empirical or self-evident rational justification.

I'm not sure about this. I revise my earlier statement that it's my gut feeling against theirs. I actually allow for the possibility that they might have a knowledge I don't have.

There is an objective, mind-independent, inaccessible fact-of-the-matter.

How do you know this?

@Michael
It's my gut feeling against theirs.

But it patently is not a state of affairs, and at very, very best, a description of one. What state of affairs outside of the mind indicates that command is universal? As far as i know, realists don't make absolute claims to a state of affairs, by noting a perception. — AmadeusD

For realists, "perspective" only exists to mean 'not knowing the truth, but merely having a perspective'.
If realists would acknowledge perspectivism as valid, they would cease being realists.

Possibly.

Do you claim that it is unreasonable to claim to know that something is false because their “gut feeling” tells them so? — Michael

Yes. Because guts aren't reasonable.

Moral realism is actually metaethical authoritarianism/egoism.

Issues of morality are inevitably about how people treat eachother. If one person says, "This is the truth and all else is wrong" and then punishes everyone who thinks otherwise, then that's simply authoritarianism.

I think it's unlikely that we are not blind in some regard we don't know about. — Hanover

It seems unlikely that many people believe this.

People can belive falsehoods? — Michael

How does a moral realist know something is false? Because their "gut feeling" tells them so?

@Michael
How do moral realists resolve descriptive moral relativism?
How do moral realists explain that different people have different ideas about what is right or wrong?
How do moral realists explain that some people believe that murder is wrong, but some other people believe that murder is not wrong?

@180 Proof You people already elected him once. Do you think the rest of the world (and perhaps even some Americans) have forgotten this? Do you think you can just move on from that, as if it never happened? No, it will take a lot to (re)gain trust after that first election. You'll have to prove that electing him the first time around was some perverse cosmic glitch, unique, and not an expression of what America really is.

And why can’t it be that one such state of affairs is that we ought not harm another? — Michael

It is one state of affairs among many. Now what?

The thing is that you're not distinguishing between my words and your interpretation of my words. You're conflating the two.

*sigh*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message


Can you formulate what you want to say in the form

"When Baker says [insert what you're referring to], I [Tom Storm] feel ____ / think ____ ."

You and your you-language.

I've never found it difficult to find others among the godless who are religiously / theologically well-read, especially here on TPF — 180 Proof

This has not been my experience.

But, nevermind. My "religious problem" has actually lost almost all the life there was to it, simply due to inertia. Over the years, I've somehow managed to endure it, and to focus on other, more practical things. Now, if I can't sleep, I think about how to build raised beds in our garden, or what can be learned from this year's tomato blight and corn smut, and such.

Perhaps this has to do with almost all major philosophers being life-long bachelors?

I wanted to ask: why is this question given such low priority? — Count Timothy von Icarus

A philosophically inclined person is more likely to be disenchanted with the ways of the world.

What a romantic!

1. Karma and rebirth are supposedly based on cause & effect. If true, there's a mountain of causes that, at death, would logically result in rebirth that is practically indistinguishable from the previous life. Yet the story goes that if you do a lot of dirty deeds in your life you will be reborn as a dirty cockroach or something. That doesn't make sense if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. It would be like I'm a human being one instant and the next instant I spontaneously turn into a dirty cockroach, just because I stole a loaf of bread or whatever. I should be reborn the same human bread stealing dirty deed doer that I was the instant before death, if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. — praxis

In Theravada and Early Buddhism kamma is intention. Generally, only intentional actions have kammic consequences. This is why two people, externally acting the same way, could face very different kammic consequences if their intentions for doing the actions differ, respectively.

What you describe looks like Jainism, like I already said.

My question basically has to do with narrative. Buddhists claim that karma & rebirth act according to cause & effect despite being unable to provide a narrative that shows this structure in their narratives. — praxis

I think this has sometimes more to do with an unwillingness to engage in time-consuming explanations to people who seem hostile rather than anything else.

And the attitude you've been displaying here certainly doesn't suggest that you're interested in learning about the Buddhist concepts of kamma and rebirth. So why bother?

You should also know that in Buddhism, at least for monks, there are restrictions as to whom they can or should speak about Dhamma and to whom they shouldn't. Lay Buddhist people may also adopt those restrictions.
If you find that the Buddhists you're talking to don't seem all that open or willing to discuss things with you, then consider the possibility that you have ticked one or more boxes on that list of restriction criteria. (In my opinion, you have.) You can hardly blame people for setting boundaries on whom they spend their time on.
If they seem evasive to you, bear in mind that from their perspective, you're evasive too.

Anything goes — Sirius

And yet circles aren't squares.

If you have time on your hands, then maybe look at the work of Matthew Ratcliffe
https://york.academia.edu/MatthewRatcliffe

And being a huge fan of Schopenhauer's estimation of things — schopenhauer1

A huge fan of his trust-fund lifestyle. It's easy to be pessimistic when one doesn't have to work to pay one's bills!

It sounds like you’re seeing philosophers as advocating a way of life and then falling short of this ideal in their own life. — Joshs

This is what it looks like, yes. But I make no claim about their intentions in this discrepancy; in fact, their intentions in this discrepancy is what I want to understand to begin with.

But I would argue the central task of a philosophy is like that of a scientific theory, to present a model of the way things are.

A model of the way things are -- for whom?

It would hardly be a first that someone presents a model of the way things are -- but which _other_ people, or _only some categories of people_ are supposed to believe.

If a philosopher seems to fall short of what their philosophy argues for, I suggest it is not because they are hypocrites or have somehow forgotten what they have written, but reflects the limitations of their philosophy.

I find this too hard to believe. I don't think it is possible to write a philosophical text, publish it (leaving aside for the moment the shenanigans surrounding the publication of some texts), without the author being aware that there are some, perhaps serious problems with what he has just presented.

What? Does Trump(ism) not capture perfectly the essence of the American spirit, or at least the spirit of those Americans who actually vote or otherwise have the say?

Karl Rahner proposed the (rather scandalous) idea of the ‘anonymous Christian’: — Wayfarer

A perfect combination of pity and contempt!

The whole of Christian existentialism is about you and God alone. The other persons religious beliefs, if any at all, shouldn't matter. — Dermot Griffin

And yet all that anyone has ever heard about the topic "God", one has heard from other people.

Even those people who have epileptic seizures and interpret the visions they have in those seizures as "God is speaking to me" are still working with whatever they have about the topic "God" from other people.

Even Kierkegaard was working only with what he heard other people say on the topic "God".

Why "a year"? It's quite evident everyday, all day, even on this thread. You believe Bank/Tax Fraudster & Criminal Defendent-1 has a snowball's chance in hell to be reelected, baker? Yeah, I guess innumerates follow "the polls" they like. — 180 Proof

Actual elections are not always in line with the previous polls. Surprises have been known to happen.

I suppose you just have more faith in the American people than I do.

You're doing the exact same thing the Trumpistas & co. are doing: blame others, place the entire burden for the quality of the interaction on the other person.

And you are the boss, you define all the terms, right.
— baker

Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?

But if that's your indirect way of saying it is not meant as an insult, ok. — Tom Storm

If I want to insult someone, I make that clear.

Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?

Of course, via the language you use. I have brought this up with you at least once before (as well as with some other posters). And I wouldn't bring it up, if this weren't a philosophy forum, and if you wouldn't work in some counselor capacity. I presume you had to be professionally trained in different styles of communication, and so you should know what I'm talking about.

This posted here from another thread:

I don't think you could blame the monks who ended up beaten to death in fights over nominalism versus realism of being guilty of affectation. Even less the people who were tortured to death over questions surrounding transubstantiation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Perhaps this is why people nowadays can get away with affectation -- because there is no you-shall-burn-at-the-stake-for-heresy attached.

But this isn't the complete story. It comes at the cost of no longer identifying with all that is healthy, good, beautiful and pleasurable in life. How many of us would give up good food, beautiful women, a big library and a great music collection for a life in the monastery ? — Sirius

Probably not many, because life is still far too easy and far too good for most people to become radical.

Those who experience the diminishing returns in the pursuit of the proverbial "eating, drinking, and making merry", might begin to question whether said pursuit is worth it.

What is even more terrible is this spiritual tradition sets one up for a lifetime battle against oneself. It's a cult of self-overcoming, rooted in self-hatred, unrealistic goals and struck by a fear of relapse into all that enables one to identify with other human beings, i.e our innate weaknesses.

This is a projection of yours.
But I suppose that unless you have personally experienced the above-mentioned diminishing returns, you probably won't be able to relate to those who do.

Sorry for not being a guru. I'm like you all.

You don't say.

Why don't you talk to nonbelievers who are literate in a religion or several religions and / or theology? They're not hard to find. — 180 Proof

They are hard to find. Well, depends on one's standards.

For example, I know of even university professors of Buddhology who were also "practicing" Buddhists and who distanced themselves from Buddhism, but who nevertheless have holes in their knowledge of Buddhism that even I at my level can notice.

What I have noticed consistently is that the belief system of "unbelievers" or "former believers" tends to reflect first and foremost their relatively solid and secure (upper) middle class socio-economic status, rather than some profound insight into religions or life.

That may well be true. But what are you counting as a religious problem? — Tom Storm

Whatever my religious problem was at the time.

What is the secular thinker underestimating - the emotional support; the explanatory power; the metaphysical explanation, the meaning of religon?

The cunning. The tenacity. The mental and physical toughness. The bad faith. The wealth. The socio-economic power.

The following is not a boundary, it's a sneering jibe. — Tom Storm

And you are the boss, you define all the terms, right.

Yeah, but calling out stupid does. — 180 Proof

We'll see that in about a year.

Critics of Trump & co. often become exactly like those they criticise. Don't you see the danger in that?
— baker

I don't see how that cliche applies to this example. — Tom Storm

*sigh*

And what does this have to do with our discussion?

I'm telling you my reasons for what I'm telling you. As opposed to the condescension you accuse me of.

Where have I interpreted deeds and intentions of Trump voters? Where is this even coming from?

Your words.

E.g.

I think the people they interviewed were clueless and just following a demagogue — Tom Storm

On a separate vein, some time ago I saw interviews with Trump supporters. Most of them said they would vote for him again because of his significant achievements and his great policies. Not one of them could name any. They just liked him. Is this because they are dumb, or has the American system (education/media/corporate influence) failed people, making them rubes and willing victims of a demagogue? We can't use CBT for political stupidity can we? — Tom Storm

This is an excellent point. It used to be that people looking for spiritual truths would abandon everything they had to live with some great teacher. Rigorous study, ascetic practices, long periods of meditation — these are the norm in the Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions.

To be sure, these traditions allowed for other roads to enlightenment or spontaneous revelation. But in general, the truth required a great deal of study and praxis to ascertain.

But now the general take is: "beliefs about the most central questions if what being is and how we should live should be summarizable in five minutes." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. It's a trend toward infantilization and consumerism. And a victim mentality.

Saint Augustine makes a related point, which is that we can never learn anything without trusting others. Our parents might not be our real parents. Our kids might not be our real kids, they could have been switched at birth. Anything we are taught could be bunk.

And yet, if you don't put effort in, assuming your physics textbook might be able to shed some light on the world for you, then you'll never get anywhere in understanding the subject. The same is true for theology, which is up with philosophy for most abstract disciplines.

Of course. But it's not simply blind trust. If one is going to even have a conversation with another person, then one should be able to act in good faith to begin with. Otherwise, why even begin talking to them?

You said that you can ask questions about karma that nobody can answer. So far, you haven't asked any such question that I can't answer. I actually want to see someone ask a question about karma that I couldn't answer.

That you're not satisfied with my reply is really neither here nor there, because I'm not trying to convince you. I can tell that you only have a cursory knowledge of karma doctrines, and I'm not going to ask you to commit to a serious study of them and wait for a reply. And I certainly don't have the time to go through them with you step by step.

Study up on karma doctrines, and then see what questions remain. I'm certainly not going to do your homework for you.

Yes, religions tend to perpetuate and promote 'communities' of magical thinkers who talk to – placate – ghosts. — 180 Proof

Heaven knows I'm no fan of religion. But I think many atheists, agnostics, and humanists grossly understimate it. As far as I'm concerned, these atheists etc. have nothing helpful to offer me as far as dealing with a religious problem is concerned. There was a time when I sought help for my (meta)religious insecurity, and the atheists etc. had nothing to offer me. Other than displaying their massive ignorance of the religions they so eagerly denounced. Well, it's easy to dismiss something one barely knows!

It is, because it means you're not open to discussion of this topic. And it's predictable that it probably won't go well.
— baker

What a sneering and insinuating response. Thanks. — Tom Storm

Oh Jesus. I have simply identified a boundary. Identifying a boundary is not "sneering and insinuating".

where does 'some' knowledge become sufficient for you to decide they are true Christians or true Muslims since this seems to be your concern?

Where? In your mind, apparently obsessed with judgment and persecution.

Again:

I repeat my question - How do we determine if someone is a real Christian or not?

It's mostly irrelevant, until someone claims to be a representative of a religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.

It's in the nature of religiosity that different people will have varying degrees of knowledge of and involvement in their religion.

But the extent of their knowledge of and involvement in their religion becomes relevant if they claim to deserve some kind of special recognition and respect.

As in:

"I'm a superior [member of religion X], while you're only an inferior [member of religion X], therefore, you owe me credence and respect."

or

"I left [religion X], because I have supreme insight into its workings, I know the truth about it, and you must believe me."

In the former case, it's the standard internal hierarchy in religion, where it goes without saying that if one is newer, younger, or female, one automatically owes special credence and respect to the others who have been members longer, who are older, or male.

This is also the case in religious supremacism. Such as when the majority religion expects special respect from the minority religion or from those with no religious affiliation.

In the latter case, the often unstated assumption when someone leaves a religion is that they have superior insight into the workings of their now former religion, or that leaving religion was a good thing. Such as you here:

Nevertheless, the secular community contains numerous members who were once devout. They found their way out. — Tom Storm

It is in such cases that the person's actual knowledge of the religion becomes relevant for how one will interact with such a person.

We find out about the nature of the rest of world and the extent of our knowledge by our interaction with it, rather than by maintaining, without adequate evidence, that our interaction with it is inherently deficient. — Ciceronianus

Esp. older generations seem to have been taught that they are inherently deficient, by default. The belief that we are born bad and defective and yet need to be corrected.

One may notice problems, but why extrapolate from them the notion that such problems are ubiquitous, regardless of considerations of context? — Ciceronianus

I can think of two groups of reasons for this:

1. An authoritarian sense of entitlement; extreme self-confidence; the belief that when one opens one's mouth, the Absolute and Objective Truth comes out.

2. Existential dread; anxiety; the craving to make oneself feel less afraid, less vulnerable, and so taking for granted that everyone is experiencing that same anxiety as well, that this anxiety is part of "human nature".

Specific examples from the last 200 years please. — Joshs

Do you really think Levinas actually approached other people in daily life as if he was "infinitely responsible" for them? That he actually felt indebted to just everyone he met simply because that other person was "an other"?

Nietzsche. Hardly an exemplar of the Übermensch himself.

Pretty much every religious philosopher.

Possible solution to the personal identity problem

The government solves it by issuing a unique personal identification document to every person.
It's how we are formally forced to maintain a personal identity, in real terms.