Just remember, if you fail to pick the right sect of Christianity, you will burn in hell, forever and ever.

This is just a polite way of saying that Buddhism etc. are inferior to Christianity. It's religious imperialism.

I remember some years back reading a heart-breaking letter from Buddhist monks in a Buddhist country about how Christian missionaries are perverting Buddhism and how they manipulate the native people into converting to Christianity.

This post is an attempt to make the argument that the traditions of China and India, namely, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism are actually great resources of Christian apologetics. Being a Christian, I have come to see the respective systems of thought as preannouncing the message of the gospel in terms of ethical questions about life. — Dermot Griffin

This is the line of reasoning that Christian missionaries in Asia use to convert the native Buddhists, Daoists, and others to Christianity.

They tell the Buddhists that God sent them the Buddha to prepare them for the message of Christianity. And then they offer them food, medicines, jobs -- in exchange for conversion.

@180 Proof
@universeness
Burning witches won't help you.

What I see is someone who indulges in regular put downs of others, who is persistently cynical about people's motivations, then somewhat hypocritically likes to take a critical stance towards members for their perceived adverse perspectives. — Tom Storm

That's what the bad faith in which you tend to approach communication makes you see.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.
— baker

Why the Nietzsche?

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

When Trump or someone like him wins again, it will be at least in part because his critics were playing on his terms.

Now, if you want to construct an entirely seperate, speculative narrative about behind the scenes at media interviews and suggest that in some way journalism misrepresented the Trump people, I'm not interested, since you cannot demonstrate this to be the case and you seem to be asserting it entirely for rhetorical effect.

I'm actually expecting you to empathize with the Trumpistas.

I don't think that in some way journalism misrepresented the Trump people, but I think you here as a critic of Trump (as well as many others critics of Trump) are being too simplistic in interpreting the words, deeds, and intentions of the Trumpistas. And being so simplistic about them doesn't help in changing them of winning against them. Even though you nominally play for the opposition against Trump, you're actually helping team Trump. This is its own kind of ... well, stupidity, with horrible prospects. This is what happens when one allows one's disgust to get the upper hand.

Gotcha. Personally, I don't think freedom can be reduced to "the feeling of volition." At the very least, such a view would seem to require multiple disjunct types of freedom. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Freedom is about "freedom from something" and "freedom to do something". This doesn't have to do with "free will".

Slaves presumably experience the sensation of volition the same way as non-slaves, and yet there is still an important sense in which they aren't "free" in the same ways. The same goes for alcoholism, drug addiction, etc., which don't have any effect on the sensation of volition.

Sure. Someone with less information, less knowledge, fewer resources will just have it harder to carry out their decisions. Making a decision in free will and the ease of acting on said decision are two different things.

That seems plausible to me. But even if some sort of substance dualism were the case, it would still seem to me that what determines our choices must exist before we choose in order for our choices to be truly "ours." So, even if I entertain the idea of "nonphysical souls," compatibalism seems more right.

We don't talk about "love" or "friendship" or "democracy" etc. on the level of cells and tissues, as if "love" etc. would exist on the level of biochemistry. But why do this when it comes to free will?

Do you think it would make sense to test someone whether they love you or believe in democracy by measuring their brain waves or some such?

You clearly have a favorable bias for those who "leave religion".
— baker

If true, is that relevant? — Tom Storm

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.

The focus is on people who claim to have been (devoted) members of some religion (which they specifically name), who named themselves with the name for the members of said religion, who say that they have "left" said religion, and who exhibit a poor knowledge of said religion's doctrine.
— baker

Are you saying that people are only real Christians or Muslims if they have a extensive knowledge of the religion's doctrine? I would think then that only a tiny percentage of believers qualify as 'real'.

The extent of a person's knowledge of their religion's doctrine only becomes relevant for other people when that person claims to be a representative of said religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.

Generally people leave religions because they don't believe in god. Knowledge of the religion may not be a factor.

How can someone believe in God in any intelligible manner unless they have at least some knowledge of theistic religious doctrine??
If they don't have such knowledge, but still claim to "believe in God", then such a "belief in God" is likely wishful thinking, idiosyncratic. It's no surprise then if such a person "leaves the religion".

Will you also argue, by extension, that one can't be a true atheist unless one has extensively studied the arguments for and against god?

No. But one can't be an anti-theist unless one has extensively studied the arguments for and against god.

Can one believe in democracy unless someone has studied the history of democracy and has a working knowledge of political science and alternative governments?

I expect that someone who claims to "believe in democracy" has at least studied up on what "democarcy" means, and related themes, and preferrably, can discuss the topic.

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 like with any other claim of proficiency in something. If, for example, someone claims to "speak French", and then it turns out that they know only a few phrases in French, it's only natural to be skeptical about whatever claims they make about French.

You can't will away an adverse reaction. — Hanover

But you can will to stop a bad habit.

For crying out loud, in that video with Matthew Perry, that other man was just giving him well-meaning common-sensical advice, not claiming to offer a scientific explanation.

When one sees another person in trouble, one doesn't tell them, "Oh yes, chances are you're doomed and science confirms it!"

Scientific textbooks and terms are not authorities. — praxis

No, people just treat them as such.

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

Given that in life you also do a lot of other things, their effects mitigate eachother. If you once stole a loaf of bread, but you later regret it, work hard, earn money, and with it buy a hundred loaves of bread and give them to charity, then having stolen that one loaf once can be mitigated and then some.

What is said to be imponderable is knowing in advance what consequence some particular action you did now will have in the future, given that you will also do a lot of other things and their effects will mitigate eachother. But right now, we don't know what other things you'll also do, hence the imponderability.


What you describe above is more like the Jain doctrine, a type of karmic fatalism. Hindu or Buddhist doctrines of karma are different.

If you ask a "book reader" about this they will say that such things are imponderable, or to put it another way, the book they read from is fiction.

Instead of freestyling your ideas about karma and rebirth, why not read some standard texts about it?

When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?

When it's done for ideological purposes.

Apart from your disagreement with Descartes, how pervasive a problem do you see this kind of thinking as being within the contemporary philosophical community as a whole , or the history of philosophy?
— Joshs

Descartes isn't called the "Father of Modern Philosophy" for nothing. — Ciceronianus

The historical reception of Descartes would be comical, if it wouldn't be so sad and had such enormous consequences.

Even though Descartes made it clear that he wrote his philosophy specifically for the purpose of providing ready-made arguments that Roman Catholics can use for the purpose of converting non-Catholics (which is also the reason why the RCC allowed the publishing of his texts at all), he was somehow received into the history of philosophy as some kind of poor guy who was just trying to find his way while the mean mean RCC was breathing down his neck (and is thus eminently suitable to be considered the "Father of Modern Philosophy").

Instead of writing him off as yet another religious preacher, he was embraced as some kind of beacon of wisdom even by atheists. Well, apparently he and the RCC succeeded in their intents ...

I don't think what I refer to is hypocrisy. But I think there's more involved than a "trial run" by the curious. I do think it's peculiar, and aberrant in a way, requiring an explanation. I'm wondering if it's a kind of contrivance on the part of those who engage in it. — Ciceronianus

I tend to think of philosophy as a protracted means of finding ways for handling disagreement. Because all the things that philosophy talks about have their relevance in reference to handling disagreement. People keep disagreeing on what exists and what doesn't exist, what is true and what isn't true, how we can be sure that we know something, what is good and what is bad -- all these themes are covered by the standard disciplines of philosophy.

Disagreement isn't something trivial, it often has disastrous consequences, so it has to be taken seriously. But a philosophically inclined person just isn't able to handle disagreement in the "confident" way that the average person can. So a philosophically inclined person will think about the disagreement and try to find ways to make sense of it, or to even overcome it.

Of course, these attempts can then get momentum, get a life of their own, and people lose sight of the big picture why they're doing philosophy to begin with. That's when philosophy becomes the ivory tower, so alien to life as it is usually lived.

Reality is distressing for those who expect fantasy. For those familiar with reality, reality is "normal", "average" and/or expected. Get a grip. — LuckyR

Really? You can easily get a grip on being robbed, raped, betrayed by your boss, husband, your house being burnt down and you being falsely accused of arson with the intention to collect insurance money and imprisoned? Things like this are "average", "normal" to you, and you have a grip on them?

Several of your quick answers to my questions from the OP imply that a "perfect" knowledge is possible, and desirable. And that anything that doesn't reach that perfection causes pain. Is that really what you think? — Skalidris

Your OP is implying that.
You started a thread about Weltschmerz. It seems you were saying that people feel Weltschmerz when they have unrealistic, idealistic ideas about human nature, and I and several posters have read it that way.

That doesn't matter, because free will isn't wisdom, omnipotence, or omniscience.
Not sure what the relevance of this is. — Count Timothy von Icarus

When people talk about lack of free will, they're usually actually talking about lack of wisdom, lack of omniscience, or lack of omnipotence.

(Or, in Libet's absurd case, a person would have to be without the ability to plan and act accordingly in order to qualify as having free will.)

So what does have bearing on free will?

Only whether the person feels they have free will or not.

Did the shift in Western culture that allowed women to start being educated in large numbers not affect their freedom? Does being raised in a religious cult not effect freedom? Are the characters in 1984 not made less free by the omnipotent manipulation of information by the state?

In some of the above cases, free will is affected only in the sense that people were directly taught and internalized things to the effect that they are deterministic automatons, or that whatever they do is guided and decided by some "higher power".

Knowledge, information, and resources only define and limit options on which to think or act, but they don't limit free will.

Perry simply pointed out there is empirical evidence supportive of alcohol's measurable effect on people's personalities and Hitchens ignores the science in an effort to support his poliltical narrative. — Hanover

Because the important thing is to be scientifically correct, even if this kills people, riiight.

It's better for a heavy drinker to think, "Once I've had the first drink I am powerless over my drinking and I will drink until I pass out". Because being scientifically correct is all that matters. Riight.

If that heavy drinker were to say to himself, "Who says that I have to keep drinking just because I've had a few drinks? I should at least try to stop" -- that would be an utter abomination in the eyes of science!!

No, there actually are studies on animals that show the addictive quality of chemical substances, which control for social pressures related to the addiction, since animals aren't subject to human social pressures. — Hanover

I cancelled my subscription to rat psychology long ago.


(Tellingly, I couldn't even find a reference to "rat psychology" within five minutes of googling. "Rat psychology" is a derogatory term referring to an uncritical use of the findings in experiments on animals (often rats) to humans.)

But what about situations where we have been manipulated? In those cases, it seems like we are making a free choice at the time, but we come to find out that we made choices we otherwise wouldn't have. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That doesn't matter, because free will isn't wisdom, omnipotence, or omniscience.

Of course it's possible that with more knowledge, more resources, one would make different choices. But this has no bearing on whether one has free will or not.

Spare me the holier-than-thou bullshit, Baker. — Tom Storm

Really, Tom, really, this is what you see in my comment?

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.

This is all speculative so where's the harm? — Tom Storm

It's past my bedtime! That's the harm!

How do you determine who is a real Christian, exactly? — Tom Storm

The focus is on people who claim to have been (devoted) members of some religion (which they specifically name), who named themselves with the name for the members of said religion, who say that they have "left" said religion, and who exhibit a poor knowledge of said religion's doctrine.

You clearly have a favorable bias for those who "leave religion".

I'm skeptical about how someone can "leave a religion" of which they exhibit so little knowledge (as evidenced by the exit narratives of many people). If they have so little knowledge of it, how can they be counted as ever being in it to begin with?

What exactly has such a person "left" when they say they have "left the religion"?

If a person says they have "left Christianity", but it turns out they have a poor knowledge of Christianity, then what has such a person actually left? Half-baked ideas, misremembered slogans, false equivocations, hasty generalizations, superficial socializing, ... and not necessarily "Christianity".

I'm sure it would be reduced to ashes several times. Mass extinctions. — Benj96

And grown again.
The prospect of immortality gives one infinite hope. If one is devoted to living things, of course.

Faith in authority is essential in religion. — praxis

Gosh darn, why do scientists stick to the definitions of scientific terms as found in scientific textbooks?

Words mean things. If you're using them, then, presumably, you mean something by them.

It's the atheistic equivalent of the theists' explanation that: "people who don't believe in God do so because they are unable overcome their own ego's demand that they be in control and the standard of their own goodness." — Count Timothy von Icarus

:100:

For instance, I could ask a dozen questions about rebirth that no one could answer. — praxis

I double dare you.

A person calls themselves a former Christian when they say they are a former Christian. I am happy to let people determine how they want to identify. — Tom Storm

Then off to Humpty Dumpty land it is, where words mean whatever one wants them to mean ...

Can't you see how biased you are in favor of those who have "left religion"?

But then again, "human nature" should perhaps be thought of as every bit as bad as religions typically say it is.

I don't know how your response is supposed to relate to what I said. — wonderer1

It ties with the OP.

Because many people have been indoctrinated into believing a false account of human nature and don't want to accept a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding. — wonderer1

What is the purpose of having "a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding of human nature"?

Per the OP, it's to avoid Weltschmerz (among other things, I presume), ie. to avoid (a certain type of) pain.

Do you think that religious indoctrination doesn't result in many people believing a false account of human nature?

Perhaps an overly negative one, yes. Religions typically take a dim view of humans.

You don't say.

Can you envision a moral system build entirely of non-emotional values? If we were to turn everyone into Mr Spock, would we still have the same variety of moral stances we now see in human culture? — Joshs

Of course. It's what we have. Who doesn't present themselves as "logical" and "rational"? What ideology is not praised as such?

Spock only presents himself as "rational", "logical", these are the words he uses to describe himself.
Envision that the character of Spock would be played by the handsome actor playing Kirk. What would change? That rendition of Spock would seem perfectly human, only ironic. Which is the point. Spock is as "emotional" as everyone else, he just openly denies being so (the way some people do). This is what people can relate to, and why Spock's character is so liked by people.

(Probably some 80% of cowboy characters in classical western films are similar to Spock in that they show very little emotion in their face and voice. It used to be considered "manly".)

And, of course, the Star Trek franchize is responsible for the greatest abuse of the word "logic", ever.

Are you just playing games or are you really as abrasive as your response seems?

I think the people they interviewed were clueless and just following a demagogue who had the right enemies - intellectuals, liberals, do gooders, Marxists, unAmericans, politicians - the usual shit. — Tom Storm

And you don't think the way you speak about Trump's supporters is abrasive?

Trump's supporters or not, they are still people. Yet the way you speak about them is dehumanizing.

Can't you see you're doing the same kind of thing they're doing? You're playing the same kind of game they are, by the same rules.

And on the evidence of their bereft replies, they want to support hatred and conspiracy.

So? What does that mean for you?

"Affectation" according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, is:

"a. Speech or conduct not natural to oneself: an unnatural form of behavior meant especially to impress others; b. the act of taking on or displaying an attitude not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt." — Ciceronianus

Or are you perhaps talking about people post(ur)ing at philosophy forums when it's already past their bedtime?

Some people go to pubs and drink and talk. Some people go to philosophy forums and talk ... and drink.

And besides, one has to try on different philosophies for size, so to speak, given them a trial run. That's not hypocrisy.

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. — Tom Storm

And you take their statements at face value??
Or are you just playing games?

Have you ever tried to envision what such an interview is like for those Trump supporters? What do they think of it? Do they think of it as a conversation, a discussion, a debate? Do they perhaps consider it a rude imposition?

Because how a person replies to questions depends on who is asking those questions, who that person is to them, in what setting those questions are being asked, etc..

Not one of them could name any. They just liked him.

People usually vote for those they like anyway.

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?

Have you considered the possibility that they actually want what they are supporting and voting for? That this is about their actual values and desires?

They never dictate who is an alcoholic and who isn't. — Hanover

I actually heard them say it.

And then there are thousands of studies on mice — Hanover

You've got to be kidding.

The disease model of addiction is gradually fading. — Tom Storm

For some, too late.

Plenty of material on line about all this. — Tom Storm

Of course.
Perhaps there'll even come a day when official psychology/psychiatry acknowledge philosophy as a valid approach to dealing with existential problems!

But the field had already been painted. From an objective viewpoint, how could the man have truly been free? — Art48

That the field was painted in a particular way is irrelevant. Free will applies to his sense as to whether he felt he had a choice to partake in the experiment or not. Free will doesn't pertain to the parameters of the experiment. If he felt he had a choice whether to partake in the experiment or not, he had free will; if he didn't feel he had such choice, he didn't have free will.

I wonder if a fundamental cause of the controversies is that the concept of free will is poorly defined. — Art48

Not poorly, but not universally, unanimously. You can see already from people's definitions of "free will" or from the experiments with which they propose to test it, whether they believe it exists or not. Libet, for example, makes absurd demands on what a will would need to be like in order to be free.

This is almost verbatim from a conversation with a female acquaintance: "I hate high heels. My feet hurt in them. ... But what can one do. Women must wear high heels."

Clearly, she has such a philosophy of life that enables her to override the pain; whereas some women don't. While both groups of women experience wearing high heels as painful.
— baker

The enjoyment of wearing high heels at the expense of the pain of the high heels is not at all equivalent to the desire a heroin addict experiences for his drug. — Hanover

I'm talking about overriding one's initial negative response to something that is socially desirable, and having a philosophy for doing so. Like my high-heel wearing acquaintance who would rather not wear high heels, but does so because she is convinced that a woman must wear high heels (and she is able to put this into words).

You have a negative initial response to alcohol. Yet unlike so many other people who also have a negative initial response to alcohol, you don't override this initial negative response and so you don't drink. In contrast, many people do drink, despite their negative initial response to alcohol. My assumption is that they do have a philosophy for doing so, although I haven't heard it stated directly (unlike my high-heel wearing acquaintance). It is also my assumption that people who don't override their initial negative response to something socially desirable also have a philosophy for this.

Do you know why you don't act in accordance with the social expectations around drinking alcohol?

The finest rehab facilities and the most oppressive of prisons have not eliminated drug abuse.

Possibly because they are aiming to eliminate the wrong thing.
Being "in control" of one's substance use is the easier part; "being in control" of one's emotions and one's existential predicament is the hard part. Unless infinite health and wealth could be guaranteed, one's existential predicament is always going to loom large. Whole religions and other ideologies are built around trying to deal with the existential predicament. Not very successfully, apparently.

Anyway, watch this 50 second video:

https://www.tiktok.com/@bbcnews/video/7295729395971427616

I've watched it the first time you posted it and I've been wanting to comment on it.
What Perry is saying here is a stance that I describe as "typically American". The other man, Hitchens, has a stance that I find to be more representative of the culture I am from. I've known heavy drinkers, but even they would never say a thing like "I'm in control only of my first drink. If I have the first drink, I can't stop." It's normal here for people to drink, and to stop at some point. They can be all wobbly already, but still say, "Alright, that's enough", and they stop. And this can be a regular pattern, lasting for years. Of course, adherents of 12-step philosophy will say that these people are then "not really alcoholics".

The way a person's substance use and abuse and their thinking about this use and abuse are shaped has possibly a lot to do with the culture they live in. American culture tends to be black-and-white, all-or-nothing, so it's no surprise that an American-cultured person says things like "I'm in control only of my first drink. If I have the first drink, I can't stop." It's not alcoholism that gives one tunnel vision; it's tunnel vision that gives one things like alcoholism.

You might be an inadequate Muslim or Christian, but so what? Who decides what counts? — Tom Storm

You apparently decide what counts, by taking sides with those former Christians, former this or that.

How can someone even call themselves a "former Christian" or say they have "left Christianity", when, per you, it is up to God who decides whether someone was a Christian or not to begin with?

I don't think anyone true Christian or true Muslim. Such categories are pointless. — Tom Storm

Then how can you say that someone is a "former Christian" or a "former Muslim" or that they are "now an atheist"?

If terms denoting religious identity don't meaningfully apply, then how come you think they temporarily do apply?

Not to mention a no true Scotsman fallacy. — wonderer1

People often call a NTS fallacy in situations where there is actually a genuine ambiguity at hand. As such, it's not a case of a fallacy at all.

Terms denoting religious, political, national, or racial identity are usually complex, multilayered, subject to debate. As such, it's no wonder different people can mean different things by the same word. This doesn't make anyone's input fallacious. But it does make those calling out a NTSF in such situations simpletons ...