Seasonal greetings to Humpty Dumpty land!

With a screen name like yours, I expected better.

You provided an example already. Women who think Covid vax will make them infertile (there is no evidence for this). — Tom Storm

Have you read the rest? Typical male.

But others include; people with mental illness who think that covid medication will allow the police to control their behaviour. Because of negative experiences with involuntary psychiatric medication in their past.

Aboriginal Australians thinking the medication with kill them or make them sick because of negative experiences with 'white medicine' in the past. Incidentally I am working with Aboriginal staff and elders to encourage Aboriginal people to have their vaccinations.

People with alcohol misuse who believe that alcohol helps them to survive life (they can drink away traumatic memories). Here's the tip - it doesn't work.

All of these appear to be reasonable positions to hold but are ultimately unhelpful.

What's the use of saving your body when it costs you your soul?

You appear to be completely unaware of the effect that your attitudes have on people, or you just don't care.

And you're not alone in this. There are many high politicians and other influential people who have those same attitudes, and who appear to be oblivious to the effect that those attitudes have on people. That those attitudes are counterproductive to the goal of increasing people's trust in the medical system and the vaccination rates.

Where is there chance in the present moment?
— baker

There’s no saying what will happen. — Wayfarer

Do explain why lack of prescience is evidence of chance.

Riiight, you are the embodiment of kindness.

What's wrong with materialism? Matter's true nature is unknown. It stays mystique, even if it's matter "only". — Khalif

What's wrong with materialism? That materialists typically _don't_ believe things like "Matter's true nature is unknown. It stays mystique".

Salvation from eternal damnation, nirvana, etc. depending on the individual religion.

Try to keep up. — Xtrix

You know, I will repay you and your ilk for this contempt.

We weren't talking about what happens on the ground between doctors and patients, so this is irrelevant. — Xtrix

It's the level on which trust in the medical system is build, or destroyed.

A point you keep avoiding. You want people to trust the medical system, but you want this trust to be build on something other than the actual interaction with said system.

*sigh*

It looks like you're wed to the position that religion is ineffective, that it doesn't deliver what it promises -- and that this is perfectly okay.

I am trying NOT TO UNDERMINE trust. — Olivier5

Oh, but you are undermining trust: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/599142



QUESTION: Are the vocal pro-vaccers willing to sacrifice their hatred and contempt against the unvaccinated in exchange for better vaccination rates?

No one is arguing perfection. — Xtrix

Given your righteous indignation, given your contempt, your hatred: only perfection justifies and warrants those.

If you want to be justified hate people for not thinking and acting the way you think they should, then you better be perfect.

Nothing to do with the government. It's the whole health sector we are talking about. And not during a pandemic. Sowing doubt for no good reason in situations of crisis is antisocial. — Olivier5

As long as the discussion is limited to philosophy forums, there should be no problem.

Vaccination gives us a tool to work to that end. Collectively.

But look at Israel. Sky high vaccination rates achieved early on, yet the vast majority of covid patients requring hospital care are fully vaccinated. This trend is observable in other countries too: the percentage of the fully vaccinated hospitalized is growing.

So we speak to one another about the pros and cons. It's not entirely entirely certain and all proven, it's a new technology after all, but it seems to reduce both incidence and gravity. But we GET it. It's a necessary leap of faith. Yes there's some social pressure to get vaccinated, as there should be. It's a mater of survival.

Pressure? It's flat out hatred, contempt.

The fact of the mater is that trust of the average citizens in one another, in one's neighbours, is close to zero in the DRC. This sentiment may be well-founded in their case but it still creates a lot of problems.

That such a sentiment be justified in Congo doesn't make it justified where I live, where reasonable levels of trust in one's neighbours, as well as in public institutions still exist, and for good reason, and where this trust is an asset. — Olivier5

Croatia has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the EU, around 50%. There is a public debate as to why this is so and what can be done.

Some Croatian social scientists say that the reason why many people don't get vaccinated is because they don't trust the government. More importantly, that they are justified in this distrust, given that the government has a track history of letting many people down (ie. the institutions aren't doing their work, the legal system panders to the rich and powerful), and that it has been doing this for the past 30 years.

They also say that the solution isn't in trying to change people's beliefs (it's too late for this by now, and it takes too long), but that by now, only practical measures (read: coercion) can make a difference.

I just meant that science doesn't really offer soapboxes to preach from. People make science into a church to back their misanthropy or what have you. — frank

Absolutely. Righteous indignation is so addictive.

The question is: should the population (laypeople) trust the CDC and the WHO? Yes, they should. Should we trust scientists? Yes, we should. — Xtrix

Irrelevant.

I live in a region with one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country, and the national television gives considerable attention to this region (apparently in an effort to increase the vaccination rate).

Just the other day, the head of the local health clinics said on national television that some doctors in those health clinics advised people not to get vaccinated. (Note: We have a public health care system and all those doctors are licensed by the state to practice medicine.)

The vaccination rate for medical personnel is around 70%.

The government did not make it mandatory for medical personnel to get vaccinated (but made it mandatory for the military and the police, and some other government institutions).


Given this, what are ordinary people supposed to do?

What does it help if the national health institute says one thing, but the government does something else?
What does it help if the national health institute says one thing, but on the ground level, even medical personnel is skeptical about vaccination?

So the question is: how many times does the consensus of experts need to be proven true before we simply (as laypeople) trust them? — Xtrix

Irrelevant. What is relevant is what happens on the ground level.

Ie. in terms of medicine, what is relevant is how actual doctors and other medical personnel actually interact with actual patients. This is the level at which trust is build, or destroyed.

When people quite consistently have the experience that what those "high up" (ie. the scientists in fancy medical journal and news features) say is one thing, and what their doctor tells them is another one, this erodes trust in the entire medical system.

When people quite consistently hear on the news about great medical advances (that could potentially help wih their medical problem), but then on the ground level see that those medical technologies are not available to them or prohibitively expensive, this erodes trust in the entire medical system.

To say nothing of doctors who don't listen, who amputate the wrong leg (and aren't held accountable), clumsy nurses, waiting lines so long -- years long -- that by the time one's scheduled time for a knee surgery comes, it's too late to save the knee, and so on. One can stomach some of this, but there is a limit to it. At some point, one loses trust in the entire medical system.

It's just that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't care about anyone's freedom. The virus replicates propagates mutates unchecked in whatever fertile grounds, leaving victims in its wake, and that's a social thing with consequences as well as personal. — jorndoe

Here's the thing: Why don't the vocal pro-vaccers (who claim to be taken hostage by the unvaccinated) put their money where their mouth is and limit health care (and other things) for the unvaccinated?

If the vocal pro-vaccers believe they are so right, so superior to the unvaccinated, then what on earth is stopping them from passing laws in accordance with that?

What threat are the unvaccinated to the vaccinated? If there is still a threat even though you are vaccinated, then why get vaccinated at all? If I can still carry and spread the virus even though I'm vaccinated, then what purpose is there to get vaccinated?
— Harry Hindu

Are you familiar with the notion of 'more or less' as opposed to 'all or nothing'? — Janus

The issue is whether the limited effectiveness of the vaccines warrants the hatred and the contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers are directing at anyone who isn't all that enthusiastic about the vaccines.

That would indeed be ridiculous if the vaccine were only 10% effective. (Although I suppose it would still be a little better than nothing). Are you convinced that is an accurate assessment of its efficacy? — Janus

There is a huge demand for the Janssen vaccine now in Slovenia, given that a covid passport is needed for pretty much everything, and the Janssen vaccine is the quickest way to get it (it's just one dose and the passport is valid immediately after vaccination).
So this vaccine is now under the spotlight.

It was the head of a major vaccination center here who said Janssen's effectiveness was so low. He said he wouldn't get vaccinated with it, but would choose one with a better effectiveness.

I don't know whom or what to believe.

Look at what the EU covid vaccination document says -- see the part in English on the left side:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/O%C4%8Dkovac%C3%AD_certifik%C3%A1t_-_vzor.jpg

"The scientific evidence on COVID-19 vaccination, testing and recovery continues to evolve, also in view of new variants of concern of the virus."

In legal terms, this is a waiver of liability, if not even more than that.

What prima facie case is there that there ought not to be chance? — Wayfarer

Your question reveals your implicit materialism.

( ;) It can happen to the best of Buddhists that a hint of materialism sneaks into their thinking.)

This is wrong view:

These are the seven substances — unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar — that do not alter, do not change, do not interfere with one another, and are incapable of causing one another pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain.

"'And among them there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one cuts off [another person's] head, there is no one taking anyone's life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword passes.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

My view here is just to accept there have been and currently are truly fucked up stewards of our religious traditions. — Hanover

Why close our eyes to the obvious? Why not consider the possibility that religion is the way it is precisely because it is intended to be that way?

We don't have to agree on what the word means for other people, we merely have to use the word in a way that facilitates further conversation. — Ennui Elucidator

And the limits of this approach have been reached in the OP of this thread.

One can speak of Christianity usefully without drawing distinct boundaries around its usage.

Useful to whom? Someone who wishes to paint religion as impotent? To excuse it? To make it seem less formidable?

The difference between us, Baker, is that you probably don't know the religious people that I know. It is tough to have a serious conversation about modern religion with a person that is committed to fighting religious battles from prior to the 1950s. Yes, lots of people haven't moved on. Many in the intellectual community have. — Ennui Elucidator

So in the name of the politically correct love of novelty and "moving on", we should summarily envision religion as impotent, ineffective, and most of all, non-factual, so that we can come up with a theory of religion that is currently fashionable and enables us to stay relevant in the current business of academic writing about religion?

So when the Protestants claimed that the Catholics weren't Christian and the Catholics claimed that the Protestants weren't, one of them magically ceased to be Christian? Or maybe you think that the Catholics never created their own litmus test for what a true Christian was that is in opposition to what other groups defined as a true Christian? — Ennui Elucidator

I'm saying that in order to have a meaningful discussion, we can't treat words like they can mean anything anyone wants them to mean.

We must agree on a meaning of a term (in this case, of "Christian"), or we better cease discussing.

Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory? — Athena

Why should this be the relevant dichotomy?

There are accounts of an outsider being accepted by a tribe. A tribe being a relatively small group of people who know each other and who is related to whom. Religion takes us beyond the tribal limits. However, the 3 God of Abraham religions are also tribal in nature. Including outsiders was for sure a problem for Hebrews and also Athenians. We are still struggling with that today. Like how can someone who looks different from me, be an equal member of my group? If that person can't even speak my language, how can that person be one of us? I don't think the outsider is one of us, however, there are steps to being one of us. — Athena

When I point out the issue of membership in a religious/spiritual community, I do this for the following reason:
In order for a person to properly conduct the religious/spiritual practices of a religion and to attain its goal, the person must be at least the member of said religion's epistemic community. Typically, this means also being physically a member of said community (with all the socio-economic obligations that come with that).

Otherwise, the person just dabbles on in a religion/spirituality, never attaining what he was supposed to attain (and possibly wasting a lot of time and resources).

The Celts are gone, so one cannot become a member of their epistemic community; and even if they would still exist, it's questionable whether they would see outsiders as fit to practice their religion/spirituality.
The situation with the Native Americans (what is left of them) is similar as far as outsiders are concerned.

It's tempting to read about the spiritual beliefs of this or that religion/spirituality, such as the Native Americans, and to think that one could practice those beliefs. It is not clear that one can meaningfully do so, unless one is actually a member of theirs.

Can we get beyond being accepted or not, a very serious Jewish, Christian, Muslim, concern and get in touch with our feelings? — Athena

How is "getting in touch with your feelings" going to help with anything?

And "getting in touch with your feelings" according to whose idea of "getting in touch with your feelings"?

Mother earth gave me life and she will receive me when I die, no matter what I believe or do, and that has cultural and political ramifications.

That's your belief, one certainly not shared by many others.

How much can we control people who do not fear being rejected or punished by a Father?

Eh?

What does it mean to have a "spiritual notion" in the first place? — Nickolasgaspar

To suck up to whatever New Age guru currently holds our fancy.

Ancient Celtic Religion - Wikipedia

If so little is known about Celtic religion, I wonder how much is known about Celtic spirituality? — Apollodorus

They're dead and gone, so they're fair game for anyone who wants to romanticize them.
Rather rude, in my opinion.

In the West Islam is far more likely to spread as it has done for decades - through immigration, high birth-rates, and conversions. — Apollodorus

And Turkish soap operas! They are promoting Islam lite, offering a point of contact between Western culture (soap operas depicting romance, personal and family tribulations) and Muslim culture (those tribulations are effectively addressed within the Muslim religious context, wjhich can nevertheless be made to appear secular enough).

1. Dawkins focuses on the fact of Islam, or Christianity or any other religion being factually incorrect.
But what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion? — stoicHoneyBadger

Then Dawkins clearly didn't think this through.

If he wants to demote religion from any notion of facticity, then it's on him to prove, show, evidence, that the various religious claims are not true.

By "factually incorrect" you mean what?
That there is no heaven, no eternal damnation, and no nibbana?
— baker

Pretty much. Also that Jesus probably didn't do any miracles, etc. — stoicHoneyBadger

In that case, it's on you to prove that there is no heaven, no eternal damnation, no nirvana, that Jesus probably didn't do any miracles, etc., for you are the one making those claims.

Unless we are religious ourselves, i.e. have a vested interest in who gets to define the word, it is more "intellectually honest" to both recognize and affirm the various uses of a term in the variety of contexts in which it is used. — Ennui Elucidator

Which brings us deep into Humpty Dumpty land.

A claim of what is "essential" about Christianity is normative, not descriptive.

Of course. A discussion of religion should be about what is normative in it. Focusing merely on the descriptive is an exercise in politically correct futility, for that way, anything goes, and anything can pass for anything.

The object isn't to take Jesus. It's just to note that whether he actually walked the earth and did the things suggested shouldn't matter. So the claim goes, salvation from eternal damnation requires faith that Jesus died for your sins. — Hanover

No, it requires more than that. Belief in the historicity of Jesus is essential to Christianity. One has to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, or else the whole project of salvation becomes moot.

If we learned there were no actual Ebenezer Scrooge or Tiny Tim, would the moral that even the coldest souls are capable of redemption be impacted? — Hanover

What a strange idea. People don't believe that "even the coldest souls are capable of redemption" based on the story of Ebenezer Scrooge.

The point in religion is that particular moral tenets have to be believed for the right reasons.
Ie., e.g. you have to believe that stealing is bad not because your mommy told you so or because you don't like being stolen from, but because God said that stealing was wrong.

That there was no talking fox means his sour grapes story is bullshit?

The type of problem you point to comes from reading literature primarily in a didactic, ideological sense, from reducing literature to a didactic, ideological message. It's a moralistic approach typical for American literary theory, but it is far from universal. It's not how we would read literature in continental Europe, for example.

Also, to throw this in there, the evolution to monotheism was a positive moment in the intellectual history of humanity. It moved us from a world of competing anthropomorphic physical gods to a single incorporeal conceptual god posited to offer meaning and generalized explanations for the our existence. — Hanover

But this didn't do away with interreligious competition. On the contrary, it made it worse, far worse.

What do we learn from this story? Kindness to evil is a sin. Compare and contrast to "turn the other cheek." Different ethical principles I guess, which is why the word "Judeo-Christian" ethics makes no sense to me. — Hanover

Yet Jesus himself didn't turn the other cheek.

https://aleteia.org/2017/02/22/jesus-didnt-turn-the-other-cheek-neither-should-you/

Your ideas about the value of honesty need to be supported. Being a philosopher, I'm sure you are aware of "the noble lie". That the noble lie is somehow wrong, or immoral, is a very difficult claim to support. We might support it with the principle of "equality", but equality isn't real so as much as it might provide a legal base, it provides no moral base.

We might try a Christian principle like love your neighbour, but for some reason we still see the efficacy in lying to those whom we love.

Where do you derive the idea that the betterment of mankind might be accomplished without dishonesty? — Metaphysician Undercover

From not being a Mahayani or an Abrahamist.

The problem is the Christian denial of the less tasteful aspects of their history. — Banno

Where you go wrong is in assuming that they secretly believe they've done something wrong.
They don't believe they did. From their perspective, they are not in denial. No, on the contrary: they are righteous, they don't believe they have done anything they should be ashamed of.

To all, Christianity introduced charity is a way that was not found in other religions and philosophies. They built hospitals and freed slaves, things previously unheard of. — Banno

And at what cost!
We'll give you food, shelter, medical care -- and in return, you convert to our religion.
Christian charity always comes with the string of conversion attached. They may have destroyed the memory of Greek culture, but they surely preserved one item from it: the Danaean gift.

if one allows religion not to be factually correct, to consist in metaphor and allegory, for the betterment of mankind, then does that mean it need not be honest?

Yes.

To my eye, and I suppose you will agree, the dive into darkness that followed the destruction of classical culture was tragic. — Banno

That can't be, as the term "tragic", as it is used in Greek classical literature, can be used only in reference to royals, but not the commoners, and not even to aristocracy. Drowning a baby prince, heir to the throne, is a tragedy. Terrorists blowing up a bus of schoolchildren (none of whom is a royal), is not.
It's kind of ironic, the way the Greeks' conception of what qualifies for tragic turned out to their demise.

People calling themselves Christian both proclaimed the legitimacy of slavery and fought for its abolition. Neither group was an apologistor any less Christian than the other. History (constructed as it might be) simply does not bear out an enduring strain of religion from early adoption through hundreds of years of people carrying on its name, iconography, or myths. Even in its foundation Christianity had multiplicity of thought with warring factions, some of which continued on and some which were snuffed out. — Ennui Elucidator

So "Christian" is a term like "white", "black", "Scottish", ie. it's not a term denoting a particular quality or set of qualities, but a term that is not specifically linked to any quality, but is merely a name?

And more should not be expected from humans than from some animals?
— baker

It should, but we err if we deny our core nature — Michael Zwingli

So our core nature is to kill, rape, and pillage?

If this is our core nature, then why take issue with killing, raping, and pillaging, whether it be done in the name of religion or not?

What you say is true but I wonder is there a difference in the foundational nature of government and religion? Is religion not founded on and galvanized by notions of moral correctness and inclusivity and fairness and charity and righteousness, making religion's considerable violations all the more hypocritical and scandalous; — Tom Storm

Depends on what you mean by inclusivity, fairness, charity, and righteousness.
Sure, religions are inclusive in the sense of, "Anyone can join our religion, regardless of their race, gender, background".
They are fair in the sense of Might makes right.
They are charitable in the sense that religious people let you live, even though they consider themselves entitled to kill you.
And they are righteous, because they are true to their convictions.

while the business of politics is by nature conflictual and partisan? Religion also tends to maintain that it holds the truth, while government rarely gets any more totalizing than expressing broadly held community values.

Funny, our government keeps saying how the vast majority of people in this country do not have access to the truth, and that they (the government) are the defenders of the truth (but that inthe spiriti of democracy, they let others have their opinions, however wrong).

I can't actually think of a politician who would not make a point of emphasizing the term "truth".

I think you're right. Most religions ask unacceptable behavior from followers and seek to impose their often bigoted and unsophisticated views on the world. — Tom Storm

???

But the difference with religion is it makes unverifiable claims about bettering the world.

I have never seen any religion make such a claim. Do provide at least three examples of it.

To the best of my knowledge, religions typically take a dim view of the world, don't view it as having potential for betterment. They have a fatalistic and deterministic view of the world -- which goes hand in hand with their doctrine of salvation. "The world is a shitty place, destined for doom, and this is why you need us, the religious, to help you get through life as unscathed by it as possible, and eventually be saved from doom."

Religions should stop playing the morality card and recognize that they have nothing to offer that any social club can't offer too.

Religions can offer metaphysical justifications. Something that sewing circles characteristically can't.

This violent nature, however, appears rather uncalculated, but rather instinctual. — Michael Zwingli

And more should not be expected from humans than from some animals?

It's not surprising. Epistemic autonomy is the holy grail for many people.

Art is for snobs.