This isn't merely about competing desires. It's about being sure that one is doing the right thing, the ethical, moral thing.
— baker

What you're describing is a competing desire: a desire to be moral or, hopefully, to act upon a moral impulse. — Kenosha Kid

No. I'm talking about actually being certain about one's sense of right and wrong. I'm talking about being certain that A is morally right, and that B is morally wrong.

When a person reflects on the morality of a particular prospective action of theirs, and is unable to come to a definitive conclusion as to whether said action is morally right or not, this is when their motivaiton falters.

Look at this, for example:

I don't think I need an especially elevated moral ground to not be okay with throwing acid in women's faces. I'm sorry you're not there yet. — Kenosha Kid

So there are Western feminists who severely criticize some men for how they treat women, saying how those men are oppressing women. Yet these same Western feminists are, in terms of principle, doing the very same thing they criticize others for.

Or maybe women are supposed to be so happy because Western feminists are not throwing acid into their faces, but are, instead, only seeing themselves as the arbiters of women's reality?

This is why I don't share in the fierce moral indignation that some Western feminists display. Because they still consider themselves to be the ones who get to define what a woman's thoughts are, what a woman's intentions are, what a woman's words and actions mean. They get to act in bad faith, they get to jump to conclusions and think the worst of some woman. They get to consider the woman guilty until she proves herself innocent, on their terms.

There seems to be asymmetry that needs to be made explicit: we don't need a reason to live as much as we need one to die. — TheMadFool

THERE is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is
not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether
or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards.
These are games; one must first answer.

This is how Camus opens his Myth of Sisyphus. (I'm surprised nobody brought it up yet.)
He formulates the matter as such: It's not about having a reason to live, it's about having a reason not to kill yourself.

However, the question "What is your reason for living?" is misleading, insofar as living is the default, and as such, there's no specific personal reason for it
— baker

Except it isn't the default. It's a choice. — Darkneos

I suppose it is so for some people, but I'm not sure it was a choice for them for as long as they can remember.

Since religion seems to be an emotional subject, it appears like most people cannot drop these prejudices, so philosophy of religion discussions, amongst the undisciplined, tend to be very bad. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not just about prejudice:
It's that the religious/spiritual resent to ever live up to what they preach. They resent to be called on to fulfil their promises. They want to be respected, they want to be trusted, they want to be submitted to. And they want to get money. But they don't want to do any of that for others. They expect that the others, the non-religious and the non-spiritual must take the first step, be the first ones to show compassion, generosity, charity. Because the religious/spiritual sure as hell aren't going to. The religious/spiritual demand to be acknowledged, but they don't want to acknowledge others. They have a "You owe us" attitude.

This reflects in the way that communications on the topic of religion/spirituality usually take place. Of course it's frustrating to try to have a two-way conversation with someone who believes he's your boss and that you owe him.

Remember, the thread is about 'bad theology'. And theology presents a specific problem, which is that atheism often doesn't think that there could be anything about it that's worth understanding. — Wayfarer

Given the way that theists tend to treat others, this is no surprise.

In other words, to even consider the subject of theology on its own terms, requires some degree of willingness to consider that it contains a valid subject matter.

This is simply shifting the responsibility onto the atheists.

It's the theists, or more generally, the religious/spiritual, who expect that everyone else will play by their rules and take for granted that they have something of value to offer.

It's more like they took the appeal to emotion fallacy to it, which is what most of these reasons for living are, fallacies. — Darkneos

In one sense, it all comes down to emotions, one way or another, depending on how one defines "emotion". I already mentioned Matthew Ratcliffe earlier. He talks about "existential feelings" and he offers a broader understanding of emotions than we're used to from mainstream psychology. So that's one source to look into to get an alternative perspective on the matter.


However, the question "What is your reason for living?" is misleading, insofar as living is the default, and as such, there's no specific personal reason for it.

Here's a thing to keep in mind: it's the laws of particular countries that are wrong, not the clothing they command.

Sometimes this gets mixed up. — Banno

What gets to me in these discussions is that feminists (be they women or men) propose to have so much concern and compassion for women somewhere on the other end of the world, but muster none for the woman they're talking to right there on the spot.

So these feminists bring up some obvious point of injustice or abuse, and then harp and hammer on it. And when there are others who don't join them in a "muh tribe" manner, those feminists ostracize those others as The Enemy and The Misogynist.

It's a surefire way to prevent any discussion of the matter and to maintain the status quo. While in the meantime, the plight of women, once more, goes unnoticed.

I can generally spot the spiritually illiterate (who are numerous) from a sentence or two.
— Wayfarer
/.../
I strongly disagree with this. — Metaphysician Undercover

On the other hand, spirituality/religion is not a charity organization. The religious/spiritual are not here to help people; they're just "doing their thing". The religious/spiritual are not going to teach anyone the "basics of spirituality". Apparently, one has to learn this somehow on one's own, there's no school for it.
The religious/spiritual don't stoop to the level of newbies and the otherwise "spiritually illiterate".



-- I agree with you. I used to think the way you describe above, and in my more optimistic hours, I still think this way. But I learned the hard way that spirituality/religion, is, essentially, a kind of snobism, and that if one isn't able to be that kind of snob, one will never make spiritual/religious progress.

So eating an icecream simply because eating an icecream brings forth happiness is not a good reason? I dont get that. — DoppyTheElv

Is it morally right to eat ice cream?

This has already been covered in the above discussion, e.g.

Competing desires weigh in on whether the ultimate decision taken is logical -- eating ice cream when you are obese is illogical if you wish to lose weight -- but those aside, logic dictates that that which you will to be done is that which you act to realise.
— Kenosha Kid — Kenosha Kid

No, read on what I said:

One also has to desire the _right_ thing. The thing that is morally, ethically right.
It's at this point that the whole idea of the will to pleasure breaks down. — baker

This isn't merely about competing desires. It's about being sure that one is doing the right thing, the ethical, moral thing. It's about believing, for example, "Yes, it is morally right to eat ice cream".

If one doesn't have that moral certainty that the thing one desires to do is also the morally right thing to do, and is aware of this lack, then the motivation for acting on the desire will diminish.

(This is how people who don't think about the moral dimension of their desires and their actions characteristically don't have problems in this department, nor are they able to emphatize with those who do.)

I blame Start Trek for popularizing a false understanding of the term "logic".

I still maintain that you are using the term bad faith to justify a whole process of seeing the bad in others. Sometimes, when we see bad in others it involves psychological projection. — Jack Cummins

Then you maintain wrongly.

Seeing the bad in others: focusing on the facts that the person has a criminal record, is in a wheelchair, is Jewish, female, whatever. Seeing the bad in others is about certain facts about the other person.

Thinking the worst about people is only inspired by some facts, and the rest is extrapolation/projection.
As in, "Oh, this person is black. Surely he'll try to white guilt me!" or "Oh, this person is in a wheelchair. Surely he'll try to extort me for help!"

Ultimately the only reason for doing anything is that you desire it to be done — Kenosha Kid

Think about desiring to do drugs or rob banks. Or bite your fingernails.

Desiring to do something (and knowing one enjoys it) is not a sufficient reason to do it, nor to want to do it.
One also has to desire the _right_ thing. The thing that is morally, ethically right.

It's at this point that the whole idea of the will to pleasure breaks down.

Awww.

I am not sure that what you are talking about under the guise of 'bad faith' is not really a misuse of the term bad faith. I certainly don't think you are using it in the way Sartre intended. — Jack Cummins

Sartre can go suck on a lemon.

Read up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

You speak of the importance of looking for the bad in someone. — Jack Cummins

Read again: I'm talking about approaching interactions in bad faith, in ill will. Not about looking for the bad in people.

I was replying to KK talking about the "automatic reaction to think the worst of people". And I pointed out that those who think the worst of people tend to be better off: they win, they prevail.

What's helping you win arguments and prevail?

Is there anything as real as words?

This automatic reaction to think the worst of people when there are perfectly good explanations possible seems like a symptom to me.

I think that has a lot to do with how we live and how much of our autonomy we have to surrender to live that way. We live in a world of strangers and that is not what we're built for. We feel helpless to make things right and that's not what we're built for either. — Kenosha Kid

Nah. Bad faith and ill will are evolutionarily advantageous.
The social contract actully teaches us that it's good to think bad of people. If you can corner someone by thinking the worst of them, you win in that evolutionary struggle for survival/one-upmanship.

When it stops listening. — Wayfarer

To listen is not to be a man.

To attribute powers to something which may or may not exist to begin with, seems like an odd starting point to any discussion. — Present awareness

Yet it has never stopped the religious nor the philosophers from doing it.

They're not just milder, they're qualitatively different. If you accept a position at a firm with a dress code then, like a nun, you have weighed up whether conformity is something you're willing to adhere to get something you want. — Kenosha Kid

For one, the nun probably isn't weighing her options like that. I wouldn't assume nuns or prospective nuns generally do that. There was a time when I wanted to become a Catholic nun, and I can say from personal experience that the standards of dress were never an issue for me; it went without saying that if I were to become a nun, I would wear the habit or whatever standard attire would be prescribed by the order. I have also not felt in any way oppressed by the standard of dress for nuns; there was no fear involved in the prospect of wearing the habit. On the contrary, I looked forward to it, I felt proud about it. I dare say I am not the only one who thinks so.
Becoming and being a nun is just not for every woman, nor is every woman required to be one. Your generalizations don't apply.

For two, one needs a job, and the options are, for many people, rather limited. The dress code is sometimes a necessary evil. But because the job is a necessity, one views the requirements of the job in a similar way as one views the requirements of one's citizenship, which one received simply by being born into a certain country (as is the case for most people): it's a preexisting unilaterally imposed obligation over which one has no say.

However when weighing up whether or not to wear a headdress in public, you are weighing up whether or not the risk of insane and hateful punishment is worth taking.

I don't know. How many Muslim women have you interviewed about this?

From what you've said, I surmise that you're assuming that the baseline from which all women all over the world all over history start (or from which they should start) is the same: that they all want to live by a certain Western secular standard; and that if they can't live by that standard, they feel oppressed and only follow social norms out of fear.

This is where you're wrong.

Wanting a particular job is not on the same spectrum as not wanting acid in your face. That's the troubling aspect about this.

It's a false dichotomy to begin with.

There are milder, broader issues around things like dress and oppression. Transvestites are often attacked by homophobes. However a) it's comparatively rare, not systematic, and

b) the victim has recourse to the law.

Recourse to the law in "civilized" countries?
Where do you live???!

Yes, we have laws, on paper, but they're only as good as how much money and power one has.

The same coersion that forces women to wear particular clothing in public (which is far more totalitarian than just in the workplace) will typically either place them outside of the protection of the law, or else under a law that supports that mode of oppression. We're talking the kinds of countries that stone women to death for being raped. Even in the most comparable cases, it's qualitatively different.

Your most fundamental mistake is that you think that Western secular men are better feminists than any woman could ever be.

Heaven knows you feel a fierce moral indignation and your armor is shining on your white horse.

There is a tendency to focus on the ‘victim’ as the passive object of our concern, rather than as a free-thinking agent who has been limited under conditions of culturally perceived potentiality. Men want to rescue the victim from certain ‘forces’, without examining the conditions that attribute potentiality to these ‘forces’ rather than the agent. It is these conditions of perceived potentiality - in particular what a woman’s clothing means regarding the potential and value of interactions with her - that women are rarely given a say in as free-thinking agents, in any culture. THIS is an area of concern. — Possibility

Exactly. And there's a name for this wanting to rescue others, seeing them as helpless victims: white knighting.
This, combined with being a social justice warrior makes it impossible to actually discuss any social problem, and makes sure that the conversation is kept on the surface of the issue, while the deeply embedded factors that bring about and maintain the very problem that the SJW and WK want to save the poor victim from, are left intact.

It's a way of maintaining the status quo while pretending to be acting for change.

And you're a seeming apologist for some of the worst practices in the world. — tim wood

"Seeming" being the operative word.

My bad if I misunderstand. Please correct me.

No, that's not good enough.

But being confirmed by lack of correction, I shall respond as I see fit, and the standard you're setting abysmally low.

There you go. You think that with an attitude like you've been displaying here toward me and some others, you invite open discussion? Too bad this forum doesn't have the type of report function that some others have, because I've been wanting to report you from the beginning of this.

The standard of discussion that you're setting here is abysmally low and does not warrant much engagement.

I feel disgusted by your attitude.

I am at a loss to account for just how you-all can be as ignorant and stupid as you're being with the arguments you're presenting here, and disgusting. — tim wood

I'm not going to defend stances that you merely imagine I hold.

I've been polite to you so far, but you're abusing it.

exercising their right to choose what to wear — tim wood

Really? The constitution of Iran states that people can wear whatever they want??

But we're not talking about whether it's good for a woman's CV: we're talking about whether it would result in her having acid thrown in her face, or restrictions of freedoms, or domestic abuse, or loss of life. The man in a bikini example is directly comparable to a nun choosing not to wear her habit, not to a Muslim wearing a chador for fear of death or disfigurement. I find the false equivalence of these quite alarming. — Kenosha Kid

It's not an equivalence. I'm saying those repercussions are on a spectrum.

The repercussions that someone in the West will face for not living up to dress standards are, of course, far milder than elsewhere in the world. However, even those repercussions can end up having lasting and even fatal consequences, such as becomnig homeless due to job loss and dying in the street.

My point is that we in the West are not free either, and we make many choices out of fear of repercussions.

This sort of thinking is precisely how the pandemic has become so protracted. A refusal to do it once and do it right because business comes first has killed off many more businesses and people than just accepting the necessary measures to handle the pandemic properly. — Kenosha Kid

If you want to apportion blame (and emphasize personal responsibility), then the blame lies with the employees who chose to go to work instead of losing their jobs. In the beginning of the pandemic, this is what was happening: if people chose to respect the quarantene, not just a few employers would count that as their vacation time or sick leave, and when those ran out, it was "Go to work or lose your job."

Also, asking whether those worst affected by measures of they are in favour of them is rather dishonest. Such measures are statistical, taken for the sake of the whole population in order to minimise, not simply eradicate, harm. Those unfortunate enough to be the worst affected have no right to insist that every person saved by those measures should instead be dead for their sake.

So how does a person come to terms with this?
In fact, I'll start a thread.

I remember once saying to a woman I knew, that I had spent time questioning my way through the Catholic beliefs I has been taught. She replied, 'But that would be too much work.' — Jack Cummins

I have noticed that religious people can be strangely disassociated from their religious beliefs. I've known Catholics who, for all practical intents and purposes, believe that the Catholic doctrine is none of their business. That they are just a lowly person in the pew and that the doctrine is not something over which they have any say.

It's just that currently that decision exists within a culture where oppressive [forces are] prominent. — Kenosha Kid

To a lesser or greater extent, this applies to any choice people make anyway.

It's not like it would be acceptable for, say, a male bank teller to come to work wearing a bikini. He probably wouldn't be stoned for it, but it would certainly not be good for his reputation and his CV.

Oppressive social forces are always at work, in every culture. The only difference is in how they externally manifest.

In the oh so civilized West, people can get fired for trifles. How's that not bad?

Oh dear. This thread is in the Political Philosophy section. I only saw this now.

Pay them poorly, make them feel disposable and always wonder when you will have to close your doors. — Book273

I suppose that's true for small companies, but I'm not so sure about the bigger ones.

Consider how worse it would be without that section. At least that section serves the purpose of containing the religious garbage in one place. — emancipate

So what is your suggestion: Where should people go and what should they do in order to learn and practice criticial thinking?
(Other than college courses and similar.)

It seems to me that for most people, criticial thinking (as is understood in secular academia) is an impenetrably foreign thing.

Your title says
"Bad theology as an introduction to philosophical thinking".

From what I've seen, for not just a few people, religious apologetics, specifically, monotheistic apologetics is the first and last encounter with some kind of philosophical thinking.

It was the first such encounter for me.

Wow. You're not a typical capitalist!

Can you actually see a square circle?

If you can't see it, it's moot as to whether God can make one or not.

Is it possible to have something more infinite then infinity? How could something that goes on without end, have MORE without end? — Present awareness

By going in circles.

I'm talking about one's purpose for trying to prove or disprove God's omnipotence, not about belief or disbelief in God.

If you care so much about what others expect of you, you will never be free. — Olivier5

If you don't care much about what others expect of you, you put yourself at risk of their anger and their revenge.