My thoughts are that I agree, up to the 'instead' (I have no time for certainty of any kind) and I disagree with everything after that. I don't think the amount of religious belief or genuine religiosity has changed much. People who want to be religious still are, as they always were. What has changed is that people who don't want to be religious, or who do but don't want to conform to the locally dominant religious dogma, no longer have to pretend to believe it on pain of being ostracised or burnt at the stake.

Sure, why not?

If you're prepared to contemplate the uncontemplatable there is arguably a loophole in that Gödel's incompleteness theorem only applies to logical languages with countable alphabets. So it does not rule out the possibility that one might be able to prove 'everything' in a language with an uncountably infinite alphabet.

Such a language would be incomprehensible to we mere humans, or any other finite beings, but one can fantasise about possible infinite mega-beings or deities that might be able to reason in such an alphabet, and hence potentially even 'know everything'.

So if it is unprovable, within a formal axiomatic system, and you cannot decide it's truth value even by going outside the system, what value do you assign to that statement?
How does this fit within the context of Godel's theorems? — guptanishank

Godel's theorem does not say that we cannot prove the statement by going outside the system. Indeed, for the unprovable statements often considered in this context, they can be proved by moving to a meta-system that is larger than the original one and consistent with it. The problem is that there will then be new statements in that meta-system that cannot be proved or disproved (are 'undecidable') in that system. So we need to move to a meta-meta-system to decide those. No matter how many times we do this, the system we end up with will contain new undecidable statements.

If by 'religious need' you just mean the need that many feel to explore and express spiritual feelings and ideas, then I agree that it is likely an in-built feature of the human animal, that manifests in many, but not all, humans. But I don't understand the suggestion that such a need is 'descended from religion'. Such a statement sounds like it's either a trivial tautology obtained by equating spirituality with religion, or obviously false. Either way, I can't see anything that atheists (bless them!) are obliged to acknowledge.

As for quarks, I don't think most people believe in them, so the putative example about faith in quarks is simply counterfactual. The only people for whom belief in quarks is even relevant to their lives are particle physicists, and I bet even a good proportion of them see quarks as simply a handy metaphor, a useful fiction that helps with their calculations.

scientific evidence is "taken on faith" for the average citizen in the West, in the same way that theological conundrums were taken on faith by the average person for centuries. — Noble Dust

Taken on faith yes, but not in the same way, because the act of faith in science is consistently being vindicated in this world, whereas that in religious dogma is not.

The scientist says the light will go on if you press that switch. The average person has no idea why that should be so, but they take it on faith, press the switch, and the light does indeed go on.

But when the hellfire preacher tells us that unmarried couples will be tortured forever after they die, there is no confirmation of that in this world. Perhaps it is confirmed in the experience of members of such couples after they die. I doubt it though, and I certainly hope not.

the West has transferred the religious need to another sphere of inquiry; or more accurately, to another perspective from which to view "reality". But the same moral and existential problems remain.

I haven't seen any arguments from the likes of ↪andrewk and others that actually address this concept. — Noble Dust

Address what? That moral and existential problems still remain? To whom is that supposed to be news? Moral and existential problems are part of the human condition, and I'm not aware of anybody that seeks to deny it - be they pro-religion and pro-science (Francis Collins and, I would suggest, most sensible religious people), pro-religion and anti-science (US fundamentalists and Tony Abbott), pro-science and anti-religion (Richard Dawkins and Laurence Krauss) or anti-religion and anti-science (not sure who this is - Jacques Derrida perhaps?).

As for 'transferring the religious need to another sphere of inquiry' I don't know what that means, or why you think it should be true. If you can clarify what exactly that claim means and provide some reasons to believe it, I'm happy to respond.

It is just a hypothetical text based on my understanding of how science works. — Meta

Yes, and my response to that is that that's not how science works, and that the text is not something that a thoughtful scientist would say.

Theories are not verified. If useful they are maintained as working hypotheses until falsified. Belief that quarks 'actually exist' (whatever that means) is purely optional.

Who do I cooperate with: the priest or the scientist?

Unless the priest is a young-Earth creationist, it is unlikely that you will have to choose between the two. Again, consider Georges Lemaitre.

Is there some need for policy in place that would ensure that not only engineers or computer scientists are rewarded for their time and hassle in college? — Posty McPostface

I don't think I'm following here. Why is there a need for a policy? Won't it just naturally happen that, in the absence of centrally-planned intervention, degrees that people find unrewarding - whether financially, emotionally, spiritually, or in some other way - will cease to be offered because too few people sign up for them?

I have a lot of complaints about how higher education is structured - especially about the conflation of teaching with research, and cross-subsidy of the latter by the former. But I couldn't see anything to complain about in the issue raised in the OP.

believe me our highly qualified scientists know what they are doing and believe us since we are the only ones capable of observing the truth. You can see how many new technologies we have invented so trust me. — Meta

I have never observed a scientist say anything like that about quarks. Why should a scientist care whether a lay person believes in quarks? Such a belief has no consequences for the lay person. What she probably would care about is whether a lay person believes her prediction that a certain observable physical event such as a hurricane will occur - because lives can depend on such a belief.

So, I think the second para above is an unfair and inaccurate depiction of scientists.

But also the first para above is an unfair and inaccurate depiction of many religious leaders. I can't imagine the Dalai Lama or Dietrich Boenhoffer saying anything like the arrogant, dogmatic words that are above ascribed to an imaginary priest.

In addition to which: Georges Lemaitre.

I don't feel any essential connection between emotion and truth. Beauty makes me emotional, whether it is fictional, illusory or something else.

YMMV

As for 'really?' - that seems to me to me more conversational filler, along the lines of 'you know', 'like' and 'you don't say' than about declaring a philosophical position.

Bertie Russell wrote a wonderfully astute essay on the nature of party politics, politicians, experts and the person in the street(gang) around 1930. ("The Need for Political Skepticism") The main strand is that everything political is sadly wrapped up in language and ideas that insists on positing an enemy of some sort. — Jake Tarragon

I will read it as soon as I can. The question that immediately springs to my mind is how he might square that with the political stand he took against conscription in the Great War and the political stand he took against the nuclear arms race in the sixties and seventies.

Perhaps he sees it as consistent, and that positing an enemy is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps his enemies in those two campaigns were the white feather brigade and the military-industrial complex respectively.

Perhaps the answer is that the philosophers that were any good declined to answer the question on the grounds that it is ill-formed and meaningless. :D

3. All thought/belief formation is existentially contingent upon presupposing the existence of an external world.(from1,2) — creativesoul

This cannot be directly deduced from 1 and 2, since neither of them mentions an external world. At best, there may be some steps omitted, that introduce that notion and could bridge that gap, but they'd need to be written out explicitly for it to be convincing.

with the parliament house fence being its most egregious and depressing symbol. — StreetlightX

Yes it's disgusting. I wish they'd be honest and concrete over the lawns so that the building really looks like the fortress of paranoia it has become, rather than the celebration of democracy and egalitarianism that it was designed to be, and of which the freely accessible lawns rolling over the top were such a potent symbol.

We need not go back to Warren G. Harding (1920) for examples of bad presidents. We have Richard Nixon (1968), — Bitter Crank

Was Nixon a bad president - aside from being a crook? From what I've heard of historical accounts of his presidency, there were some good and unexpected things that came out of it. I was under the impression that he founded the EPA and started the process of rebuilding a relationship with China - in fact that as far as policy went, he was quite good on a number of fronts.

Maybe I'm trying too hard to be generous to somebody on the 'other side of politics' (as if there were only two sides, hah!) I'm happy to be corrected by people with tales of terrible policies he promoted. Well, actually I won't be happy. It's always sad to hear bad things about somebody - anybody. But I'll accept it.

"military/armed police"

Only a British resident could write that. Well, actually, I searched and, based on this page, realised I need to add Ireland, Iceland, Norway and New Zealand to that.

Anywhere else - including where I live unfortunately - 'armed police' is a tautology.

I really respect the model where the only police that handle firearms are specialists that have been highly trained and tested for the temperament and capabilities that are needed to be able to handle firearms judiciously and skilfully when under pressure. It seems to work well in the countries where it's used.
Of course, it helps that gun ownership is tightly controlled in those countries.

Here's a BBC article about why British beat police don't carry firearms. I was intrigued by what it says about the effect on the relationship between the police and the public.

Britain has its share of race problems, but people of colour regularly being inappropriately shot by police is not one of them.

When I looked into this a few years ago I observed that the positions of peak medical bodies in countries where there is no significant religious or cultural pressure applied to any such position (hence, not the USA) is that male circumcision in the absence of pathology is not recommended. There are pathological circumstances such as phimosis where it is recommended.

In places where HIV is very high - particularly sub-Saharan Africa - the lessened risk of HIV transmission would be a significant factor, which it is not in other countries. However it would need to be weighed against the likelihood of more grave complications from the procedure in an environment where lower medical support is available and maintaining asepsis post-procedure is more difficult.

For me, the past is real insofar as it affects the present, or can affect the future. Every one of us has been radically shaped by the events in our past, so it is real to every one of us in that sense. The past is of vital importance to working for a better future because we can learn from it. If we know that in the past X was a serial killer and we have no reason to suppose they have changed their mind, we can seek to incarcerate X to prevent them committing suture murders.

With that approach, past events that don't affect anything in the present and cannot affect anything in the future are not real. But when I combine that with my quantum-Nagarjunic-DirkGentlyish philosophy that everything is connected to everything else, I have to count every past event, however trivial, as real, because it will have affected the present and will affect the future.

I wonder whether that story about retroactive child support for a child somebody never knew existed is an urban myth. A bit (not a lot) of internet searching turned up mostly UK sources, which seemed to agree that the Child Support Agency - now the Child Maintenance Service - can only backdate debts to the date when it first contacted the father to demand support payments.

There's no point getting all upset over an injustice that either never happened, or only happens in a few niche legal jurisdictions.

Suppose you start shooting large rocks with a powerful slingshot over buildings in random directions, not knowing where the rocks land. Now suppose that someone gets hit with one of those rocks and loses an eye and you know nothing about it. If some evidence surfaces later that connects you to this injury, should your previous ignorance of the damage you caused get you off the hook? I think not. You should be punished and made at the very least to pay as much as possible for any damages you caused.

Why is sex any different in this respect? — oysteroid

Sex is no different. What is different is that in your example the injured party sued the culprit as soon as they found out who it was, whereas in the child support case they did not. I'm pretty sure that in most jurisdictions if somebody incurred an injury from somebody, chose not to sue, then decided to sue twenty-one years later, the case would not even be admissible to court.

Also, the suing is not consistent with the purpose of child support, which is to be used to provide for the child. If the suing occurs when there is no longer a child, it cannot be used for that purpose.

I could give you a hundred cases at the flick of a Google search where law-abiding Americans defended themselves from home invasion, robbery, rape, and murder. — fishfry

Public policy based on whatever grab-bag of anecdotes an internet search can throw up? Really?
You're a mathematician. You know the importance of basing public policy decisions on credible statistical analysis.

If you can find a single credible statistical analysis that concludes Americans are safer than people in developed countries with normal gun restriction laws, I'd be interested to see it.

By the way, I'm not involved in this issue either, as I am very fortunate to be a citizen of a country where gun-based homicide is not a national sport. My interests in the topic are (1) the fascinating psychological bizarreness of the US gun obsession and (2) sympathy for those people that have to live surrounded by that gun-mania and don't have the resources to be able to re-locate to a safer and more free country.

How about if I imagine God to be the infinite? — TheMadFool

Then I will imagine the powerset of God, which will be a strictly higher order of infinity.

And the next day I will imagine the powerset of that, which will be still greater.

And so on......

That provides no argument at all in favour of lax gun laws. That somebody who has received credible death threats by powerful adversaries needs armed protection is not in dispute, and such armed protection is provided in the most gun-restrictive countries in the world, just as in the most permissive. I can assure you that the protective detail of the British PM are armed, as are the police charged with protecting a key witness against organised crime.

Allowing or providing armed protection for people at grave risk under definite threats bears no relation at all to allowing the vast majority of the population, who are under no specific threat whatsoever, to carry guns wherever and whenever they want.

Surely you agree that this particular being, that which can't even be described, is the greatest being imaginable. — TheMadFool

No, because this morning I imagined a being that is 10% greater than the one I imagined yesterday.

You can imagine a being greater than God, who's omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient? Can you describe such a being? — TheMadFool

Of course not! If it were describable in mere human words, that would hardly be very impressive, would it?

Is that not sufficient to make 1 true? — TheMadFool

No, because I can imagine a being greater than yours.

There's nothing wrong, as you say, in defining God as the ultimate being - the possessor of superlative qualities. Where is the inconsistency in this definition? — TheMadFool

Because saying 'Define God to be the greatest imaginable being' is equivalent to the following sequence of statements:

1. There exists an idea X of a being such that:
a. X can be imagined by at least one human, and
b. for any Y that is an idea of a being, if Y can be imagined by at least one human, then either Y=X or X is greater than Y

2. If statement 1 is true then we label the idea X whose existence is asserted by 1, as 'God'.

Statement 1 is an assertion.
Statement 2 is a definition that only operates if statement 1 is true.

So unless statement 1 is true, we do not even have a definition of 'God'.

And no argument has been supplied to indicate why we should accept statement 1 as true. Indeed, my intuition says very strongly that it is not true - that for any imaginable great being, one can imagine a greater one.

It's reasonable to say ''God is the greatest being imaginable'' because God is defined as such — TheMadFool

In the same sense that it's reasonable to say that 'X is the greatest integer', or perhaps 'Fred is the fattest ten-foot tall man', or 'Nemo is the smallest talking fish' because they are defined as such.

The truth is eternity unless now.

How do you get 'dilemma' out of 'desire'?

The only true dilemma is why shouldn't I act only in accordance with my whims? — Wosret

It is certainly a valid question, and an important question, but why a dilemma?

A dilemma is a decision that is hard to make.

I don't find it hard to decide on the 'whim' question at all. I am confident that my acting solely on my whims would be catastrophic for me and for everyone that I care about.

Do you really find it to be a dilemma?

1. God is the greatest being imaginable [premise] — TheMadFool

Premise 1 is reasonable. — TheMadFool

Really. Why?
The definition in 1 is loaded by containing a hidden premise that there is an idea of a being that can be imagined that is greater than any other idea of a being that can be imagined. Why should that hidden premise be true?

The reason needs to be something that works in that case but not in the following case:

Premise: X is the greatest integer

What might such a reason be?

You say you 'just like it'. I suppose 'it' is the beard, right? That's eminently understandable. What I don't get is why gender issues have to come into it. Can't you just enjoy your beard without having to worry about silly social constructs like gender?

I have grown out a rather nice beard and I feel rather proud of it. — Posty McPostface

Do you like the beard for its own sake (its silky smoothness, the fact that it gives your fingers something new to fiddle with while in business meetings (who needs fidget spinners when one has a nice beard?), or maybe that it keeps your chin warm on icy days), or just because it makes a statement of conformity to certain societal gender expectations?

"Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God." Hosea said. — Bitter Crank

I don't know what that means either. Does God walk humbly and want me to do that too? I have never thought of the biblical version of God as particularly humble.

Doesn't anyone here recognize a distinction between reading and interpreting? — tim wood

The distinction is crucial in a child's early education. For many children there is a phase - sometimes prolonged - when they can read the words of a paragraph but not get the meaning of it. Getting from just reading the words to getting the meaning - we use the word 'Comprehension' in the schools I've been involved with - is a crucial step, and is tested by giving children a passage to read and then asking questions about its meaning.

Mercifully, those questions are sensible things like 'why did Suresh go back to the tennis court?' or 'How do you think Lakshmi was feeling?' rather than 'Does that mean that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son or just from the Father?'

Yes, something is revealed, but the word 'revelation' is not used unless that something is significant. In English one does not say 'I was just browsing through the telephone book and had the revelation that the number of Esme Brown is 9876 5432', unless that piece of information is of particular interest.

something being a revelation has nothing to do with whether you believe it or not. — Agustino

That use of the word 'revelation' is completely different from how I have ever seen it used. You are free to define the word however you want, but with that definition it becomes a weak and trivial word that is of no interest to philosophical discussion. It cannot convey anything of the power and significance of what the stories say happened to Saul on the road to Damascus.

Claude Lefort famously made the distinction between 'politics' and 'the political', where 'politics' accorded to the realm of the party-room and instruments of the state, while 'the political' encompassed actions in the everyday life of people, protest, words, and so on, up to and including the official mechanisms of the state. — StreetlightX

It's a crucial distinction. Sometimes the word 'policy' (policy discussion, policy debate) is used to encompass the second kind and distinguish it from the first. Unfortunately, the distinction is nearly always obscured by media commentators and MPs - sometimes unintentionally, but often, I suspect, with unhelpful intent.

It is a subject of great regret that most of our media political pundits - in Australia at least - focus most of their words on the first type - the power struggles and personalities. This, together with the conflation of that with policy discussion, leads people to turn away from both - thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Criticism of the politicisation of sport - such as the famous 200m medal ceremony in 1968 or football players kneeling for the national anthem now - seeks to exploit this conflation. They try to co-opt people's distaste for some politicians' Machiavellian machinations in their quest for increased personal power as a reason to condemn the sincere policy campaigning of the likes of Tommie Smith.

I am not as pessimistic as Lefort though. I see signs of hope in things like the Black Lives Matter movement, or in my own country - the Change the Date movement.

Right, I expect you to then renounce all scientific truths, because you just read them in some books and don't hear them directly from God. Therefore you have no reason to believe them. — Agustino

No, I verify them for myself, and if they survive the verification process, I (provisionally, being a sceptic) believe them. Admittedly, that does make me a slow reader. But when I read something, it stays read.