Care to expound on this special kind of intelligence required to be an able lawyer? Is that the capacity to outwit the others, thereby proving your point, regardless of whether or not what you are arguing for is the truth? Would that be a type of intelligence to be proud of? — Metaphysician Undercover

According to Aaron Burr, an able lawyer and, I think, a much maligned figure in American history: "The law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained." There's some basis for that claim, or was then. There's a lot more law now and the opportunity to "make" law solely by clever argument in a courtroom was no doubt much greater when Burr practiced then it is for practitioners now. But for a litigator, and particularly one that regularly does jury trials, what Burr referred to is primarily the ability to persuade others that a position being taken is reasonable and just and should be accepted. This involves the ancient art of discourse or rhetoric employed by such as Cicero, a great lawyer and politician and a great communicator of philosophy if not a great philosopher. I think that a degree of intelligence and skill is required for one to be a successful practitioner of that art.

Also required for one to be an able lawyer (I think) is the ability to study language closely, a good grasp of logic, a good memory, analytic skill (the ability to create or rebut an argument), and a practical knowledge of human nature. Self-regard, confidence and a thick skin are useful as well, but I'm uncertain that intelligence is a factor in those characteristics.

What is "true" in the law and what is "good" in it can be very different things than they're considered to be outside of it. The law is a vast system with rules which have developed over many centuries and one of the purposes of those rules, I believe, is to support the rule of law which can be opposed to individual views of what is "right." The advocacy system under which the law operates here contemplates a conflict between two opposing views played out in front of an impartial tribunal. For the most part I think the intelligence required to be a lawyer is something one can be proud of, but as is the case with other things the use to which the intelligence is put may in certain circumstances be unworthy.

Is it common for you to come into contact with nutcases like that? >:O

I've been thinking about that for a long time. :-#

Are you a nutcase? Perhaps you're contagious...

:o

Oi!

Although, you could be right, considering you are still talking to me and you're are nutcase... :-*

Let the belief "a ball exists in my closet" be analogous to the belief "god exists".

Without any access to my closet whatsoever, are you willing to believe that there is indeed a ball there?

Would you be willing to believe that there is no ball in my closet?

If I were you, I would take no hard position either way. I would not believe there is a ball my closet, but I would also not believe there is no ball in my closet. This is soft-atheism. Agnosticism is it's rational progenitor. Hard-atheism, (the connotation that many erroneously apply to atheists at large) would be analogous to the belief that there is no ball in my closet. — VagabondSpectre

All analogies break down, but it would depend on how I came to the belief that a ball exists there. If a stranger said so, I may not believe. If someone I trust very much, like my best friend, said so, I may believe. But I'm not sure what that does with your analogy. Unless "no access" includes the word of other people. But then, how would I have come to the belief at all? That's why I don't totally get it. It seems like it starts as formal logic and then turns into an analogy.

On top of that, I would rather spend my time studying different religions, trying to experience them, studying the history of religions, and trying to understand the history of thought, when it comes to discerning whether belief in God is a credible belief. Taking to hard rationalism or empiricism to answer the question of God seems like a misapplication of a human faculty. Ever-increasing layers of formal abstraction will surely lead you to a place that's safely far away from any possible experience or conception of a god or divinity, or the infinite.

They reliably get me the things I tend to want. — VagabondSpectre

I don't see this is a valid reason, morally, to make it an ultimate concern. Perhaps Trump feels the same as you about this.

I think the distinction is somewhat ethereal. Tillich's analysis applies readily to religion and religious belief (faith as a product of ultimate concern) because religion comes packaged with the promise of ultimate fulfillment, but science in particular does not. — VagabondSpectre

It's true that science doesn't offer that, as such. I wasn't making that argument, but maybe it seemed like I was. But there's a trend in popular culture and media to accept science with what the new atheists like to call "blind faith" when they're talking about Christians. In a sense I think we're living in a Dark Ages of the Internet, where technology (science being it's progenitor) and life are one fluid experience; the world is experienced as a technological world centered around "tech", in the same way that the world was experienced as a spiritual world centered around the church in the Middle Ages. Living in one of the most secular, progressive liberal cities in the world, I see every day this humanistic worldview alive and well, and it's relation to technology. There is absolutely a promise of ultimate fulfillment in this sort of popular view. Technology and it's accompanying opulence are a large enabler of this humanistic worldview. Agnosticism, hard or soft atheism, or whatever don't seem to matter in this view, because the god of humanism is the human person. The promise of ultimate fulfillment is the cleansing of the human race by way of the political legislation of social equality. It may sound hair-brained, but my critique of science taking on a religious character in popular culture is because of these observations of the type of epoch we're living in.

What if they have no ultimate concern? — VagabondSpectre

According to Tillich, everyone does. I tend to tentatively agree, although I haven't finished his book and I'm still mulling over the implications. I think I explained earlier his argument.

Things are important to me, but what is of ultimate importance? Me being alive maybe (for now), but not science. — VagabondSpectre

I don't think I suggested science might be your ultimate concern.

The ends are somewhat clear to me. And all of us exploit science in the same ways in order to achieve these ends. — VagabondSpectre

If the ends, if our ultimate concern, is always and only comfort, then I can't see anything other than pure nihilism being the case. Survival or comfort as the goal always leads to bloodshed. So, if survival or comfort is the goal, then bloodshed in the name of it is permissible. And so nihilism. And I don't buy the idea that altruism, working together for our own survival and comfort, is the way to achieve peace, or a way to assign meaningful meaning to life that would sufficiently disprove the view as nihilistic. This is a classic bourgeois sentiment. Altruism as a way for individuals to find their own comfort or survival is still ultimately selfish. Altruism by definition means selfless concern for the well-being of others. "No greater love has a man than this: to lay his life down for his friends."

I feel the same way. I think it's a memory or an intuition - possibly it's even what Plato meant, in his idea of 'anamnesis' - that at some time, before this life, we really knew it, and some part of ourselves remembers that knowing. So the spiritual quest - which Plato called the philosophical quest - is 'unforgetting' (that's what an-amnesis means) that great thing we once knew. — Wayfarer

When I first read about Plato's idea, I didn't identify with it at all. But over time I've come to feel some agreement with it. I often have an intuitive feeling of "remembering", or a feeling of a past state of equilibrium. I get it in dreams and the waking memory of dreams. I'll often wake up with a feeling of complete and utter peace, like a lifting of a veil, and then it recedes within seconds. It's like all the psychological weight of adulthood is momentarily removed from my spirit, but then is draped back down around me. I'll probably be laughed off this forum for considering that significant.

My view, over the subsequent years, was that religion, in the Western sense, had defined whatever that intuition was in its own way, and then insisted that you believe it in that particular way. A lot of Christianity is grounded in 'right belief' (which is the etymological meaning of 'orthodoxy'.) Whereas, I always felt that some state of higher knowing, which Christianity didn't understand, but Eastern religions did. — Wayfarer

I have mixed feelings about "right belief". It's part of what tore me away from the church, but I also realize that it's an intrinsic part of the whole ethos of Christ's coming, death, and resurrection. I was always struck by the magnitude of the idea that the Jews, always expectant of their messiah, never even anticipated that his death and resurrection would be for all of humanity, for "Jews and Gentiles" alike. So I was always struck by the revelatory character of the story of Christ recorded in the gospels. So the idea of a messiah for all of mankind surely must be the genesis of the need for right belief, the genesis of orthodoxy itself. And yet the dogmatism of orthodoxy is oppressive and has been the cause of so much oppression.

I see the need to think independently and authentically and objectively, but I don't equate that with the process of transcending the subjective and emotional developmental stages. A child is emotional because love needs to be established. Love still needs to be established for the objective, critically thinking adult. The need to establish love never goes away, and this is always a subjective (of the subject) and emotional need. Indeed, the absence of the sort of unconditional love that the parent offered is probably the genesis of so much human suffering. On top of that, I grew up in a very isolated environment where I had a lot of freedom; so things like thinking independently, critically, being imaginative, and embracing freedom where always easy for me to embrace, even in childhood. I trust I'm not the only one who's had such an experience, even if the latest psychological studies didn't happen to include us.

All analogies break down, but it would depend on how I came to the belief that a ball exists there. If a stranger said so, I may not believe. If someone I trust very much, like my best friend, said so, I may believe. But I'm not sure what that does with your analogy. Unless "no access" includes the word of other people. But then, how would I have come to the belief at all? That's why I don't totally get it. It seems like it starts as formal logic and then turns into an analogy.

On top of that, I would rather spend my time studying different religions, trying to experience them, studying the history of religions, and trying to understand the history of thought, when it comes to discerning whether belief in God is a credible belief. Taking to hard rationalism or empiricism to answer the question of God seems like a misapplication of a human faculty. Ever-increasing layers of formal abstraction will surely lead you to a place that's safely far away from any possible experience or conception of a god or divinity, or the infinite. — Noble Dust

The analogy describes the agnostic perspective. Having access to my closet equates to actually having evidence or knowledge of god as opposed to being unable to get such information. You might not be agnostic, but I am. Even if a trusted friend told me god exists (oh how they do) since I believe they have no way of getting that kind of knowledge, I would not believe them.

Agnosticism entails a presumption about the state of the world, but believing that religious experience can offer experience of the infinite is just as presumptuous (more so in my opinion).

Adhering to materialism, rationalism, and empiricism is how I choose to answer questions about the state of the world. The point of abstraction in the analogy though is for benefit of the reader, not myself. It's an extremely simple analogy and uses extremely simple and uncontroversial terms to convey the point that as an atheist I do not actually possess any atheist beliefs, I simply lack theistic beliefs. I don't believe there is a ball in my closet, and I don't believe that there is no ball in my closet.

I don't see this is a valid reason, morally, to make it an ultimate concern. Perhaps Trump feels the same as you about this. — Noble Dust

So you don't think getting the things you want is an appropriate basis for your concerns? Ultimate or otherwise?

I still don't really know what ultimate concerns and ultimate fulfillment bereft of divine salvation actually looks like. "Certainty" is a poor replacement, which is why I cast a broad net and harvest the smaller fish...

What's your ultimate concern?

Also, How is "God" a proper moral basis for "ultimate concern"?

It's true that science doesn't offer that, as such. I wasn't making that argument, but maybe it seemed like I was. But there's a trend in popular culture and media to accept science with what the new atheists like to call "blind faith" when they're talking about Christians. In a sense I think we're living in a Dark Ages of the Internet, where technology (science being it's progenitor) and life are one fluid experience; the world is experienced as a technological world centered around "tech", in the same way that the world was experienced as a spiritual world centered around the church in the Middle Ages. Living in one of the most secular, progressive liberal cities in the world, I see every day this humanistic worldview alive and well, and it's relation to technology. There is absolutely a promise of ultimate fulfillment in this sort of popular view. Technology and it's accompanying opulence are a large enabler of this humanistic worldview. Agnosticism, hard or soft atheism, or whatever don't seem to matter in this view, because the god of humanism is the human person. The promise of ultimate fulfillment is the cleansing of the human race by way of the political legislation of social equality. It may sound hair-brained, but my critique of science taking on a religious character in popular culture is because of these observations of the type of epoch we're living in. — Noble Dust

Modern social justice gone wild movements are indeed not unlike religion and seem to offer fulfillment of a different kind, but they are relatively few in number, and technology or science is not their object of worship. It's their own amorphus concept of justice.

Humanism doesn't even really factor into it. These movements are dominated by politically charged platitudes rather than an actual exploration of moral normative values based on the somewhat universal human values (desire for life and freedom). Humanism is a moral tool for achieving it's own ends (promoting life and freedom, for instance) which seeks to exist on a rational plane; it need not be wielded as an act of Tillich's faith.

We are living in a new age, that's certain. Digital media brings digital religious media, and new religions. It changes old ones too. Humans transcending reason in acts of faith surrounding the object of their devotion is the ritual of a game we might never stop playing simply due to typical human psychology. I'm happy to have abnormal psychology if that is the case.

According to Tillich, everyone does. I tend to tentatively agree, although I haven't finished his book and I'm still mulling over the implications. I think I explained earlier his argument. — Noble Dust

Well Tillich supposed that the ultimate concern of skeptics is truth. I'm asking what if it's just a normal concern which doesn't involve the transcendence of reason? Tillich's interpretation of religion as an act of "faith" only seems to apply to religious minds.

I also don't think survival is of ultimate importance to anyone. — Noble Dust

But survival might as well be of ultimate importance to me because everything of importance to me exists in this world, so I need to be alive to get at it.

If the ends, if our ultimate concern, is always and only comfort, then I can't see anything other than pure nihilism being the case. Survival or comfort as the goal always leads to bloodshed. So, if survival or comfort is the goal, then bloodshed in the name of it is permissible. And so nihilism. — Noble Dust

How does survival and comfort as a goal always lead to bloodshed? Why can we not enter into some sort of common agreement in pursuit of mutual survival and comfort?

Seems pretty far from nihilism to me.

And I don't buy the idea that altruism, working together for our own survival and comfort, is the way to achieve peace, or a way to assign meaningful meaning to life that would sufficiently disprove the view as nihilistic. This is a classic bourgeois sentiment. Altruism as a way for individuals to find their own comfort or survival is still ultimately selfish. Altruism by definition means selfless concern for the well-being of others. "No greater love has a man than this: to lay his life down for his friends." — Noble Dust

Who said we needed altruism? I can work with greed and we can achieve the ends we want by agreeing to cooperate because it's more profitable. Capitalism alleges to do this, and humanist/theistic morality does it too.

Valuing comfort and survival isn't nihilistic, it just doesn't come come from the supreme value isle of human ideology.

I'll often wake up with a feeling of complete and utter peace, like a lifting of a veil, and then it recedes within seconds. — Noble Dust

I think that's the signal of something important, and not to be belittled.

As for Plato - my knowledge of Plato is sketchy, although I have an intuitive feeling for many of his ideas. I generally like Christian Platonism, although there's hardly anything of that in Protestantism in my view. It's much more typical the medieval mystics.

the idea of a messiah for all of mankind surely must be the genesis of the need for right belief, the genesis of orthodoxy itself. And yet the dogmatism of orthodoxy is oppressive and has been the cause of so much oppression. — Noble Dust

That's not quite the point I'm trying to get across. The distinction I'm trying to make is between the attitude of being 'a believer', as opposed to learning through (spiritual) experience. One of the motivating factors behind a lot of popular Eastern philosophy, is the idea of validation through spiritual experience. (I always used to take that for granted, although as the years have passed I'm less confident about it in some ways. )

In the ancient world, that was the distinction between 'pistis' and 'gnosis'. The Pistic approach was associated with the well-known fish symbol of early Christianity. The gnostic attitude was very different. Belief, to them, is simply instrumental, it can only point you in the direction of getting the real insight which is needed to save yourself. (Have a look at the abstract of this book.)

Why it's important, is because of the dichotomy that is set up between belief and atheism which is such a dominant dynamic in modern Western culture. The gnostics had a rather different view of what religion means in the first place.

The analogy describes the agnostic perspective. Having access to my closet equates to actually having evidence or knowledge of god as opposed to being unable to get such information. — VagabondSpectre

That can't be right; if access to the closet was access to the knowledge about God, then you surely would have that access (assuming you have access to your own closet). So the analogy breaks down again (so my first sentence isn't evidence for God, it's just where your analogy breaks down). Unless the closet is locked? But it's your closet. So you lost the key, or something? It seems like maybe you have.

Agnosticism entails a presumption about the state of the world, but believing that religious experience can offer experience of the infinite is just as presumptuous (more so in my opinion). — VagabondSpectre

Atheism can also be presumptuous; presumptions aren't inherently bad, despite the word's negative connotation. It's more a question of which if any presumptions might be justified.

Even if a trusted friend told me god exists (oh how they do) since I believe they have no way of getting that kind of knowledge, I would not believe them. — VagabondSpectre

This is another analogical confusion; I wasn't equating a friend telling me about the ball to a friend telling me about God. The friend in this case would be something like the 5 proofs of God's existence or whatever, regardless of whether you happen to find any veracity in those proofs (I don't personally).

So you don't think getting the things you want is an appropriate basis for your concerns? Ultimate or otherwise? — VagabondSpectre

No I don't; it depends on what it is I want. I've wanted plenty of things that are harmful to myself.

I still don't really know what ultimate concerns and ultimate fulfillment bereft of divine salvation actually looks like. — VagabondSpectre

I don't either.

Also, How is "God" a proper moral basis for "ultimate concern"? — VagabondSpectre

If you're asking me personally, the idea of God becoming incarnate in the form of a man so as to impregnate the world with unconditional love, leading to a process of historical salvation of humanity would be a reason for God, as such, to be an ultimate concern. Or, if God is love, then love would be the ultimate concern here.

What's your ultimate concern? — VagabondSpectre

I'm not sure. The Truth, maybe. Regardless of comfort, or survival, or spiritual fulfillment. But I think all of those things will be subsumed within it. I trust to the nobler desires within us, but I don't count them to be the ends themselves. I'll willfully continue the search, but I won't make the search my ultimate concern.

It's an extremely simple analogy and uses extremely simple and uncontroversial terms to convey the point that as an atheist I do not actually possess any atheist beliefs, I simply lack theistic beliefs. — VagabondSpectre

What if I simply lack atheistic beliefs? I simply lack the belief that i lack belief in a god?

Modern social justice gone wild movements are indeed not unlike religion and seem to offer fulfillment of a different kind, but they are relatively few in number, and technology or science is not their object of worship. — VagabondSpectre

It's not, but historically, the secularism in a country like America is tied to the rise of scientific empiricism (vs. the conservative right and their adherence to literal interpretations of the Bible). So we have this false dichotomy of either evolution or creationism (which is already very passe). But the progressive left is tied in some way to this tension that existed; so much of the left's criticism of fundamentalist Christianity (fully justified) has to do with this tension of bad literal interpretations of scripture on the one hand, and, on the other, the only reliable retaliatory weapon...scientific evidence to the contrary. So now in 2017, I think we live in a political landscape where this ridiculous twilight zone fight between evolution and creationism is thankfully a thing of the past, but the implications still play out in a world where the progressive left is still unconsciously influenced by this implicitly materialist outlook that places scientific evidence above all. By the way, I do agree with you about these social justice movements going wild, regardless of whether we disagree about why.

Also, I'm not so sure the women's march on Washington would avail your claim that these movements are few in number.

Humanism doesn't even really factor into it. These movements are dominated by politically charged platitudes rather than an actual exploration of moral normative values based on the somewhat universal human values (desire for life and freedom). — VagabondSpectre

But aren't these political platitudes so profoundly influenced by humanism?

Well Tillich supposed that the ultimate concern of skeptics is truth. I'm asking what if it's just a normal concern which doesn't involve the transcendence of reason? Tillich's interpretation of religion as an act of "faith" only seems to apply to religious minds. — VagabondSpectre

So you're saying what if truth is a normal concern which doesn't involve the transcendence of reason?

But survival might as well be of ultimate importance to me because everything of importance to me exists in this world, so I need to be alive to get at it. — VagabondSpectre

No, survival is just the mechanism of life itself. It is NOT life itself. Again, "No greater love has a man than this: to lay his life down for his friends."

Why can we not enter into some sort of common agreement in pursuit of mutual survival and comfort? — VagabondSpectre

See my comments on altruism, of which you then asked "who said we needed altruism?" I was anticipating the response. So furthermore:

I can work with greed and we can achieve the ends we want by agreeing to cooperate because it's more profitable. Capitalism alleges to do this, and humanist/theistic morality does it too. — VagabondSpectre

As I said, this idea of working together for my sake is nothing more than a child manipulating it's parents or her friends to get what she wants for herself. It's childish. That's why I bring up altruism. True altruism, or true unconditional love lays itself down for the other. This concept doesn't avail itself of survival, or creature comforts, or whatever.

And so I bring up nihilism because I see this sort of selfish faux-altruism as a cloaked form of selfishness; so if this is the humanistic, or the agnostic, or the soft-atheistic version of the good life, it's just another form of selfishness, of brute survival cloaked in empirical reason and analytic observation, and so there's ample reason for me, given all this evidence, to just simply declare myself a nihilist and pursue a Dionysian life of whatever I happen to enjoy, until it wears thin and I find it the right time to end my own life. After all, I'm only using others to help me find my own cowardly creature comforts, for the sake of soaking in the precious last 40 years of my pointless, insignificant life. Ah the untold years I'll spend spewing asinine platitudes on philosophy forums before the end!

I think that's the signal of something important, and not to be belittled. — Wayfarer

Thanks.

That's not quite the point I'm trying to get across. The distinction I'm trying to make is between the attitude of being 'a believer', as opposed to learning through (spiritual) experience. — Wayfarer

This make sense to me within the context of the Christian mystics, since I still haven't delved into Buddhism or other traditions as I've been wanting to. Learning through spiritual experience is something I feel like I've tasted in my upbringing, but something I've lost touch with as an adult. I'm apprehensive as to what it would look like now (add on to it the other typical adult cares and worries), but it's something I want to explore. I guess desire will only be fulfilled through action...

In the ancient world, that was the distinction between 'pistis' and 'gnosis'. The Pistic approach was associated with the well-known fish symbol of early Christianity. The gnostic attitude was very different. Belief, to them, is simply instrumental, it can only point you in the direction of getting the real insight which is needed to save yourself. (Have a look at the abstract of this book.) — Wayfarer

I'm not even familiar with the word pistis, so thanks.

I forgot to mention, though, what do you think the distinction is, then, between the believer and the one who experiences the spiritual?

Well, it's the difference between believing and knowing! That sounds trite, I suppose. I keep harking back to the spiritual books I read as a youth - the Indian sages had a radically different kind of religious sensibility about them - they were more like vagabonds or even rascals than pious holy types trying to herd their flock. They tended to look down on conventional religion. (Of course there's been a lot of water under the bridge for me since then, and besides I have settled down into a regular middle-class existence, but I'm still working on it.)

I mentioned in a post before, the Buddhist 'parable of the raft'. It's worth quoting a passage from it at length, because it's quite unique.

The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

"No, lord."

"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

'You should let go even of dhammas' - you don't find that in the Bible.

I see the need to think independently and authentically and objectively, but I don't equate that with the process of transcending the subjective and emotional developmental stages. — Noble Dust

The need to think authentically, however, necessitates a consciousness of ones own subjective emotions and whether their responses to external stimuli is genuine or merely a symbol of their conformity to escape from the anxious feelings of autonomy, as they remain enslaved or trapped within that small worldview. Transcendence does not imply a complete abandonment of the self or the transcendence of Schopenhauer, but the capacity to objectively remove yourself from being blindly controlled by the irrational prompts of our infantile attachments. This is why our doubts should always be within ourselves as it is easy to lie and tell ourselves our conformity is not actually conformity at all. The only possibility where this transcendence is not necessary is in an environment that nourishes the child to develop a sense of moral consciousness and provides them with the proper support to begin thinking objectively and independently, which is why when one naturally evolves to this next stage of rational autonomy seem to have the need to change the wrong or bad to the right conditions, becoming political activists, artists or anything that challenges immoral situations within our community or at large. That is why I call it moral consciousness.

A child is emotional because love needs to be established. Love still needs to be established for the objective, critically thinking adult. The need to establish love never goes away, and this is always a subjective (of the subject) and emotional need. — Noble Dust

Yet, this appears to be framed under the assumption that every child grows up with love, which is clearly not the case. I might personally be bold enough to say that our emotions are innate but how we utilise this cognitive tool depends on the paradigm of learned psychological traits factoring environmental, social and biological. Like the movie Sleepers, while all four of them were sexually abused as children, two of them became violent and abusive while the other two responded through developing legal careers; everyone' mental faculties differ as do their responses. The fact is, though, as it is a part of our function or a tool, than we can understand it and control it objectively.

Indeed, the absence of the sort of unconditional love that the parent offered is probably the genesis of so much human suffering. — Noble Dust

My adolescence and early adulthood felt like I had a gaping hole in my chest and yet I do not agree that love is established; it is innate, otherwise why else am I about to implode with the intensity of all this love and affection when I grew up mostly alone and in an absence of unconditional love? And there are many people who have grown in an environment where they experienced unconditional love and yet become rather vicious. To be sure, probability in numbers strengthens the former, but the ultimate schism in humanity and the genesis of our suffering is the failure to accept our autonomy, the existential aloneness which is a reality for all of us. I could have easily ignored the angst and become absorbed by conforming to my ridiculous culture where so many other young people entertain themselves with random social bullshit, I instead rather enjoy the comforts and pleasure my environment offers - live in a beautiful apartment, wear nice clothes, do photography, go on hikes - while at the same time dedicating myself to the less fortunate in my community through my work and my studies, being the big sister or friend to young girls who also have no one and give them to confidence to do the same. Going back to what I said, those who do transcend tend to want to change things for the better, objective consciousness almost always instigates moral awareness.

On top of that, I grew up in a very isolated environment where I had a lot of freedom; so things like thinking independently, critically, being imaginative, and embracing freedom where always easy for me to embrace, even in childhood. I trust I'm not the only one who's had such an experience, even if the latest psychological studies didn't happen to include us. — Noble Dust

I agree, you may have had the right conditions, but I am always doubtful of those that say they embrace freedom and independence with confidence. Some western societies have indeed provided the superficial conditions that enable people to think that they are 'individuals' when really they are blindly following in masses.

I like that reply, it's well composed. If it's the case, as Burr said, that "The law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained", then why is God not the law? Many theologians boldly assert, and plausibly maintain the existence of God. But a theologian is not a lawyer. So, is it because there are not enough lawyers boldly asserting the existence of God? Why would a lawyer even try to defend the existence of God, because as the theologians know, this takes great effort, and a lifetime of dedication to plausibly maintain, and there might not be any financial benefit for the lawyer who tried this?

What is "true" in the law and what is "good" in it can be very different things than they're considered to be outside of it. — Ciceronianus the White

How can this be the case? Are you saying that there is a different form of "good", and of "true" which the law follows, which is not necessarily good or true for the individual? How could it be, that something which is true or good within the law, is false or bad in common society? Wouldn't this give lawyers license to do bad things, saying that it's bad for normal people to do these things, but it's OK for lawyers, working with the law to do them? Isn't that a double standard, like Plato's Noble Lie? It's good for the rulers to lie to the subjects, because the lying is for the subjects' own good, but it is bad for the subjects to lie.

I like that reply, it's well composed. If it's the case, as Burr said, that "The law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained", then why is God not the law? Many theologians boldly assert, and plausibly maintain the existence of God. But a theologian is not a lawyer. So, is it because there are not enough lawyers boldly asserting the existence of God? Why would a lawyer even try to defend the existence of God, because as the theologians know, this takes great effort, and a lifetime of dedication to plausibly maintain, and there might not be any financial benefit for the lawyer who tried this? — Metaphysician Undercover

Burr, as you may know, was the grandson of preacher/theologian Jonathan Edwards. I have the impression Burr wasn't religiously inclined, though. One of the stories you hear about Burr is that, when he was asked by an attending cleric while on his deathbed whether he renounced Satan, he replied that it wasn't the time to be making enemies. You can hear similar stories about Voltaire and Machiavelli, though.

The answer to your question may be that the law can't be God, or God the law But it would seem to me that many have been converted by bold assertions, which perhaps were plausibly maintained, and so have come to believe in God or one of a particular kind. What Burr was probably referring to as "the law" was, in fact, what people--a judge or a jury--could be persuaded was the law.

How can this be the case? Are you saying that there is a different form of "good", and of "true" which the law follows, which is not necessarily good or true for the individual? How could it be, that something which is true or good within the law, is false or bad in common society? Wouldn't this give lawyers license to do bad things, saying that it's bad for normal people to do these things, but it's OK for lawyers, working with the law to do them? Isn't that a double standard, like Plato's Noble Lie? It's good for the rulers to lie to the subjects, because the lying is for the subjects' own good, but it is bad for the subjects to lie. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, consider. In criminal law, in the U.S. at least, juries regularly decide a defendant is guilty or not guilty of a crime. That's a determination, a finding, in the law; subject to revision as the result of an appeal, but otherwise inviolate. However, that determination is not necessarily true (as commonly defined) or untrue. That's to say, a person may well be not guilty of a crime and yet have committed it--may in fact be guilty of it, or so I think most would say.

And, a judicial decision may be "good law" if it hasn't been overturned in the sense that it's binding even if otherwise bad under most definitions. The Supreme Court's Dred Scott was a perfectly "good" legal decision (it was appropriate given the law) until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That can't be right; if access to the closet was access to the knowledge about God, then you surely would have that access (assuming you have access to your own closet). So the analogy breaks down again (so my first sentence isn't evidence for God, it's just where your analogy breaks down). Unless the closet is locked? But it's your closet. So you lost the key, or something? It seems like maybe you have. — Noble Dust

The point of the analogy is that nobody has access to the closet (i make it my closet in the analogy so it makes sense in the real world; you don't have access to my closet. The analogy is for you, the reader). The analogy doesn't break down at all. God is not literally in my closet after all, it's a metaphor. My closet is a metaphor for wherever god can be found. You're going on about keys and closet ownership and are missing the entire point of the analogy. If you assent to agnosticism, then believing that there is or isn't a ball in my closet would be to make the same kind of claim that theists and hard-atheists make.

Atheism can also be presumptuous; presumptions aren't inherently bad, despite the word's negative connotation. It's more a question of which if any presumptions might be justified. — Noble Dust

My atheism entails no presumptions. I agnostically presume humans have no access to knowledge about God(s). I take no actual position either way as a result, which is de facto soft-atheism.

This is another analogical confusion; I wasn't equating a friend telling me about the ball to a friend telling me about God. The friend in this case would be something like the 5 proofs of God's existence or whatever, regardless of whether you happen to find any veracity in those proofs (I don't personally). — Noble Dust

"It would depend on how I came to the belief that a ball exists there. If a stranger said so, I may not believe. If someone I trust very much, like my best friend, said so, I may believe.". Whether or not your friends are the umpteen proofs of God or not doesn't change my retort. Your friends don't have access to knowledge about God. That's agnosticism.

If you're asking me personally, the idea of God becoming incarnate in the form of a man so as to impregnate the world with unconditional love, leading to a process of historical salvation of humanity would be a reason for God, as such, to be an ultimate concern. Or, if God is love, then love would be the ultimate concern here. — Noble Dust

So God is an ultimate concern because he offers salvation? Sure, but that seems greedy.

If everyone only obeys God in order to avoid hell and get into heaven then they're more hedonistic than yours truly.

What if I simply lack atheistic beliefs? I simply lack the belief that i lack belief in a god? — Noble Dust

You cannot lack atheistic beliefs because there's no such thing to lack. If you lack the beliefs of theists and hard-atheists then you're a soft-atheist.

You could lack atheistic lack of belief, which statistically would indicate you're a theist!

It's not, but historically, the secularism in a country like America is tied to the rise of scientific empiricism (vs. the conservative right and their adherence to literal interpretations of the Bible). So we have this false dichotomy of either evolution or creationism (which is already very passe). But the progressive left is tied in some way to this tension that existed; so much of the left's criticism of fundamentalist Christianity (fully justified) has to do with this tension of bad literal interpretations of scripture on the one hand, and, on the other, the only reliable retaliatory weapon...scientific evidence to the contrary. So now in 2017, I think we live in a political landscape where this ridiculous twilight zone fight between evolution and creationism is thankfully a thing of the past, but the implications still play out in a world where the progressive left is still unconsciously influenced by this implicitly materialist outlook that places scientific evidence above all. By the way, I do agree with you about these social justice movements going wild, regardless of whether we disagree about why.

Also, I'm not so sure the women's march on Washington would avail your claim that these movements are few in number. — Noble Dust

The regressive left doesn't really go after Christianity though, at least not very much these days. When politicians could openly question evolution and not get laughed off stage, there were leftists there to mock and ridicule them, but bible literalism is at an all time low. The new enemy is the colonial west, and the victims are everyone other than straight white males. Some atheists are a part of this movement, but I would wager most are not. Atheism is not political and not religious; it describes a lack of religious belief, and nothing necessary beyond that.

Modern regressives don't even use science or reason. All of their arguments hinge on the morality of "hurt feelings" and I've seen them openly attack science itself as an oppressive colonial force. "Decolonize it" they say. [throw all of it out the window]. Observe:



Hatred for trump and women's equality rearing it's head is emotional and political, but it's not science and it's not atheism.

But aren't these political platitudes so profoundly influenced by humanism? — Noble Dust

As you can see from the above video, no. Their political platitudes comes from their own distinctly emotional psychology of grievance wrapped up in political delusion and historical equivocation.

The university departments which produce these groups are not the science departments, they're sub departments within the arts. Women's studies, gender science, sociology (sociology is internally divided, but is somewhat afflicted) are where the theories generating these platitudes are formulated. They're quite unscientific.

So you're saying what if truth is a normal concern which doesn't involve the transcendence of reason? — Noble Dust

That's right. I'm interested in reasonable truth, not ultimate, divine and gilded truth. Reason is what I rely on to try and discover or approximate "truth", if I transcended reason, I would therefore be failing in that endeavor.

No, survival is just the mechanism of life itself. It is NOT life itself. Again, "No greater love has a man than this: to lay his life down for his friends." — Noble Dust

What's so great about great love?

Sure there are consequences for which I would sacrifice my life, but if we're not talking about altruism or sacrificing one's self for others because the pain of losing them would be to much to willingly endure, then the most important thing is life itself.

As I said, this idea of working together for my sake is nothing more than a child manipulating it's parents or her friends to get what she wants for herself. It's childish. That's why I bring up altruism. True altruism, or true unconditional love lays itself down for the other. This concept doesn't avail itself of survival, or creature comforts, or whatever. — Noble Dust

So you're an altruist then?

And so I bring up nihilism because I see this sort of selfish faux-altruism as a cloaked form of selfishness; so if this is the humanistic, or the agnostic, or the soft-atheistic version of the good life, it's just another form of selfishness, of brute survival cloaked in empirical reason and analytic observation, and so there's ample reason for me, given all this evidence, to just simply declare myself a nihilist and pursue a Dionysian life of whatever I happen to enjoy, until it wears thin and I find it the right time to end my own life. After all, I'm only using others to help me find my own cowardly creature comforts, for the sake of soaking in the precious last 40 years of my pointless, insignificant life. Ah the untold years I'll spend spewing asinine platitudes on philosophy forums before the end! — Noble Dust

Apparently anything short of altruism is nihilism. Right?

Cooperating to improve our lives through the use of reason is clearly the worst kind of childish selfishness at our disposal. I mean, why are we trying to improve our own lives through cooperation instead of altruistically dedicating ourselves to other people? We should all be walking barefoot in the streets offering to wash each-other's feet. Don't worry, God will provide. Yes I can see it now... We shall cast low all those false pretenders who behaved morally only because they wanted them and their family to live in a moral world (shameful greed!) and shame them for the naive selfish bastards they truly are. Those material driven foolish scientists with their machines and wealth production, it's all bad. We need to be giving wealth to the poor, not wasting time by producing more of it! Duhh~ Obviously!

Humans are selfish, and so things like social contract theory and humanism seek to offer rational paths toward moral behavior (don't steal, don't murder, etc...), effectually the same thing as moral altruism, and you object on the basis that they're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons... No, they have to be completely selfless, or they're nihilistic children, you say...

Atheism has nothing to do with my moral positions, but for what it's worth: morality is a mutually agreeable strategy/code of conduct which is designed to promote a world that we all want to live in (one with freedom and freedom from suffering). You can judge the quality of a moral position by finding out how well it actually promotes the values it sets out to promote, and freedom and happiness are the values I seek to promote for everyone and also myself. Apparently it's nihilism though, because I'm doing it for selfish reasons like getting to live in a desirable environment and abating guilt/sympathy for others... Instead of what reason? Pleasing God and getting into heaven? Being some completely selfless being who doesn't care about comfort at all? That resembles nihilism in my opinion.

(Remember, we can always escape this nihilism simply by dropping a T.V on our feet)

Dionysus was a God, and I'm sure he could turn water into wine, but here in the material world someone has got to make that wine, and if you want to drink it you've got to trade them something for their effort. You've got to contribute. You will find that trying to spend as much time behaving as Dionysus would is exactly what people are already up to, and they like it that way. That's the whole point of industry, and the aim of most invention.

The evils of embracing the material world is something that religion constantly drummed into my head as a child, but the more they listed off the glorious material delights this world has to offer, the more I realized denying the whole of them is highly regrettable.

Nevertheless, I follow no religion, so what would be my holy reason? — TimeLine

A "holy reason" is a reason with holes in it, as all good reasons should be. ;)

On a more serious, though no less profound, (and curiously related) note; do you not believe that reverence for things is the highest form of motivation?

Or again, as Leonard Cohen would have it: “There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in”...

I agnostically presume humans have no access to knowledge about God(s). — VagabondSpectre

You have stated what is the sum of my reasons for distancing myself from belief in God: God has been (usually is, probably will be) presented as a being about which we have specific knowledge. The knowledge isn't limited to the Bible, which I do not count as evidence about God. It's very good evidence of beliefs about God.

The churches also claim to have belief about God. Revelation didn't altogether come to an end when the canon was closed. For instance, The Catholic Church knows that the saints intercede on our behalf with God, even specializing in particular problems. I don't know how they know that, but they think they do. Evangelicals can channel the Holy Spirit and then translate what the Holy Spirit said. I don't know how they can do that, but they think they can. (I say "fie upon them")

So, what's left of God if we don't/can't know anything about God? Well, God ceases to be a "person" with preferences, dislikes, total power, perfections, and all that. Either God just disappears, (and we are hard atheists) or God becomes non-personal, and does not have specific characteristics. It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it means that we can't put God in any sort of labeled box.

God outside the box is just too far out for a lot of believers (in the God of personhood with preferences, priorities, prohibitions, perfections, powers, etc.) and one becomes some sort of diseased deviant pariah of disbelief in the eyes of the fundamentalists of orthodoxy.

What do you say to those who claim not merely to believe, but to enjoy a personal relationship with their God?

Imaginary friend? But even if so, would it matter if it transformed your life? Are we really so certain as to what 'imaginary' means, anyway? What if all friendships are imaginary?

What do you say to those who claim not merely to believe, but to enjoy a personal relationship with their God? — John

If they ask me what I believe, I will tell them that I do not believe we can know anything about God, but that does not mean that I am, therefore, certain that God does not exist. I may tell them that I also don't believe that they have special gifts which enable them to know anything specific and concrete about God. I know from experience, that those sort of statements will likely lead to a prolonged discussion which will not be very productive.

Imaginary friend? But even if so, would it matter if it transformed your life? Are we really so certain as to what 'imaginary' means, anyway? — John

If people imagine that they have God as a friend, and this leads them to live an exemplary life, bully for them. Belief in the unseen (God) or the highly unlikely (Socialism in America) or the possible and terrible (fascist coup d'etat) is something that people can do with both hands tied behind their back. I am as likely as anyone else to entertain intense interest in the unseen and the unlikely.

Generally, I don't think believing in the imaginary is a good idea. Humans need to remain in touch with reality as much as possible. We are altogether too prone to drift off into some sort of nonsensical fantasy as it is.

God has been (usually is, probably will be) presented as a being about which we have specific knowledge. The knowledge isn't limited to the Bible, which I do not count as evidence about God. It's very good evidence of beliefs about God. — Bitter Crank

It is instructive how, nowadays, everything that is said in the various revelatory religions is dismissed. All of what would be presented as evidence is first of all, kicked into the long grass - then the challenge is 'what else do you have?'

It's true, you put a number of people in a room, with no access to history or the accounts of those who have claimed to have seen the 'revealed truth', then the odds are, you're never going to see anything like 'God'. But I think it simply fails to comprehend the nature of the question. It's like the blind dismissing the possibility of sight.

In light of the way American religion is often presented and understood, that kind of scepticism is quite understandable. But American mainstream religion might be a poor example, in the greater scheme of things. I think to get an idea of what religions mean requires an openness to what William James called 'the varieties of religious experience' - which are vast, diverse, and ubiquitous across culture and history. So those accounts contain the testimony of those who have claimed to know, to have 'encountered the Divine'.

For instance, The Catholic Church knows that the saints intercede on our behalf with God, even specializing in particular problems. I don't know how they know that, but they think they do. — Bitter Crank

Well, as a matter of fact, the annals of the process of canonization contains a considerable amount of evidence for miraculous healing. You probably know that the office of the 'devil's advocate' was instituted by the Church, to test claims of miracles attributed to saints, so as to effectively challenge bogus or dubious claims. And many of those that stand up to the challenge are indeed impossible to explain away by chance or coincidence. A physician who was asked to provide expert testimony in one such case, went on to write a book on the phenomenon. She said:

Over hundreds of hours in the Vatican archives, I examined the files of more than 1,400 miracle investigations — at least one from every canonization between 1588 and 1999. A vast majority — 93 percent over all and 96 percent for the 20th century — were stories of recovery from illness or injury, detailing treatment and testimony from baffled physicians.

Pondering Miracles, Medical and Religious, Jacalyn Duffin.

I know what a Dawkins would say when presented with such evidence; he would declare that it couldn't be real; that there simply must be some scientistic account for this observations. That is the negative faith of atheism in action.

Modern regressives don't even use science or reason. All of their arguments hinge on the morality of "hurt feelings" and I've seen them openly attack science itself as an oppressive colonial force. "Decolonize it" they say. [throw all of it out the window]. — VagabondSpectre

I agree that the video is an egregious example of anti-science and anti-intellectualism. But I'd be careful about extending that to 'any kind of religious person'.

Instead of what reason? Pleasing God and getting into heaven? Being some completely selfless being who doesn't care about comfort at all? That resembles nihilism in my opinion. — VagabondSpectre

What the religious woud say you're not seeing is that the higher states of spiritual awakening, are actually the greatest possible experiences. They're better than being rich, having endless pleasure, sex and power. It is possible to realise such states, which are imperishable, not subject to change and decay, and internally self-generating, kind of like fusion energy. Beside them, everything else seems like rubbish.

It's interesting to see where this discussion has gone. It's wandered about in an unpredictable way - which is not at all a bad thing.

I'm still stuck on trying to interpret the title - 'Religion will win in the end'. Since religion is an activity, I can't see what it would mean for it to win, or for it to lose. Is it like at the end of a day in the Test Match where the upper hand has changed several times and there have been some spectacular displays of skill and athleticism, and Richie Benaud says 'The game of cricket was the winner on the day'?

PS I hope I didn't offend any anti-religious cricketers or cricket-hating monks by comparing cricket to religion. I think they're both great. It's the governing bodies I have a problem with. Damn that ICC.

agree it's an odd title but I will take any excuse to wax about one of my favourite subjects.

You are right -- the title suggests the nonsensical notion that religion, itself, is a party that is running in the game.

So, what's left of God if we don't/can't know anything about God? Well, God ceases to be a "person" with preferences, dislikes, total power, perfections, and all that? Either God just disappears, (and we are hard atheists) or God becomes non-personal, and does not have specific characteristics. It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it means that we can't put God in any sort of labeled box. — Bitter Crank

'what else do you have?' — Wayfarer

There is the Bible, which doesn't provide information directly about God. What it reveals is the testimony of people who believed that God existed. Such testimony is worthwhile in various ways, even if it doesn't reveal direct, objective information about God.

I would say if I was sure what I was saying, that the God who is not in the box (and never was in the box) is the "ground of our being". But like I said, I'm not sure, exactly, what that means.

Well, as a matter of fact, the annals of the process of canonization contains a considerable amount of evidence for miraculous healing. — Wayfarer

I don't believe it. What I don't believe is that someone was healed because the spirit of a dead person (like Mother Theresa or St. Catherine) thought that it was a good idea. I don't think God did it directly, either. What I believe happened in these situations is unexplained healing which has occurred periodically in cases where saints were not involved. People who take sugar pills, for instance, have experienced significant improvements in tumors, for a while. "For a while" was often what the actual drugs were capable of doing. Usually, though, patients receiving the placebo do not experience benefit.

Over the centuries, billions -- maybe trillions --of prayers have been addressed to the saints who did nothing for the subjects of the prayers. As one ex-Episcopalian priest put it, "Nothing fails like prayer."

And even if saints were actually behind various miraculous survivals, their good work comprises a body of action that is nothing if not arbitrary and capricious. Prayers rise to heaven for 1000 dying children; 2 children recover, 998 die forthwith.

I have heard more than a few testimonies about the miracles of God. One particular one was from a Lutheran Deaconess. An acquaintance of hers was working in Alaska and several men were being transported in a helicopter. The helicopter crashed, and 2 out of 7 survived. She proclaimed a miracle. Well, why no miracle for the remaining 5?

Why no miracle for all the victims of all the bad things that are continuously happening to good people?

Ah, well, all of a sudden "we don't know". We "know" that God performed a miracle in saving 2 out of of 7, but we are suddenly in the land of mystery when it comes to the dead 5.

If we think God is capable of miracles, if we identify miracles but can't explain the non-miracles, then we are doing a great disservice to God. We're putting him into a Mr. Fixit box for our own purposes.

You are right -- the title suggests the nonsensical notion that religion, itself, is a party that is running in the game. — Bitter Crank

The OP is futurism that I've pondered for the last couple of years (since I became skeptical about there ever being a global government.) In futurism, you're exploring possibilities. It makes sense to talk about feminism, for instance, winning in the end... or not. Just add a touch of grace to your clanky thought processes. :P

What I believe happened in these situations is unexplained healing which has occurred periodically in cases where saints were not involved. — Bitter Crank

Indeed. When the RC church is able to produce a case where an amputee has regrown a leg after prayers on their behalf, there will be reason for non-RC people to take these claims of miraculous healing seriously.

That was a very eloquent post, by the way.

Why no miracle for all the victims of all the bad things that are continuously happening to good people? — Bitter Crank

I really do get that. I have had quite a few relatives die and others permanently disabled, and it raised very tough questions. But the article I referred to was by a qualified medical pracitioner who investigated the phenomenon of apparent miracles for the Church. She makes a point of saying that the priests themselves always assumed a position of extreme skepticism, almost cynicism. But the cases that couldn't be disproven, were said to be evidence of miraculous cures. I think, considering the amount of documented evidence, it simply can't all just be dismissed.

regrown a leg... — andrewk

Come now. The miraculous is not necessarily the outlandish. The case quoted above was one of about 1500 examined by that author, who states in the article that she is atheist. She is talking purely about unexplained cures of life-threatening illnesses, and she says there is plenty of evidence.

The other evidential issue I often bring up in this context is that of children with past-life memories. That too is generally dismissed on the grounds that it simply couldn't happen.

I think the underlying issue is that we've put all this in a box, marked 'religion', and declared our attitude towards it, and we don't at all want to contemplate the possibility of opening it again.