Or even simpler, "I am not claiming there are no sound inferences from perceptual experiences to empirical beliefs or metaphysical positions; I'm saying that I can't see how there could be and I'm asking for someone who believes there are to explain how."

Not at all. — Fire Ologist

But

First, because people end up offending others without realizing it and holding on to a sort of subtle bigotry. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I had understood that being offended was a symptom of being woke.

Ok cool.

But, are there any positive aspects to faith to talk about?

You seem to have covered that adequately. So far as I can see, this thread is finished. And was, long ago.

But more importantly, I think it ties into a large problem in liberal, particularly Anglo-American culture, were nothing can be taken seriously and nothing can be held sacred.
— Count Timothy von Icarus

If true, why does this matter? Describe the problem to me. I'm not sure I see a lack of seriousness myself, but perhaps what you mean by this is many groups no longer read or follow traditional values. — Tom Storm

I’ll take a stab. The problem is, there are serious things to talk about. Lightness and sarcasm break the tension, but don’t resolve it. It’s not that groups don’t read the classics or follow tradition, it’s that they mock it, and maybe never tried to understand it, which would require they take it seriously.

I don’t think conservatives have any choice but to have a sense of humor. We are roasted really quite well by traditional media, higher education, and Hollywood, really quite soundly. I think Count’s point is conservatives sometimes want to be taken seriously too.

My response: ... — Leontiskos

I'll assume that you disagree.

We should remember that in this story, God promises Abraham progeny through Isaac. Some commentators reason that if the sacrifice was allowed to take place, Abraham expected God to resurrect Isaac. God had already performed miracles for Abraham.

I was reading William Whiston's dissertation on this topic today (written around 1737), and he notes that in his day, Abraham's actions were often viewed unfavorably, lamenting the loss of religious virtue in his era.

You seem to have covered that adequately. — Banno

So I covered the positive, beneficial acts of faith?

Can you show me where I did that? I didn’t think you noticed.

I’d rather hear you say something positive about faith yourself.

Because you did say:

faith of itself is neither good nor bad — Banno

Yet from pretty much everything else you said, faith just seems stupid.

Why?

Even so, it remains that the story is understood by many as advising one to maintain one's faith even if one believes that god is asking for an abominable act.

And here we go again...

Can you show me where I did that? — Fire Ologist

I'm not that interested.

Why what?

I agree with you that the primary interpretation lauds Abraham's faith.

Even so, it remains that the story is understood by many as advising one to maintain one's faith even if one believes that god is asking for an abominable act. — Banno

Understood by many? Well they are all wrong. But why are we really talking about this?


No offense to @Bitconnectcarlos, but I don’t think Banno will be converted here on TPF.

I know better than to try to convert Banno.

Already on Solar.

Even so, it remains that the story is understood by many as advising one to maintain one's faith even if one believes that god is asking for an abominable act. — Banno

I don't think many view it that way. Maybe a few crazy Mormons.

I'm not that interested. — Banno

Maybe you are incapable?

I’m just happy I got you to admit faith of itself has no necessary good or bad to it. (Which I’m not sure you really believe.)

this thread is finished. — Banno

I guess we’ll never know.

My understanding, and I may well be wrong, is that it is a prime influence on Islam; Absolute Submission.

Maybe you are incapable? — Fire Ologist

That would be easier on you, I presume. But supose that I have understood all you had to say, and yet still reject theism. What's the appropriate response?

Seems that some of the faithful will "other" me, call me an atheist and attribute all sorts of odd beliefs and acts to me. You can see this in this very thread. It's implicit in "Maybe you are incapable?".

One alternative might be to reconsider your own beliefs, in the light of my startling response. I'm not expecting that.

Then there is what might be called a liberal view, where we will disagree, and move on.

that it is a prime influence on Islam; Absolute Submission. — Banno

It is. And explicitly so.

Isn't your take informed by a bias that values traditionalism and is suspicious, perhaps even hostile towards political radicalism (particularly of the Left)? Is your use of irony as Rorty uses it? Is 'unseriousness' how they would describe it, or is that your description for it? There's a further quesion in what counts as a politically radical circle?

The constant use of irony and humor is sort of a defining feature of the Alt-Right and something they are self-consciously aware of. It's why their biggest voices, and now the presidential administration itself, often advances ideas through vague but provocative "funny" memes. E.g., Trump as the new Pope, joke memes about deportations, etc.

Tucker Carlson fit this mold quite well (who does the two minutes hate better?). He also fits the mold of the sarcastic "exceptional individual who sees through through all the bullshit" (the audience being implicitly one as well, a style incredibly popular since at least Nietzsche).

I wouldn't put this on the left in particular. If anything it is bigger for aspects of the right. The entire Manosphere ideology would seem to make meaningful romantic relationships impossible. Everything is transactional and defined in an economic calculus defined by evolutionary psychology, with catchphrases like "alpha seed and beta need" or "alpha fucks and beta is for the bucks." One cannot "fall in love" without risking becoming a sucker and a "cuck." But the obsession with being "cuckolded" goes beyond romance, and expands to all realms of social life. Hence, one must "keep it real," which means being a strong willed egoistic utility maximizer with one's gaze firmly on those goods which diminish when shared so as to "get one's share."

Simone de Beauvoir's analysis of gender relationships in terms of Hegel's Lord-Bondsman dialectic is spot on here. The "pick up artist" craves female validation (sex being one of the last goods to be commodified) but makes woman incapable of giving him recognition because he has denigrated her into a being lacking in dignity.

Likewise, the right-wing fixation on warrior culture, war, and apocalypse, which seems akin to 1914 in many ways, is a desire for war precisely because "nothing matters/is serious." It's the desire for war, apocalypse, crisis, etc. precisely because of this sort of spiritual constipation and the fear of degenerating into Nietzche's "Last Men," i.e. into the "consumers / workers" they are so likely to be seen as by those in authority.

But it's certainly still a factor in the left as well, in different ways. The political left has done more to lead the way on undermining all claims to authority, advancing the idea that everything comes down to power relations, and yet there is still shock that people no longer trust sources of authority, such as doctors or scientists.

Anyhow, re traditionalism, I see no reason to prefer tradition for the sake of tradition alone. All tradition was new at some point. But iconoclasm, the destruction and denigration of tradition for its own sake, for the sake of an amorphously defined "progress" that has no clear view of human flourishing, or "to liberate the exceptional individual," strikes me as the more common problem. There are indeed people who value tradition for tradition's sake, but they have far less influence than those who value desacralizing everything in the name of "progress."

It is the person restrained by custom who most benefit from its destruction. This is unlikely to be the meek and gentle.

My understanding, and I may well be wrong, is that it is a prime influence on Islam; Absolute Submission. — Banno

Yes, but they generally learn about God's will from religious teachers, not through direct contact with the divine. If we're both Muslims and you tell me God told you to kill your son, I would call the police. See what I mean?

Deflective bullshit Leon. Your level of intellectual honesty is atrocious.

See what I mean? — frank

Not so much.

I've avoided mentioning Islam in this context becasue of the knee-jerk prejudicial reaction... and your account is exactly what I'd expect; that Muslims are moral and understand such nuance.

Indeed, I think I'll drop the topic.

Take it to PM if you wish to follow up.

Yep. He's been misrepresenting you throughout this discussion and elsewhere, as is his habit.

Then continue your conversation with ChatGPT and ask it for Jewish interpretations that it stands for repudiation of human sacrifice and then have it compare that to your other post. Then argue with it and have it change its mind.

It has such poor resolve I find

But then ask it whether the Abrahamic religions prohibit human sacrifice and have it compare those views to secular views over time and see whose history is more admiral.

My point will remain: no strranger in the midst of an Abrahamic community need worry about their kinfolk being burned to the gods. How the Jews in particular might fair in the midst of strangers on the other hand, not always so well.

But I'm not presenting any of this claiming superiority of culture or belief. We all have the same potential for kindness. I'm just trying to make that point, and that intolerance of religion based upon special fear of its brand of evil isn't justified

Seems we have broad agreement. — Banno

Since your gold standard is how one acts and we both advocate for the same acts, what else can you do to sustain the tension between religion and secular beliefs other than to (1) insist my religious beliefs are founded upon an overly benevolent misunderstanding of my own theology or (2) just declare me an abberation, an oddly secularly moral theist, a diamond in the rough

It is possible you know that its simply that religion isn't a malevolent force.

It's interesting, as I'd think on a religious forum there's probably an atheist right now who just can't get any theist to accept that his atheism doesn't make him a bad person.

It has such poor resolve I find — Hanover

Yes. And this interpretation stands. Indeed, the two interpretations are not obviously mutually exclusive.

You might also find intolerance of atheism hereabouts, if you look. It won't be hard to find.

o strranger in the midst of an Abrahamic community need worry about their kinfolk being burned to the gods — Hanover

No stranger? That is clearly untrue: https://www.barnabasaid.org/nz/news/at-least-89-christians-killed-by-islamists-in-north-eastern-d-r-congo/
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/nigeria-s-silent-slaughter-62-000-christians-murdered-since-2000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_the_Islamic_State
https://www.assistnews.net/hundreds-of-churches-burned-in-europe/

It is the religion that causes the situation. It's not ancillary to it. Even in Western countries it seems we'd want to be cautious. In the UK, it appears the majority of violent crime is carried out by Muslim populations (though, finding direct statistics is hard because search engines prefer to show hate crimes against Muslims despite the disparity.

Religious doesn't make one bad, but it makes one do bad, by most lights. At least, the ones unopen to update.

They sacrificed them to the gods?

That is a misrepresentation of what I have said. I have pointed out that religious ideas can lead to evil acts. I've argued that theology deriving from Scripture has no place in a philosophy forum. I have questioned the moral standing of those who believe in eternal damnation. But I have not argued that all religious folk are morally decrepit.

I took that to be a bit of hyperbole, but in many cases, yes. The point of hte murder is to pay homage to the prophet as he commanded spread of the word by the sword - so not a sacrifice in Greek terms, still a sacrifice nonetheless. In any case, that it is a 'sacrifice' doesn't seem all that relevant. These are violent crimes/murders/rapes stemming from religious doctrine.
October 7 rears its head...