I'm trying not to make this about "isn't the bible terrible", but you force my hand by trying to make out that I'm cherry-picking a single incident. You know there are atrocities in the bible, we all know that, so let's not pretend my shorthand example is a lone aberration. — Isaac

But let's not pretend they are examples of condoned conduct.

See above and see here

Let's look at this from a broader perspective when we're referencing biblical interpretation. Keep in mind the legalistic nature of the interpretation, considering the Bible was used at a time as a legal document setting forth the rules of a society.

First, a modern day example:

I have an automobile insurance policy that reads "your liability coverage shall be $10,000." My question then is, how much liability coverage do I have? The answer is $25,000. That seems a strange reading, right?

The reason though is that in Georgia, there is a statute that requires that the minimum liability limits are $25,000. So you might say that I have no coverage because the insurance company failed to provide the minimum limits, so therefore the policy is void. Well, no, the courts have already addressed this question and have decided that if an insurance company sells a policy with less than $25,000 in limits, those limits will be increased to $25,000. The reason for this is that the public policy of the State is to assure people are covered against losses and not uninsured, so the courts won't void the contract, but they will make it compliant.

What this means is that there are various sources of rules and laws ( in this case: the insurance policy, the statute, and the judicial decisions). The same holds true for the Bible.

When it says we're going to stone the girl, that doesn't mean she will get stoned just like when the policy says you have $10,000 in coverage, that doesn't mean that's all you have.

Jewish interpretation doesn't limit itself to the text, but it relies upon an oral tradition, that tradition holds, was passed down at the time the Torah was given to Moses. What this means is that the text of the Bible is not primary to interpretation, but the spoken history of the people is considered as well. This passage is therefore not interpreted as referring to a literal hand being removed, but that financial compensation must be paid. https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9989/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-25.htm (Click the button that says "show Rashi.") (Who was Rashi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi )

This oral tradition is what is now written in the Talmud.

And all of this is just to further point out that those who wish to open up the Bible, read a passage, and then comment on what it must mean in a vacuum without referencing the religious doctrine as a whole aren't providing a meaningful analysis of any known religion.

Using a book which has to be carefully interpreted in order to avoid the conclusion that stoning girls is OK, as a guide to moral behaviour and community living - that's a big risk. In contemporary America, it may not be causing any problem at all (though I'd argue the contrary), just as the unexploded WWII ordinance might not have caused any problems for the last 80 years. You still wouldn't want one in your back garden would you? — Isaac

You have reduced the Bible to a single passage you do realize, as if the entire book goes on and on about stoning girls. Perhaps if you give the specific cite we can see how it has been interpreted and how it has been placed in context with the greater story.

In any event, we don't have a single instance of a stoning you can cite to in the past 2,000 years in those nations that have adopted the Bible as a guiding document (although I'm sure there were some somewhere). Those limiting stoning (and the death penalty generally) have been the believers in the text (i.e. the rabbis). More recent trends within those nations that have historically accepted the Bible as a foundational document have been to secularize their societies to even further reduce the power of those who interpret the Bible. In current Western societies, the death penalty has been eliminated in many countries and in many states in the US and the total number of death penalty cases where it is legal has been in decline.

I don't see the danger you see.

As for evidence that it's a risk, that it has caused problems in the past, that it causes problems in other parts of the world? Do you still need to ask? — Isaac

By the past, I'm not sure what you're referencing. I can assume that stoning might have occurred in the bronze age and iron age by the desert dwellers in the near east, but I don't know what reliable historical or archeological record you're using to show that other than the dubious historical accuracy of the Bible itself. Even in those instances where stoning was deemed acceptable in the Bible, there's no evidence it was carried out in any significant way. I'll concede barbarism is part of every people's past and we should always remain concerned that our most base instincts don't prevail, but I don't live in fear that one day we'll adopt a strict literalism and start stoning little girls. That doesn't seem to be a reasonable worry.

As to other parts of the world where stoning occurs, that seems limited to Muslim nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Judaism

Why that is is a much more complicated question than looking to a single book. A society's norms are determined by its peculiar history, which includes its political system, its interaction with other nations, specific leaders it might have had, philosophies it might have adopted and on and on. Why the US has the laws it has goes far beyond what the Bible says. It owes its culture to the English, the French, the Greeks, the Hispanics, the ancient Hebrews, the many diverse African nations, and many more than I need to recite.

Why some Muslim nations engage in stoning seems not entirely related to the biblical text, but to a much larger political and social reason, but I really don't know enough about those regions to speak without more knowledge. I'm also not that clear on Muslim theology and what weight they afford the OT versus the Koran versus various other Muslim sacred literature. But to those who may know, that'd be interesting to learn.

More fundamental to the question of whether a virus has a will to live is whether viruses are ever alive at all. https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html

Laughed at this. Perhaps 'Merca was founded on a lie, and continues to believe its own myths in the face of its grossly immoral actions towards its own people and those around the world. A pertinent example of how myths hide reality, and why myths ought to be critiqued. — Banno

Myths aren't factual, which was my point. They are aspirational. If we critique our myths, we realign our aspirations, not the facts. It's for that reason we see an evolution of our myths and why the US Constitution, for example, today affords rights it never did before.

If the myth hides reality, then the myth is being used to determine reality, which isn't to treat it as myth.

You really misread my post. You act as if I were trying to herald the US as being honorable and true. My comments were neutral as to the truth of the myth. I pointed out the myth upon which the nation was built.

There is no fixed, immutable thing that you might call "the meaning of the bible" — Banno

And I don't see that as a problematic objection any more than how it might apply to any other foundational document, as I noted in reference to the US Constitution.

I take exception to your use of "attack". I suppose your excessive defensiveness is explained by your considering a critique of literalism as an attack on your own beliefs. But if you do not hold that god punishes sinners unjustly, then you are not the subject fo the critique. — Banno

You misread my terms. Ironic I suppose. I use "attack" only to reference the opposing point of view. I have no personal investment in the outcome of this discussion. In any event, your exception is noted in the record.

Your repeated denial of the fact that there are folk who do hold that god is unjust is unfortunate for you, but good for the length of my thread. So thanks. — Banno

Of course there are those who hold God is unjust and there are those who hold that God is just. We're not speaking of the same God.

Put simply. People select narratives to make sense of their lives, these narratives have a gravitational pull toward certain interpretations. some narratives are better than others. A narrative which has to be 'interpreted' carefully to avoid the impression that stoning girls to death is OK, is not one of the better ones. — Isaac

What is the empirical basis you have for claiming that those who have carefully interpreted the Bible to read that it's not OK to stone girls to death to prove that the Bible is not a beneficial narrative for the living of their lives or for society in general?

The best I can see is that you find the interpretations farfetched, but shouldn't effectiveness be the determinant for preservation as opposed to lack of farfetchedness? That is, shouldn't we look at the value the current institution has on people's lives, as opposed to whether you personally find it preposterous?

The power of myth can be positive, and myth is what we're talking about here, not facts. Myths are typically created to advance positive societal perspectives. The argument you make is that the biblical myth is too absurd to be true, but if it were, it would be evil. My point is that I know the myth is factually false and I would have no motivation to create a factually false myth that leads to a negative result, so obviously it's positive.

One reason that the Bible gets such positive interpretation (i.e. special pleading) is precisely because it's the narrative we use for positive effects in our society. It's the "good" book. It is therefore specially interpreted that way by definition.

It's like you're running around telling me that George Washington really wasn't a perfectly honest person and that he did not really confess to chopping down the cherry tree. Yeah, I get none of it happened. I think the myth being advanced in that narrative is that America was founded by the most honest of men, explaining its higher sense of morality than all other nations. I'm not asking that you accept that narrative as factually correct or even as accurate myth, but the message I've noted is the point of that story. I don't find the criticism that the events didn't take place or that a tree chopper is an unredeemable character at all responsive to the narrative though.

Who says I'm not? Again, the same special pleading. I'm not entitled to an opinion about what the meaning is to me, what it's value is to me. Only positive interpretations are welcome. What other text gets that treatment? — Isaac

Should we start with the belief that the Bible is the literal inerrant word of an omni-benevolent God, then any negative interpretation would necessarily be false and would be blasphemous. Under this assumption, it is not special pleading to treat the Bible as special because this assumes the Bible is special, a tablet etched in stone by the finger of God. The Lord of the Rings is treated differently because God didn't write it in the perfect way God writes. It was written by a mere mortal for profit.

On the other hand, if we start with the belief that the Bible was written by many different people over many years and that it reveals the collective wisdom gathered over the millennia, then we would recognize its importance, but we would allow whatever criticisms you might have of it, just like any other book. Of course, some books are better than others and we tend to think more deeply, for example, about the contents of the Lord of the Rings than of Green Eggs and Ham. We don't treat Lord of the Rings as a special case by holding it to a higher level than Green Eggs and Ham. We treat it as a better book because it is on an objective level more complex and meaningful. Such too is the case of the Bible when compared to other works.

I suspect some think the Lord of the Rings is stupid fantasy bullshit, while others that it has deeper meaning. As to the former group, I'll trust them when they say it's worthless to them. As to the latter group, I'll trust them as they say it is to them. All this holds true to the Bible. Take it or leave it, but to those who have found it a guide for life, then I trust it does as they say.

I'm trying to see where there's a problem here unless the focus of your attack is upon the proselytizing and evangelizing fundamental literalists who refuse to listen to your critiques, continue to try to convert you, and then condemn you to hell. The lowest rung on the religious ladder are clearly vulnerable to your attacks and have little useful or logical response. They have been thoroughly decimated and embarrassed by your onslaught.

Now, moving up a rung on that ladder, what are you attacks on those folks?

Did you glance at the article? It clarifies how the consequence - it calls them forward effects or downstream consequences - are open-ended; one can extemporise on religious beliefs in a way that does not happen with factual beliefs. — Banno

With regard to the Leeuwen article, I see it as clearly showing the inherent weakness of relying upon religious doctrine to prove physical facts about the world. The scientific method is the proper epistemology for such questions.

Questions of good and evil and what to hold out as sacred and what to hold in low regard and what it means to live a life well lived are not addressed through the scientific method. We rely upon wisdom, derivable through our intellectual and spiritual histories, which includes, among other things, religious doctrine.

We have 2 categories here and therefore 2 methods of obtaining answers. The mental world doesn't derive answers from the same sources as the physical world.

As to those who insist we can look to Genesis to determine how we came to exist and disregard the fossil evidence, they make the same mistake as those who try to discover the meaning of life in a petri dish.

Anyway, do you take Leeuwen to contradict what I've said?

But also, I offered the Leeuwen article as a contribution towards working with the sort of non-literal meaning you espouse, in addition to the usual reference to unconformable and influential metaphysics. It's not that these alternate readings havn't been addressed. — Banno

I did locate your Leeuwen article (https://philpapers.org/archive/VANRCI.pdf). I note he went to my alma mater, apparently having benefitted from the wisdom I left behind. I really don't dispute that the religious versus the non-religious likely adopt very different epistemologies depending upon how divergent the two group's worldviews are. My position is that when it comes to facts about the world (the very type Leeuwen identifies), I rely upon the same methods for knowledge as you do. That is, I don't use religion to figure out whether I have almonds in my cupboard (his example). I use it to find meaning, purpose, and morality. I don't know how anything Leeuwen says addresses the credulity of those beliefs just because they are based upon religious doctrine.

His point is well taken, but obvious. If you want to know actual facts about the world, like where it came from, who first occupied it, whether sometimes manna falls from the sky, or sometimes bushes burn but go unconsumed, religion isn't where you should look. If you want to know what to do with the life you've got and why you might want to do that, religion might be where you want to look.

And than there is the issue that, once one entertains non-literal readings, any reading will do... So we can add a nice derangement of epitaphs. There is no fixed meaning for the text. — Banno

I'd start by saying that we have to agree upon an interpretive method, and there's nothing special about literalism that might lead one to think it's the default or primary method for interpretation. It's clear the Bible, as we know it, is a compilation of at least 4 different works sewn together, with duplicative and conflicting accounts of the same events. There are two flood stories and two creation stories, for example. One would assume the author therefore did not intend the story to be taken literally. Of course, to what extent you think author's intent is relevant for interpretation is another matter.

For some discussion on why we now have those who take it literally, see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/21/biblical-literalism-bible-christians.

Attacking the literalists might be justified, but then moving beyond that and attacking religion generally would not be. It may just be you're attacking those with the weakest justifications for their beliefs.

I don't follow how non-literalism is more prone to lack of fixed meaning than literalism is. Words change meanings in very subtle ways over time as do the context in which they're used. The notion that we speak directly and clearly and convey exact thoughts with our words is the analytic philosopher's perfect dream, but that's not what really happens. How many books have been written on what Wittgenstein really meant and how many confict with each other?

And on the other side of things, we all accept that Aesop was not speaking of an actual tortoise and hare, yet the metaphorical meaning of that story seems to have withstood time. That is, despite it being literally false, no one would say that any reading will do when deciphering the metaphor.

And then let's look to the US Constitution. What does it mean? Are you a literalist when it comes to it? I don't read the word "abortion" anywhere in that text, but it apparently contemplates pregnancy and it divides it into three trimesters, each one allowing for differing amounts of state regulation that can be imposed. Do you look to the author's intent, or is it a living document, interpreted with the evolving morality of the times? If it is subject to changing interpretation, does it follow that "any reading will do," or are there is still incorrect readings.

My point here is that you've beaten the holy hell out of what any half-way sophisticated theist would consider a strawman.

Perhaps you did not recognise that these issues are being addressed? — Banno

Let me find the article you're referring to. 22 pages. I keep up the best I can

You keep saying this, others including myself keep pointing out that there are folk who do take it literally, that ignoring them is special pleading. No, we are not "misreading". You are reading selectively.

We all understand that you do not believe the nasty bits in those books. But some folk do. — Banno

Reading it non-literally is not special pleading. Reading it literally is. The majority of adherents to the Abrahamic traditions don't believe in stoning.

In any event, should you identify those who have used the Bible to advance their horrible agendas, I stand with you in fighting against them. But that really has less to do with theology than politics. Some preachers preached for civil rights, others against it. I'm not sure the opponents really cared what the book said.

The puzzle being when it's appropriate to transfer judgement from worshipping a God who is believed to have a murderboner for stoning to the moral character of the worshipper? (@Hanover - you seem to be taking on an easier version of the problem where a believer doesn't believe in the horrible bits of doctrine, which isn't the target of the OP's article) — fdrake

My position is that it must all be read for its underlying message, not as an account of what happened. It's not that I don't believe the horrible bits didn't literally happen. I'm not committed to any of it actually happening. Whether it occurred or not is entirely irrelevant. It's metaphor.

If it is rejected in other places, that is despite it being in the scriptures. — Banno

Yes, it is literally in the scriptures, yet it's not advocated by the overwhelming majority of those who read the scripture, which means what I've been saying all along: you're misreading it as if the literal meaning is where the meaning lies.

Where do you think they got the idea...? — Banno

Stoning simply is not part of the Western tradition, at least not for 2000 years. You've offered no examples of the death penalty being carried out by any Western religion or theocracy in thousands of years. It's a part of our secular tradition however, but not by stoning. None of those examples in your Wiki article contradict that. Why stoning exists in Muslim nations, I don't know, perhaps there's a historical reason I'm unaware. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

To the extent you argue the OT has caused these abuses, you have to explain why the other Abrahamic religions don't do it. The special case (i.e. the exception) appears to be in certain Muslim nations, but I no more attribute that to the Koran as I do to the OT. Politics typically offers the best explanations.

In any event, I believe you realize it's possible to be a devout Jew, Muslim, or Christian while fully condemning the exact things you currently do, so what is your point here? That to be a good Jew, Muslim, or Christian. I must accept that stoning is just one of those things I'm going to have to do from time to time?

I can comfortably invest in a Roth-IRA into some index fund into the S&P-500 or Dow Jones Industrial Index for the rest of my lifetime and devote my time to leisure and comfort from dividends, which I suppose is the ideal thing to do for anyone in my disposition — Shawn

I think that's a good idea. The max IRA contribution is $6,000 per year, so you should be able to funnel your tens of billions of dollars into your tax free investments in a couple of billion of years. Well, maybe less because it increases to $7,000 I think at age 50.

But anyway, congrats on your big payday!! Was it your year end bonus?

Taking that back to the OP, the upshot is that religious belief is categorically distinct from factual belief. The result is that belief in eternal damnation is not a factual belief so much as an imaginative act. As such belief in hell does not appeal or respond to truth or evidence. — Banno

But this comment again literalizes the metaphysical content of the religious document. Yes, you are correct, the world was not created in 6 days, there was no ark that housed the entire world's creatures, and the sea did not part. There therefore is no actual hell. To the extent some accept these simple literalist notions, you've made your point that they are the thoughts of the unsophisticated or those who were raised in such insular environments, they cannot fathom there might be another perspective. You've put as many nails in that coffin as you need to.

Let's move then away from the metaphysical and to the ethical and existential and disregard the literalism you fall back on. We're looking for meaning, purpose, good, and evil and the meaning of life well lived, none of which are described as "factual beliefs" in the way you're using that phrase.

Can I ask why? Why would you search for existential meaning? Why there? The book opens with a vengeful God putting babies to the sword, advocating the stoning to death of just about anyone who has sex without his say so, demanding sacrifices etc. What is it, after reading all that, that makes you think "I bet there'll be some great existential nuggets in here, if only I can get past all the blatant misogyny and homophobia and see the bigger picture"?

There's a great 'big picture' message in the Lord of the Rings too, but very few babies being put to the sword by the main protagonist - and it's got fight scenes. — Isaac

Initially, let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that ancient religion typically stoned people, at least not for the past 2000 years. If you want to use the biblical accounts as evidence that the stoning actually occurred, you would be taking a literalist approach to the OT and would be accepting is historicity. To prove the actual existence of stoning, you need a real historical source, not the OT.

The rabbinic view of the death penalty made its use so limited, that it was de facto impossible to ever occur. For example, the person who was committing the crime must have been instructed at the time he was committing it of the possibility of the death penalty and he'd have to acknowledge understanding it. The Talmud lists the last death penalty as having occurred in 28 CE. The exact date is debated, but we're looking at an ancient religion that was not quite as barbaric as you're suggesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Judaism

Regardless of that, you've asked a few questions I'll respond to:

Why I would search for meaning is in itself a teleological question, asking for what purpose would I make such an inquiry, which presupposes that meaning matters. So my initial question back to you would be why do you seek meaning in my behavior unless you're assuming meaning matters. But, to answer your question more directly, I want to understand the meaning of life because it's personally important to me for likely the same reasons it's been important to milliions of people over the past thousands and thousands of years.

I think Frankl answered this question better than me, describing the significance of the "will to meaning."

https://medium.com/mind-cafe/7-viktor-frankl-quotes-to-motivate-you-to-find-your-purpose-2ece0c64f1d8#:~:text=It%20was%20based%20on%20Frankl%E2%80%99s%20observation%20that%20those,find%20meaning.%20He%20called%20it%20%E2%80%98will%20to%20meaning%E2%80%99.


I look to the bible for meaning because there is a rich tradition over the millennia of scholars using it as a means to derive meaning and purpose. I can benefit from those efforts and that wisdom by reading what they've said. I also grew up in a Jewish environment, so the wisdom from that tradition comes to me with a higher degree of credibility than other sources, which is why people typically remain in the traditions they were raised in.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the book opens with God putting babies to the sword. That's not how it opens.

In any event, you are not limited to using the Bible to search for meaning. You could use the Koran, the Book or Morman, the New Testament, Dianetics, Lord of the Rings, Winnie the Pooh (which was attempted in The Tao of Pooh), or even Green Eggs and Ham to find meaning and inspiration. I'm not claiming that all other traditions are wrong, but will admit to multiple paths to finding meaning. I do think if you choose the Lord of the Rings as your primary source of inspiration, you're going to be limited in terms of the scholarship you can rely upon for your learning and there won't be much of a community you can share your beliefs and discussions with. There's also the possibility you won't take your mission quite so seriously, as it's doubtful your identity will tied to the belief system of Lord of the Rings as perhaps a Christian's identity is tied to her belief. If your quest is the search for meaning, and you honestly have found it through the Lord of the Rings in a comprehensive way, I'd find it unusual, but I wouldn't think it impossible.

None of this is meant to excuse any bad conduct on the part of any religious group. Subjugation on the basis of gender, sexual abuse, physical abuse, or any other criminal behavior is criminal whether in the name of religion or not.

If there were then Christianity is a polytheistic religion, too, Satan being the creation of the Lord. — Banno

If the father, the son, and the holy ghost are three separate entities, Christianity is a
Polytheistic religion.

Christians claim the trinity is three in one and therefore monotheistic. If you're not Christian, though, and reject the trinity as incoherent, I think the conclusion is that Christianity is polytheistic.

I would conted it is.

IF you like. It does appear to be the link between Akhenaten, Zoroaster and modern monotheism. — Banno

I think the argument from Akhenaten to modern day monotheism is weak. That was the belief of a single kingdom for a short period of time as opposed to Judaism's evolutionary advancement and long term acceptance. But anyway, such is ancient history. Much speculation.

Sound. And is this the way it's commonly read and thought about, in your experience? — Srap Tasmaner

Different traditions read it differently. An orthodox Jew would read it literally. A reform metaphorically.

In essence I'm not even judging Christians at this point, I'm judging us, as a secular society for holding such a religion in any esteem at all. — Isaac

You can't myth bust if you're opponent admits it's all myth to begin with. If you hold up the Bible and declare it's not what it presents itself to be, that the emperor wears no clothes, my snarky response would be to point out there is no emperor either. That whole story about an emperor with no clothes never happened. George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree and the native Americans didn't enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with the settlers.

I'm looking for existential meaning when I read the book. Stop pointing out the trees. I'm learning about the forest.

I'm with you on this to the extent the OT is clearly a compilation of at least 4 different works and the early religion was not monotheistic, but it's been monotheistic for well over 2000 to 3000 years, certainly since "modern" judaism. And by "modern," I'm referring to the post temple era (in the first century AD), which is the rabbinical era, when we Jews stopped offering sacrifices and whatnot.

Way out of my league here, but maybe one could imagine the jealous God of the Old Testament as a different sort of thing altogether, a god that can kick the ass of every other god, our guy, not necessarily the principle of goodness — Srap Tasmaner

Jumping in midstream here, so if what I say misses the point, ignore me.

The OT God is considered by all contemporary traditions as monotheistic, so he can't be posited as just the strongest god, but must be accepted as the only god (this is the monolotry versus monotheism distinction). The consequences of this distinction are significant. Yahweh is a significant departure from Zeus and the many other gods within that tradition.

If you begin with the notion that the text of the OT isn't meant literally and that it is meant as a guide to ethical behavior and a meaningful life, I don't think you'll be burdened by any particular passage. That is, read it with a positive bias and metaphorically, and you won't run into the problem of a horrible god unjustly punishing the weak.

Yes, you are pretty much representing this view here: — schopenhauer1

Reminds me of a song:

If you accept the notion that financial success is attainable thorough individual choice, which rests heavily upon motivation, education, persistence, and choosing a lucrative field, many of these concerns dissolve.

If, on the other hand, you feel the system is rigged against success despite your doing the same things as those who are successful, the disparities are not acceptable.

I lean toward the first paragraph, although I realize my chances of being a CEO are slim, but I do believe I can, through my choices, live a genuinely happy life.

It's clear that poverty is miserable and that a certain income is necessary for survival and basic happiness, but beyond that, additional wealth provides minimal extra happiness.

It's for that reason I have little concern over what a CEO makes, an NBA player makes, or how much the neighbor makes. I'm all aboard for providing assistance to the needy, and I realize that aid will likely be paid by those with the most to contribute, but as far as having animosity for the rich, they're not on my radar. What's important to them isn't important to me.

...but my advice to you, dear reader of this post, is that if you want to express an opinion that might be construed as racist or sexist or misogynist or—whatever—in this forum, just be sure to couch it in a fiction: then it will be overlooked. — Leghorn

This isn't good advice. The advice I'd offer everyone, specific to the question of misogyny, is that you shouldn't post misogynistic comments on this site or you'll be banned. The advice that you should express your misogyny in a way that avoids immediate detection is not what we're looking for here, so if that is your objective, please leave. You're not welcome here.

Should you post stories or present posts that are ambiguous enough that it remains unclear what your objective is, I'm sure you can for some period of time remain unmoderated, but all the moderation team can do is to try our best to enforce the rules despite posters' best efforts to avoid detection.

The light wave is something in the environment. If we wanted to, we could touch the flower to our eyeball, though I don't think it's necessary. — NOS4A2

You can't see the flower without light. The eye detects light. That's just how it works.

You can perceive with your ankle, I believe. If I tap my ankle with a finger I can feel it. — NOS4A2

Not sure why you're telling me this. I said you don't taste with your ankle, which you don't.

It’s all direct contact. Without it we wouldn’t perceive anything. — NOS4A2

It's direct contact with the lightwave, not the flower.

To me, the act of perception is performed as much by the taste receptors and nerves as it is by the brain. — NOS4A2

What about your ankles, are they part of the perception?

We can touch the flower, we can taste it, even passing the flower through our digestion system. You cannot get much more direct than that. — NOS4A2

You're referencing how the brain is stimulated, which can occur by touch, but also by light or sound waves, so it's not direct, and differing senses provide inconsistent input. Lightening strikes are visible well before you hear their thunder.

And once you start measuring the eyeball and neural networks, you’re measuring the perceiver, not any sort of space between perceiver and perceived. — NOS4A2

Of course I am because a closed mouth doesn't taste, so I must assume you accept we don't taste until the food passes the teeth and at least reaches the tongue, although it is later than that because it has to get to your brain first. If we sever the nerves from your tongue, you won't taste, so I can assume the stimuli was traveling through my tongue but blocked before it reached the perception faculty of my brain.

How is what I'm saying at all controversial?

So there is no image, no medium upon which it appears, and no little perceiver to look at it. None of that exists when we physically examine the biology. Upon further examination we find that the biology is in direct contact with its environment, the perceiver in direct contact with perceived, no gap between them. — NOS4A2

There is a gap between the perceived and perceiver. You can take out a measuring stick and determine how big a gap there is between the flower and your eye. You can then measure the length of the eyeball, the neural networks, and get a final measurement back to the brain. Over the course of that 10 feet, there are all sort of things happening, from variations in light, curvatures of lenses, to reduction of stimuli into electrical impulses. The evidence is that those mediating influences impact the images (or smells or sounds or whatever) as we can see that other organisms perceive objects differently than we do. In fact, variations in perception occur even among humans.

I am certain there is an image of the flower. It is indubitable. My certainty that I am experiencing an image I believe to be a flower greatly exceeds my belief that there is a flower.

A Concise Introduction to Philosophy by William Halverson. It was my Philosophy 101 textbook from the University of Georgia in 1985. I've kept it. I remember being amazed that every original philosophical thought I ever had already had a name and an argument disproving it.

So why should we insert this image into our discourse it those who assert it is there are unable to produce it or even point to it? — NOS4A2

Every experience arises from stimuli, whether that be the bird you experience or the freedom you feel.

Where is the freedom you experience? Point to it, since you've taken the impossible stance that every experience is equivalent to its referent, even though it is not a necessary property of nouns that they have a referent.

Vision is just one sense that informs us of reality and it happens to be a human being's primary sense, but my visual stimuli received of the bird is no more the bird than the sound of the rustling of its feathers is to my cat, who goes into attack mode when she hears a small animal scurrying about.

If we stipulate that a "substance" distinction between two objects means the two objects are incapable of acting upon one another, then the mind/body interaction problem is logically unresolvable if we claim minds and bodies are composed of different substances. Logic 101.

To salvage dualism and maintain the explanatory power it provides in separating conscious states from ordinary objects, the typical response is to assert the mind and body are different enough entities to require they are to be categorized separately, yet admit they share a common physical element that allows for interaction.

This approach is known as property dualism as opposed to substance dualism, but, in terms of the actual difference between the two approaches, it's hard to meaningfully decipher because the essence of the "physical" is undefined. That is, if one asserts the mind and body are greatly distinct, but both ultimately physical, then scoop me a sample of whatever that shared substance is so I can see it under my magnifying glass.

This is to say, all this talk of physical monism versus physical/non-physical dualism should require someone explain what it means to be physical and what it means to be non-physical.

What I think is going on here is that "physical" is being used to designate those objects that are able to interact with other objects also designated as "physical."

Ergo, what makes minds and bodies similar is that they can interact with one another, but I'm not willing to commit there's actually a physical similarity beyond that (that you can put under my microscope to see). That is, the shared "property" of minds and bodies is that they can interact

We do not need to insert some image between that which sees and that which is seen — NOS4A2

It's a scientific fact that we experience an image as the result of some sort of stimuli. I don't understand your use of the phrase "we do not need to." Need to for what? In order to offer a coherent explanation of the bird even if that means denying an obvious scientific fact?

You and your dog see the same bird, but in different ways. — Banno

3 things here: (1) what I see, (2) what the dog sees, (3) the bird.

Describe each for me so I know what you're talking about. Tell me about the sort of feathers each has.

What if someone says, flat-out, "I hate New Agers" or "New Agers are stupid, worthless people"? — baker

Here

For example, if a poster were to express a very negative view of, say, New Age, would that make them a New-Age-phobe, and thus, bannable (instantly)? — baker

As a general matter, we don't render declaratory judgments, meaning there must be an actual case in controversy for us to rule. That means we don't entertain hypotheticals and then declare some sort of binding precedent. What we do is when there is an actual case, we read the rules and we interpret them, relying to some extent upon the way they were interpreted before.

To do otherwise would result in our continually responding to "what ifs," which we don't have time for, and which often wouldn't be helpful anyway because actual cases have all sorts of nuances that have to be considered.

Disturbing but compelling.