You've changed the topic. I haven't seen any argument that religious folk disproportionately evil, or more so than atheists. — Banno

If that's not your view, I stand corrected. I take as an example a prior quote of yours though,

"this goes beyond the merely epistemological point, to demand a response from the faithful as to their humanity.

Faith is not always a good. If your faith is strong enough for you to fly a Boeing into a building, or to fire rockets indiscriminately into a city, then something has gone astray."

Why the cautionary tale identifying the dangers of faith if evil is just an attribute of mankind? Is not implicit in this comment that those without faith are more benign than those with? If just an argument for moderation, why not mention the dangers of extreme atheism as well?

Anyway, to clarify, which makes for the better society, ceteris paribus, one all of theists or one all of atheists?

If plank state 1 is followed by plank state 2 without apparent rhyme or reason and that negates a meaningful concept of time, either you're requiring a conscious narrative of events for time to exist (and thus a conscious observer), or you're requiring underlying internal laws exist that dictate this change despite it appearing random.

This is to say that if the ball becomes a fish becomes water, and it's not the lack of a conscious observer being unable to understand the progression that collapses time, but it's the lack of ontological structure that does it, you've created an untestable theory because it's possible laws exist that just can't be understood.

On the other hand, if a conscious observer arrives at a narrative that explains the plank state transitions, you now have meaningful time, even if the conscious observer is entirely wrong in his explanation.

This seems to suggest the only reliable description of time requires a conscious observer, right?

Our system is built on the illusion of pressure, control, and rush. — Martijn

you LIKE this system, then that's one thing. But don't gaslight people here into thinking that the system is only in my head. — Martijn

My post didn't say anything about the dictates of reality, but then condescendingly suggesting you can feel free to live under whatever delusion you wanted.

I offered the platitude of the Bard, and I said to be true to yourself. That you've read that as me monkeying with your head is on you.

You, on the other hand, present the position of intellectual transcendence, as if you stand above the fray and can see it as it is, a social contrivance, designed to enslave.

My point wasn't to enter the capitalist/Marxist debate that looms obviously in this discussion, but just to point out that I would find it as profoundly unfulfilling to live in stable security without highly variable successes and failures as you apparently find the opposite.

Candidly, I encourage those who don't wish to compete not to compete. Races are easier to win with fewer contestants.

I can't disagree with the post to the extent the poster found comfort from his internal struggles by interpreting his world as he did.

For me, I like the chaos of competition and the rush of the chase. I don't like sitting still and could not survive passively waiting for I want.

While the post suggests his analysis applies universally and is perhaps an objectively correct stance, it's really not, but is just the flip side of those who insist the opposite is the correct stance.

The answer is to your own self be true.

Abrahamic hang ups then. — I like sushi

It actually predates that:

How about this. I am wondering that today maybe with think of the act of defecating and bathing as a habit where it was once imbued with far more ritual and meaning than in the past. For women 'toilette' seems to hold a social significance compared to men. If we go back far enough was it held in higher regard and of higher importance for all? We are animals so territory marking may be something worth considering here? — I like sushi

I think there is a reason that feces is instintively foul, which likely relates to it being generally unhealthy waste, although my dog doesn't seem as offended by it and considers it a bit of a treat. She will vomit after eating it though, so maybe it's an intelligence thing as well.

I suspect that various traditions treat the act of defacation with differing levels of holiness. I beleive Judaism has a prayer to recite after a good shit. Perhaps some also pray for a good shit, particularly after a long haitus.

I can't really remember what we were talking about, but maybe something to do with why a toilet is so close to the tub. I can see how a romantic tryst in the bubble bath would be enhanced by the convenience of being able to take a massive immediately thereafter, allowing you to jump back in the suds for another round before getting the shivers. If a cooler of Budweiser were nearby, I think we might have perfection.

I am not sure what nudity has to do with this. I think that is more or less Victorian era hang up.

btw I only get naked when I go to the toilet because this country is VERY hot. — I like sushi

Modesty rules pre-existed Victorian times obviously, going all the way back to the time when Adam draped his junk with a fig leaf.

Bathroom privacy is very much in the news these days in other contexts as well. This is just to say that placement of toilets next to showers in the same private room does have something to do with the privacy afforded by that private room while unclothed. It would also explain why we don't put locked doors around our kitchens, despite them too having water supplies.

Also, when I was a kid I drank from the garden hose and I always kept my pants on.

do not buy into the idea that it is simply due to plumbing convenience as we do not find toilets, baths or showers in kitchen areas. Adjacent, yes. Combined, no. — I like sushi

You don't get naked when you cook, so it's not necessary to put an oven next to the bathtub. Bathrooms are private places, which explains putting toilets next to showers. It's the private room.

What do you think about this strange partnership? Why on earth does anyone have a toilet located anywhere near where they clean themselves? Obviously it is practical in one sense, yet in order it seems absurd to the point of being obscene. — I like sushi

There are differences between spiritual cleansings (baptisms, mikvahs) and hygienic cleansing (scrubbing the grease off your paws). I take "ablution" to reference the spiritual sort. My guess is most traditions wouldn't allow a spiritual dip in the shitter.

Cleaning requires water requires pipes, so the toilet finds itself hooked up to the same water pipes and drain pipes as the shower, thus the close proximity. Most bathrooms are clean, although I wouldn't bare ass it at the Highway 21 Stop and Go. In prison, where I've not been, I hear they brush their teeth in the shiny steel bowl, but there's lots of stuff not worth talking about goes down there.

What say the Rabbis? https://www.yeshiva.co/ask/7431

I think the story goes that the privy was outside up until it was hygienic enough to come in from the cold. It's just a modern convenience that emerged through technology more than some change in social norm.

You want to to turn all that's been said here into a bit of pop psychology. Fine. There's your straw man. — Banno

Not pop psychology, but perhaps actual psychology. If it is the case that religious based reasoning does not dictate an evil propensity yet the empirical evidence shows the religious are more evil than their atheist counterparts, then some explanation as to why might be interesting.

For example, if I'm a Satanist, it might be that my evil ways are dictated by my ideology, and so you could rightly criticize Satanism. But if I'm a Christian and my evil ways are not dictated by my ideology, you can't rightly criticize my Christianity. If you can show, however, that Christians are disproportionately evil (even though there's nothing in their ideology that entails that evil (as there is with Satanism)), then I'd be interested in knowing what that is.

Buit that interest isn't a philosophical question. It's a psychological or sociological one. Maybe all Republicans are great dancers. If they are, I'd want to know why because it doesn't seem like dancing ability should arise from that belief system. It also doesn't seem like joining the Republican party will make me a great dancer.

That's simply not what I read in the responses to my posts here. — Banno

If you have located someone willing to argue the strawman, defeating them only proves you've found the weakest form of the argument to defeat. It doesn't suggest anything more philosophically as to what faith based beliefs entail.

The best I can decipher is you wish to generalize a psychological profile to those of faith, pointing out they're a particularly dangerous sort.

That's not philosophy. That's sociology. I'll defer to the studies whatever they might say. Regardless of what sociological studies say Christians, for example, typically are does not mean they logically must be.

And that's the philosophy question. That Christians or whoever might suck at higher rates than atheists isn't because of their religion. It's just because they suck.

For many, it is uncomfortable to draw attention to that aspect of faith. — Banno

It's really not. It's like pointing out that governments can do evil things and thinking that only anarchists remain comfortable because they swore off government.

That religion has done some really bad things isn't debatable.

It's also not really debatable that government and religions are political entities. People and power create. Sometimes they create good. Sometimes not.

My response all along has been the special pleading of religion as evil, not denying it can be evil.

But perhaps the issue isn't how many bullets were fired by anger and how may by faith, but in acknowledging that at least some were fired in faith. — Banno

I think plenty are fired on the basis of faith, but my point was to push back on the idea that faith based beliefs are particularly dangerous by comparison. And to completely purge of bias, if we're going to acknowledge that some bullets are fired on the basis of faith, we must also acknowledge that a good many bullets never make their way to flight due to those of faith. To suggest otherwise sort of characterizes the religious as muzzled pit bulls, inherently dangerous but made safe if properly controlled and surveilled. Some are actually good actors through and through.

But perhaps you and I agree were others will differ. Do we agree that it is the actions, not the thoughts oft he actor, that have the main moral import?

And especially, that an act is done in good faith is insufficient for it to be counted as a good act, or a being the right thing to do. — Banno

I am generally sympathetic to this view because it comports with my personal religious views because prioritizing act over intent is typical of the more ancient belief systems, but like an old tie, it seems to have come back in style. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, which makes the point that trying to do right but fucking everything up isn't something you can be excused from.

One reason you find this sort of reasoning in older moral systems is that what is considered right and wrong is often more clearly laid out, sometimes being very rule oriented. If we can say X, Y, and Z are wrong, we leave less to our own personal evaluation, and so we needn't evaluate our intent when we evaluate the act. For example, if the rule is "thou shalt not lie," then you can't lie. If you do lie, but you do it for a variety of kind hearted reasons, it doesn't matter. You lied. We don't get into some complex calculus of trying to figure out when it's ok to lie and then trying to justify later when everything fucks up that we made a good faith effort at doing the math and it saying we could lie, but it turns out we probably shouldn't have.

There are limits to this concept though, because I do see a difference between a bad act committed as the result of incompetence versus malice. My wife serving me spoiled meat because she failed to check the expiration date is quite a different event than her serving it up because I failed to fold the laundry. By the same token, if she serves me up what she thought was spoiled meat in order to punish me for my poor housekeeping, but it was actually now perfectly aged and of even higher quality, I don't think she gets an award for being such a good spouse.

It reminds me of the movie Taxi Driver, where a failed assassination attempt on a presidential candidate resulted in the return of a child prostitute to her parents and the would be assassin becoming a hero. I still see something pretty bad about the would be assassin's behavior, even though he did bring Jodie Foster back to her parents where she could go on and make more movies.

So the Christians amongst us might demur. At the least you will admit that there are those who count faith as a virtue. — Banno

What is meant by Christian faith as being a virtue I suppose is a commitment to the truth of the teachings of Jesus Christ, which might just be a statement that the highest virtue is to believe in what is right and just and true. It might correlate to the first commandment, which is that one should have no other gods before God or perhaps the second forbidding idolotry.

But that's one of many ways "faith" might be defined, which is the question of this thread.

The Aristotlian virtues are are more specific, isolating particular aspects of a person worth fostering. It's the difficulty in translating precisely the language of Athens to the language of Jerusalem.

You mention misdefining god, or perhaps misunderstanding god's will. The obvious problem is the ubiquitous one that it is not entirely obvious to everyone what god's will is, and further there is no possibility of any objectively agreed standard here. While it might suit your narrative to claim terrorists "hijacked... certain terms and ideas for their evil purposes", this is not clear; on the face of it, al-Qaeda is a faith-based organisation. It doesn't, for example, recruit Catholics.

All this by way of showing that there is an element of special pleading in your suggestion that those who commit abominations in the name of faith are misusing the term. — Banno

The special pleading arises in supposing one ideology is for some reason immune from the problems of another and giving it a pass and suggesting the other is hopelessly dangerous. If we should examine each of the tens of thousands of bullets suspended in air, now in midflight, and place each under the microscope to decipher what anger is embeded in each of them, I'd suspect that remarkably few have thoughts of God and ancient theologies within them. Many I'm sure are filled with irrationality and raging hate caused by the mundane existence of individuals without compass, but I'd suspect a very good number, at least those that come in the largest flurries, are filled with secular interests being advanced under some guise of justice or righteousness. The hail of gunfire in Ukraine, for example, is a better example of mass destruction than 9/11. What intention do you suppose is impregnated in those bullets, the advancement of Christianity, Judaism, Islam? That doesn't seem right. Probably a drive for natural resources, the rebuilding of a fallen empire, or a a diversion from a failing economy? Secular interests that is.

I can't really see much of a difference from an atheistic perspective between the Good and God. God is rejected under this model as an outdated attempt to create a referrent for a concept that need not have one. This is to say that what I call the dictates of God you call the dictates of Good, yet you just find my language oddly clinging to the past in insisting upon an ontological existence for my holy being. Why speak of God when we can just speak of the Good without imposing upon ourselves the superflous baggage of the supernatural, right? But isn't it your view that what those two terms mean once you've purged the latter of its mystical nonsense is the exact same thing?

The point being we both cling to a moral realism, refusing to suggest that the stomping of babies is right if we happen to all agree it is. And we're willing to die perhaps to defend those babies from their stomping. Yet for some reason your declarations of righteousness and your fight to the death to protect those innocents isn't zealousness. It's heroism. You believe you can properly scream "Praise be the Good" as you save those infants and you will pose no danger because you are right in your views, unlike al-Qaeda when they screamed pretty much the same thing as they exacted not their heroism, but their terror.

This isn't to suggest we're all right, but just have different perspectives. I hold the opposite of that in fact. I agree you should fight to the death to save the babies from their stomping. I'll charge the stompers by your side. I'll just be screaming about God and you the Good.

My point is that if the danger is certainty towards one's ideology, then that exists whether your ideology is the promotion of the Good or of God. To allow that rule of dangerousness to only apply to God and not the Good is an example of special pleading, granting your brand of certainty immunity for no good reason.

Good. Then we agree at the least that faith is to be restrained, and keep it's place amongst the other virtues. — Banno

I wouldn't clasify faith as a virtue. I would classify it as an integrity toward maintaining the virtues and trusting that adherence to the virtues will result in positive results.

We're obviously pulling terminology from different traditions here (The Good versus God), so it's hard to make this perfectuly equivalent, but the best amalgamation I can create for an apt analogy would be to say that the Good is to God as Virtues are to Moral Decrees. Faith requires we trust in God because we should trust that doing the right thing results in a more perfect world. There is no possibility that following God will result in slamming airplanes into buildings because that is not following God. That is following (at best) a profound misunderstanding of God.

This holds true for the virtues as well. We shouldn't allow our trust in the virtues to allow us to slam planes into buildings either, perhaps under a misunderstanding of what wisdom (or some other virtue) dictates.

This is to say we're speaking in truths here on this abstract of a level and we can't entertain that maybe faith in God, faith in the Good, or faith in the virtues will ever be a bad thing. Faith in those things are necessarily good. What is bad is when we have a misapprehension of God, the Good, or the virtues.

My point here is that I pick up on your suggestion that faith in God may not be good in all instances, but that's not an issue with God. That's an issue with misdefining God in order to justify one's personal sense of evil. If the 911 terrorists had screamed that their attack was in the name of the Good or that it was in the name of virtue, it would not cause damage to those concepts. It would just mean the terrorists have hijacked (pun intended) certain terms and ideas for their evil purposes.

Faith is not always a good. If your faith is strong enough for you to fly a Boeing into a building, or to fire rockets indiscriminately into a city, then something has gone astray — Banno

Immoral behavior is never justified, whether driven by a faith in God or otherwise. Let's not specially plead concern here, as if it's more common that bombs are dropped by the religious than the secular.

It would seem that if we're trying to figure out what "faith" means, we should at least look at how the faithful use it.

Consider:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/emunah-biblical-faith/

The idea, insofar as biblically based faith is concerned, it relates heavily upon trust. It's how one might have faith in a king or leader. You do as he says because you have trust in his wisdom and knowledge, but the faith is not in just a raw belief he exists. If you're simply saying you believe your land has a king even though you've never seen him or his castle, that's a sort of faith, but hardly worth talking about and not the "faith" of the OT.

A theme of the OT is the Israelites following God's direction and being rewarded and failing to follow and being punished. The message is that following God leads to prosperity. From that, one is faithful to God.

This faithfulness is based upon a covenant between God and his people, meaning adhering to the promise to follow results in his honoring his promise to protect. This compares perhaps to a marital covenant, where faithfulness is the expectation for the continuation of the relationship.

This sort of faith is not the epistemic category of justification we use philosophically. As in, we might know things empirically, rationally, intuitively, or by faith alone, and whatever others ways we may suggest.

The meaning of "faith" continued to evolve from the OT (as in trust despite failure or without response), but it seems to maintain the covenantal aspect throughout time.

The point being that "faith" as an epistemic justification that needs justification, which is the atheist's response to the theist (as in "how is your bold belief in God justified without further justification) is not something theists are terribly concerned about.

Are dictatorships really unusually bad compared to democracies? They're both capable of horrendous mistakes and diabolical episodes, as well as great feats of righteousness. How is one really better than the other? — frank

Sure, but when a democracy fucks up, we say, "that wasn't very democratic now, was it?" When a dictatorship fucks up, we say, "that was pretty dictatorial now, wasn't it?"

As in dictators are supposed to promote the dictators, but democracies aren't.

So, yeah, I go with the system that means welll, but fails from time to time as opposed to the one that means harm and typically gets it right.

think Adorno may have had it backwards. You're open to dictatorship only if you aren't afraid of it. You aren't afraid of it if you're very confident about your own autonomy. — frank

Speaking of football, I consider your theory to be like a football bat.

No doubt that the purpose of democracy is to reduce the threat of dictatorship, which is roughly defined as denying power to the people. But where you go wrong, IMH of Os is suggesting the threat isn't real, but is just the over-active imaginations of a paranoid people with self-confidence problems.

In other words, yes it is part of the American psyche to question government, but that is based upon history and well developed ideology, not just mindless fear governments can be bad.

Speaking of Russia, I'd suggest their willingness to cede power to dictators is also explained by their history. Russian people are bound together by a shared history and attachment to that land. Americans are bound by a limited history, a specific ideology, and a dream of self advancement .

More so not liberals than liberals though.

the location of your sweet spot is debatable, I suggest a little sexual experimentation. I'm sure you will find it if you follow your excitement. — unenlightened

Thanks for the suggestion, but just wish the proposition came from someone more interesting than an aging online man.

Assuming the goal is to prove yourself to be in that sweet spot between hopelessly strict and hopelessly lenient, the debate will center on where that sweet spot is, with most defending their test score as being the sweet spot. That's my plan.

Not sure i followed that, but isn't it also correct that the length of the "hole" is zero?

struck by how much this is an evaluation. And an evaluation that debases the physical world. A hierarchy, the commons at the bottom, the few at the top. A defence of elitism. So it would not be a surprise to see forms defended by erstwhile aristocrats. Just an observation. — Banno

I know Plato was opposed to democracy, preferring philosopher kings, so that would be elitist. Traditional theism posits a perfect God, so that too appears Platonic, although the early OT God was very much on an earthly level. Christianity has an all high God, but it also holds meekness a virtue, so that does appear a counter to the suggestion elitism flows from Platonism, considering Plato"s influence on it.

Where Plato specifically addresses words and meaning: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-cratylus/

I found that discussion of little value other than historical. Debating whether words are arbitrary or somehow naturally linked to the form was an odd debate, but perhaps that work was a very early recognition of the tension between meaning and words.

as one moves along the line, one moves away from use and practicality, presumably toward misuse and impracticality. There's the link to linguistic concerns. — Banno

I see Plato as unapologetically metaphysical, a realm linguistic theory tries to avoid, so I see Kant's noumena in the forms more clearly than your implication. That is, the closer we get to reality, the less we know of it. Kantian phenomena are the shadows on the caves so to speak. See also,
Exodus 33:18-23 for interesting metaphor where God equals truth.

may not be about eternal truths, but it's deeply human. And it is where meaning is found - since meaning is the use to which we put our common language. — Banno

You live among the trees and that's where real life is experienced, but that doesn't mean recognizing the forest or even tending to it is a lesser good. I realize the analogy fails on an important level: trees are smaller parts of forests, where Plato's images are blurs of forms, but the point remains, life can occur in the foxhole, but wanting to know what the war is about matters too.

But to your specific point, that the emphasis on the most high and unknowable desecrates the truth of the daily experience gets at that vexing question of Truth.

As I'm following, the highest form of knowledge is of the form, not the reflections on the cave or in your imagination. The use of "knowledge" here requires Truth (as in JTB). So when Plato wants higher knowledge, he requires closer Truth (the form).

His is a conservation about knowledge (and so necessarily of truth) and yours of words. But maybe your placement of words at the level of forms is a suggestion that the word"s meaning is the highest truth?

Go to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_divided_line

and click on tabular summary of the divided line.

The 4 levels of knowledge based upon their consistency with the pure form are:

Imagination (eikasia), Belief (pistis), Understanding (dianoia), and Pure Reason or Theoretical Reasoning (nous).

Imagination is the least reliably related to true form, and it's considered perhaps a creation of other parts of true forms (as in Pegasus would be horse, wing, etc, but not an actual thing).

This is my best understanding based on the rabbit hole I went down trying to figure this out.

How this correlates to your linguistic concerns is interesting, but difficult to integrate because Plato, at least here, isn't correlating words to meaning, but knowledge to things.

This isn't a judicially ambiguous, much-contested provision of a legal document. It's a simple phrase: "God loves you." Definitely some possible divergent ways of understanding this, but is it really capable of the same kind of multiplicity of interpretations, arguing the same case-specific technicalities? Is that what you think Christians would say about it? (I'm trying to picture the disciples scratching their heads and saying, "Now when he said 'love,' do you think he really meant 'love' like my Daddy loves me? Maybe he mea — J

It's actually more ambiguous by virtue of its antiquity and the multiplicity of traditions offering opinions on what God's love is. A Catholic response to your question of what God's love is, for example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_caritas_est

If you want to know another tradition's view, you can look that up as well.

I'll assure you there are important differences among them, pointing to differing contexts and hermeneutical approaches.

And was he right? I doubt many would now agree. — Banno

I wasn't offering a general defense of Plato, but just one specific to your objection that he fails due to his belief that every word has a reference. He wouldn't hold that talk of unicorns is meaningless and he wouldn't argue they had a form, meaning an imaginary thing can exist under Plato without a referent.

The lack of ontological status of the unicorn impacts ithe strength of its epistemological status but it doesn't render it meaningless, which would be the result if he held to a naive theory of references.

Like animist / mystical "true names", it seems to me that Platonic Forms – essences, universals – are merely reified abstractions (and therefore a mistaken theory of reference). — 180 Proof

Naive referentialism is the belief that every word has a referent, rendering statements about unicorns meaningless. Plato would require that true knowlege of something is knowledge of the form, and with unicorns, there would be no such form, so one's knowledge would be limited. A unicorn would be a mental creation formed of other forms (like horses, horns, etc.), but statements about unicorns are not meaningless according to Plato.

That's my take on this. The suggestion though that Russell arrived thousands of years later and defeated Plato's theory of forms by just saying "'the present king of France' is meaningful but false" doesn't really give Plato his due.

Certainly. But I'm asking for your answer, in the context of saying that "simple literalisms" should be avoided when trying to understand religious doctrine. Is this an example of such a literalism? If further context is needed, I can find some Gospel passages, I suppose, but I doubt whether you really need them. — J

What I mean by context isn't just providing me a few more lines of text. Just from what you've provided, you're assuming a particular context, specifically a New Testament version of "God" which arguably differs substantially from the OT (as you refernced "Gospel). That places you into a Christian context. You then ask me to interpret it along with you, which assumes a certain perspicuity of Scripture, which is an interpretive ideology consistent with 19th century fundamentalism that proposes that Scripture is written in a plain and direct way that is subject to interpretation without special knowlege.

This also assumes a priority and almost exclusivity of NT Gospels in interpreting, omitting not just non-canonical literature, but also historical literature and practices developed within and outside the tradition over time.

To give a secular example, if I were to ask what a particular provision of the US Constitution means, I can't just read it along with the rest of the document to have a full understanding its meaning. Not only are there hundreds of thousands of pages of past interpretation that binds its meaning, but there is an entire context of American society that must be understood (and its historical placement) to fully appreciate how that document is used and how that meaning is derived from its use. The suggestion that it is readable and understandable by just a casual reading without special expertise is a construction ideology unto itself.

With the Bible, regardless of whether you think it has a shred of divinity within it, has been used as a basis to run civilizations for thousands of years, and just coming along and saying "the Bible promotes dashing children's heads into rocks" because it says so, doesn't mean it means that.

I get that to break a leg means to fracture a femur, but that doesn't mean "break a leg" means that. But if you stand in shock that theater goers desire the actors to break their legs and you can't get past that, then that is an adherence to an interpretive scheme the other users don't use.

And this was my point to @Wayfarer (and his point as well), which is that the attack on biblical meaning by using the most unsophisticated exegesis method available is a strawman.

All meaning stands within some context. As a stark comment, devoid of any context, it's not real possible to interpret.

If you asked for a specific interpretation of those sentences within the context of a particular denomination, you'd get varying answers. "My dog loves me," "My wife loves me," "My co-workers love me," and "God loves me," all constitute differing ways "love" is used.

We love our brother, our nation, or child, and meatloaf in different ways. The Greeks pointed this out as well.

sorry, I still don't think that is a fair assessment. It's a very Dawkins style depiction, God as a kind of cosmic film director, staging all of the action. I think it betrays a misunderstanding of the God that Dawkins doesn't believe in. A straw God, so to speak. — Wayfarer

I know I jump in and out of this thread, so I might have missed something, but I do agree with this statement, and it forms the bulk of the problems with theistic debates we have here.

The atheists surely have an argument to make, but they focus way too heavily on attacking its least sophisticated form, the caricature religion one imagines of simple literalism screamed from the pulpits throughout the South. Despite it being a fairly recent phenomenon, it's the only theology attacked, and none here find it worth defending.

Even in this thread I hear of the ridiculousness of the Bible, yet no one is actually interested in hearing how it is interpreted by those who use it, as if the meaning of the words is entirely detached from the actual use of the words.

I’m not sure — T Clark

Yeah, well, I liked my answer which is that the removal of a single number from an infinite set does not make the set any smaller because a single number is infinitely small when compared to an infinite set which is mathematicall equivalent to zero.

I left the "y" off mathematically by accident. Consider it being there.

Numbers not expressible as fractions, e.g. pi, make up a larger infinity, they are not countable. — T Clark

Is this the same as saying that the infinity of all integers is larger than the infinity of all even integers? Or, is it the same as saying that that is you have two sets, one composed of all numbers and the other composed of all numbers except the number 3, the first set is larger than the second?

In my first question, both sets are countable.

In my second question, neither are countable because both contain irrational numbers.

As to my first question, if you subtract the total number of even integers from the total number of integers, what is your sum?

As to the second question, if you do the same, is the answer 1?

I think the answer is that if you subtract two countable infinities from each other, the answer is 0, meaning they are the same.

I think the answer is that if you remove one element from an otherwise infinite set, there is no difference in number even with the removed element. That would be because the removed element represents 1/infinity, which would be equivalent to zero.

This then means that the removal of any number of finite elements from the complete set of all numbers (rational and irrational) would result in no difference in size of infinity.

However, the removal of an infinite set of countable numbers from an infinite set of all numbers would result in a reduction in the infinity of all numbers.

I think.

They were ‘crying out’ to the Lord, but actually talking to Moses, weren’t they? — Wayfarer

I suppose they were complaining to the front desk clerk expecting it to get relayed to the manager.

But this essay is not an attempt to justify suffering, — Wayfarer

But that sounds like a throw away line you had to say in order to avoid the proper criticism that you must be telling me that suffering has some mysterious purpose else an all good god wouldn't allow it. Couldn't he forge within me whatever solid character comes from suffering without me having had to suffer?

If suffering were to be eliminated, where exactly should the line be drawn? — Wayfarer

I don't know, but it is in fact drawn. There is a level of suffering no human has ever endured, so there are limits.

But spiritual literacy is not something that can be regained through a change in opinion or sentiment. It is a way of seeing the world — a metaphysical orientation that has been largely lost to modernity. — Wayfarer

I also don't agree with the general assessment that there aren't ancient examples of considering God as a hotel manager providing lousy service.

Consider:

Exodus 14:10 to 14:12

"10 As Pharaoh approached, the Israelites looked up, and there were the Egyptians, marching after them. They were terrified and cried out to the Lord. 11 They said to Moses, “Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you brought us to the desert to die? What have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt? 12 Didn’t we say to you in Egypt, ‘Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians’? It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!”"

Sounds like some ancient Hebrews kvetching (bitching in the way only Hebrews do) to their hotel manager about their accomodations. What happened next was he parted the sea for them and swallowed up the Egyptians, which sounds like excellent customer service finally.

Then in Exodus 16:1 to 5 they kvetched about the food situation, and so the Good Lord accomodated by dropping bread from the heavens.

16 The whole Israelite community set out from Elim and came to the Desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had come out of Egypt. 2 In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. 3 The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death.” 4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. 5 On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days.”

My point is there is the no good answer to the theodicy problem.

And by the way, these complainers did eventually get their comeuppance when they tried to cross over into the promised land and God told them they couldn't cross. Enough was enough. But at least in that example the suffering was earned and deserved. A just dessert in the desert.

The level of polarization today is not what it was 30-40 years ago. What changed? It seems to me that the rhetoric on the left and right has become more aggressive and tribalistic and that is what is driving the polarization. — Harry Hindu

If the population has grown more heterogenous over time, then tribal disputes should become more prevalent. As in, if we're all in the same tribe, we have fewer disputes, but we're not less tribalistic. We just don't have any meaningful competitors.

Would you say that it started getting worse when their numbers started declining and the number of independents and moderates started growing? It's as if they are seeing the demise of the political left and right and are now engaging in underhanded and manipulative tactics in a vain attempt to hold on to their dwindling flock of followers. — Harry Hindu

The left and right are poorly defined and do not maintain consistency through time.

G.W. Bush was a interventionist who allowed fairly open immigration from Mexico and believed in free trade. That doesn't describe Trump in any way.

Transsexuals playing in sports is a hot button issue for the left, a far distance from the opposition of to gay marriage and the don't ask, don't tell policies of Clinton.

Does anyone care about health care costs anymore? I remember that being a thing.

The point being that you have to expect changes in membership in any organization that constantly changes its charter.

There is more in this post than most commenters are going to give it. But I can already see from the one response, people are not going to be even partially fair to an view-from-above post like this. A shame. — AmadeusD

You don't see this as just self-aggrandizing:

, expatriating for a better life, or some other such thing, then it is very unlikely that this person has reached the point where they have their own values and can act independently of authority figures. I am not trying to argue that a person must do one or all of the things in this list to be a good person, but that if a person has not taken unilateral action such as this, then one has not yet demonstrated independent moral agency.

The conduct of this hypothetical person isn't suggestive of an independent thinker. It describes someone distrustful at best and paranoid at worst. This activity describes preparations for a coming societal failure. Authority isn't forbidden in this context, but it's limited to only highly trusted people, like immediate or extended family, or, very commonly, those with shared similar religious views.

I mean sure, if you distrust societal structures, build your compound, but fabricating a "rugged individualistic free thinker" philosophy to justify it seems much.

Fear coupled with a rejection of cooperation is the driver here.

I think the current political divide in the USA is really a divide in moral development — Brendan Golledge

I think the polarization of groups is based upon moralizing, meaning it is when one group characterizes the other as immoral simply because they have a different worldview is what leads to the loss of middle ground.

I heard about a study not long ago ( by Jonathan Haidt) which showed that conservatives have a broader set of values. It also showed that conservatives can model what liberals think, but liberals have no idea what conservatives think and they think that conservatives are just evil. This study would seem to be consistent with the idea I just described that leftists have a lower level of moral development than conservatives. A understanding B and B not understanding A would seem to indicate that A is more developed. — Brendan Golledge

Another possibility is that you didn't actually read A Righteous Mind.

I think this makes sense from a biological perspective, because traditionally, women were only responsible for their own families, but the broader society was organized by men. Subjective positive feelings for other people can be sufficient for small scale social organization, but they cannot be used to treat people justly that you do not personally know. Since men had to organize for war/hunting/executing justice, it was necessary that they developed a more impersonal morality, hence most men reaching a law & order level of morality. This gender divide is also reflected in voting patterns. — Brendan Golledge

The first part felt trollish ("the left is morally undeveloped" argument). This part devolved into something worse, not only because I do think it's probably a sincere effort at thought, but it also has that misogyny feel, where men are natural leaders and women followers. It also has the feel of where you spent about 10 mintues thinking about what cavemen must've been like and then arrived at how that must've gotten caught up in the DNA and it's the way of the world now.

That's the key point. How many times did it cop out and tell you to seek professional guidance? Something it could not give you. — Metaphysician Undercover

It felt like lawyers got involved, where it didn't want to offer advice that got misused and created possible liability.

ChatGpt has an uncanny ability to detect sarcasm and absurdity. It also mirrors, which creates rapport. For those with difficulty making small talk or who want to increase their sales production, they might want to study that algorithm. Its responses to me have been learned, which is why it played back my absurdity immediately. Its response to someone it knew to be more serious would have been different.

ChatGpt has the system mastered in certain ways, and you've got to think the next 10 years will be truly impressive.

ChatGpt also can provide "therapy," astutely assessing personal issues and pinpointing their origins. It can also tell you how it did it if you ask it. It'll tell you what revealed what.

So what I'd say is that I'd rate Singer's effort as a fail, but no conclusions about AI can be made from that fail. ChatGPT is not a hack job, but is truly brilliant. It fails the Turing Test in the way lab diamonds are detected. It's too perfect. No one can know that much.

Of course, it could fake flaws if it wanted to as well.

Did anyone expect more? Hope not. — Banno

I do think ChatGpt would give good results though.