It is hardly a personal attack to claim that a large segment of the population ascertain certain religious beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith — S

Agreed. And it's equally true that a large segment of the population clings to certain atheist beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith. Faith is the human condition, not the religious condition.

Some people have a need for proving themselves to be More-Scientific-Than-Thou. So, latch on to the Materialist dogma, and then, having cloaked oneself in that official holy mantle, one entitles oneself to abuse those who don't share that belief — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, adamant atheism is little more than a replication of some of the worst properties of religion, posed as a revolutionary new product. However, most adamant atheists sincerely don't understand that what they're selling is no more rational than theism. And once they've staked out a big public ego position, they typically can't afford to understand.

Making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality. — praxis

Religion is not science. Religion is not about facts about reality. This common misconception condemns most discussions of religion on philosophy forums to irrelevance.

Religion is about our RELATIONSHIP with reality.

Most human beings are not abstraction obsessed nerds such as ourselves. Many or most human beings will find it easier to fall in love with reality if it is presented in the form of a familiar human-like character. The evidence for this is that the God character has dominated many cultures around the world for thousands of years.

Falling in love with where we find ourselves is a rational act.

But at least you seem to have moved from pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the core issue to that of being 'lost in thought', so we appear to be making progress. — praxis

I'm sorry to report we are making no such progress. :smile:

But we do have a tendency to think, speak and act so as to establish ourselves as separate from 'nature', even though, as you say, we are not. — Pattern-chaser

We think, speak and act as if we were separate from nature because that's how we experience our existence. And that's just the beginning. We experience ourselves as being separate from ourselves. Consider the expression "I am thinking XYZ". The thinker and the thought are experienced as two different things.

It's this perceived division within our own minds that allows us to argue with ourselves, to suffer. It's this perceived division within our own minds which is the well spring of religion. We feel divided within ourselves, and divided from everything around us. It's that experience of division which makes us feel isolated, alone and fearful (the fear is typically buried beneath a mountain of distractions) and causes some to try to "get back to god", that is, achieve a reunion with something larger than ourselves which feels like it might be at the heart of our existence.

All this division experience is generated by the nature of thought, by the way it works.

1) That's why the experience of division is universal, because thought is universally present in all humans.

2) That's why no philosophy is history has succeeded in overcoming the division experience, because all philosophies are made of thought, the source of the perceived division.

The best that philosophies can do is point to experiences outside of philosophy. That can be useful, but what typically happens is that users wind up worshiping the philosophy which is pointing to elsewhere, instead of what the philosophy is pointing to.

If we want to understand religion and most other human endeavors, the place to start is in understanding the nature of what we're all made of psychologically, the electro-chemical information medium we call thought. Everything else is basically just symptoms.

Yes, one basic of discussing an issue is you know the basic facts concerning the issue. I have no idea why you think that's unreasonable and not knowing what happened is Ok. But fine, let's leave it at that. — Baden

Again, up your bum please.

An accusation levelled at a person of wealth power and influence is much more believable than one levelled at a nobody, because they are far less likely to advantage the accuser, — unenlightened

Did you know that you can sue rich people and obtain large settlements if you win? I can assure you that nobody suing me is going to obtain a large settlement.

No, they're not reasonable because they are based on an ignorance of the circumstances surrounding the history of the case. Do you know why that is? Or are you going to ask me to repeat the facts that strongly mitigate against Ford's major motivation being to politically smear Kavanaugh? Because I already outlined them. — Baden

You're deliberately ignoring the points I am making so as to argue against assertions of your own invention.

I'm not going to discuss this with you any further until you at least go and read Blasey Ford's letter outlining her allegations as we can't have a sensible conversation until you know what you're talking about. — Baden

Hey, how about this? Why not stick this whole idea you have that you know what's going on and I don't up your bum? :smile:

What's actually going on here is that I'm trying to fulfill my job as a poster on a philosophy forum, which I see as making a good faith attempt to add something to the conversation that's not already there.

The whole culture is all wound up right now in a near hysterical he said, she said morality melodrama, and some of us here, mentioning no names, are merely recycling the very same melodrama which is already being endlessly repeated on every media outlet.

What I'm attempting to do, however imperfectly, is to add another dimension to the conversation by exploring the tactical angle. Will this event serve the goals of the metoo movement, or will it prove to be an obstacle to those goals?

Baden seems intent that his own interests and abilities ABSOLUTELY MUST form the boundaries of appropriate conversation. He is free to make that case of course, but I respectfully decline to be limited in my analysis to what Baden understands and is interested in. If that's objectionable to any reader, the solution is simple, don't read my posts. I'm fine with that, no problem.

Yeah, but actually that's bollocks. Whistleblowers of all sorts nearly always pay a huge price, and the higher up the hierarchy their complaint is directed the more they are discredited penalised and so on. One typically becomes unemployable as soon as one makes this sort of complaint, and the success rate in terms of gaining any tangible advantage is minuscule. — unenlightened

Um, this has nothing to do with the words of mine you are responding to, but uh, ok, thanks for sharing.

So, you don't object to assault victims being believed when evidence is lacking? — Baden

We're talking past each other. You're intent on having a moral conversation, whereas I'm discussing tactical concerns.

Anyone is entirely free to believe Ford if they so choose, no complaint from here. My point is that the whole nation is focused on this case, and she appears not to be in a position to close the deal, and that doesn't help metoo.

So, you don't believe Blasey Ford's accusations are part of a political smear job? — Baden

I don't know what her motivation is, and neither do you. I'm NOT talking about that, but rather what the perception will be for large numbers of people. Those perceptions of smear job motivation are reasonable, given the highly precise timing of the claims. We're not going to be able to dismiss those perceptions by beating loudly on the moral superiority drum.

Three separate accounts, two notorious fraternity memberships maybe doesn't add up to a conviction, but neither does it subtract down to an unsupported claim. — unenlightened

If these claims were being leveled against me, a total nobody, they would have far more credibility because nobody is going to get rich, famous, or obtain political advantage by accusing me. Thus, all those agendas removed, a search for justice becomes the leading theory.

On the other hand, if the claimants had a chance of winning a billion dollars in a court settlement by accusing me, then their motives and credibility would be questioned far more closely because now there are other compelling agendas which MIGHT be motivating them to stretch or invent the truth.

That's the problem we face in this case. The stakes are control of the government of the world's most powerful nation, a stake far exceeding a billion dollars in scale.

The three women may have pure intentions. They may be telling the exact truth. But that's not how it's going to be perceived by a huge segment of the population, for pretty reasonable reasons.

A solution to this problem would be much more compelling evidence, such as for example, the 2nd man said to be in the rape room coming forward to confirm Ford's story. If that were to happen, my concerns are addressed, and the metoo movement's credibility protected.

I understand your general point, but it's not a particular claimant's fault there isn't much evidence to support them. — Baden

I agree, and didn't claim that it was her fault. I'm making a TACTICAL argument, not a moral "who is to blame" argument.

1) You profess to be worried that sexual assault victims will be not be believed, but you discourage them to come forward except on certain conditions which would preclude many of them of having a chance of being believed. — Baden

Apologies, but you're not actually reading the posts you are so eager to reject. My point is that this is a huge, pivotal, hyper-public case so it's not in the interest of the metoo movement to fight this battle unless they have a good chance of a convincing win.

However, I readily agree that if Ford sees coming forward to be in her personal interest she is entirely within her rights to do so. What you seem determined to ignore is that after 35 years she's chosen to come forward at a very specific political moment, which is reasonably going to raise questions about her motivation. This may not be a problem for her, but it is a problem for metoo.

You object to assault victims being believed when evidence is lacking, — Baden

No, I did not say that.

but you actively discredit Blasey Ford as being involved in a political smear job on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. — Baden

No, I did not say that either.

You say it "looks" like a political smear job. OK, and Kavanaugh "looks" guilty. Where does that leave us? — Baden

Without a victory for metoo. Whatever happens in this case some very conservative person is going to be elevated to the supreme court, and the metoo movement is going to take a hit. The first outcome was inevitable, the later was not.

Do you see the irony here? — Baden

No, I don't, because there isn't any irony.

Let's say that I make a very public claim for which I have little evidence. Such an unsupported claim would undermine the credibility of any other claims that I might make. Right? That's what's happening to the metoo movement in this case.

As to all the other stuff, I surrender, you win.

I'm not part of the #metoo movement, and I don't know much about it or its official response (if there is one) to this ongoing story. Also, it's just a recognized principle around here that we address each other's arguments rather than just say things at each other. — Baden

You've been busy positioning yourself as an avid supporter of the metoo movement, whatever you're going to say about that. That's the bottom line underneath all your many arguments. Your intentions are good, and I share your support of metoo. But, your analysis of what is good for the metoo movement is less than fully sophisticated.

You're fighting the he said / she said fight that is consuming everyone right now. My point is that it may not be helpful to the metoo movement to fight that fight unless it can be won in a convincing manner, and that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The enormous scale of this situation is the problem. The Supreme Court is on the line, the midterms are on the line, the House of Rep and thus the Presidency are on the line. And, the claims being made are arriving at a very precise political moment. Nobody said anything about any of this for 35 years, until the exact moment at which the claims would have maximum political impact.

I'm not evaluating Ford's motivations, which I'm not in a position to know. I'm evaluating how all of this looks to the public at large. I'm evaluating the branding impact this event will have on the metoo movement. And whatever the reality of the situation may really be, it LOOKS very much like a political smear job.

Rightly or wrongly, justly or not, whatever the hard facts may actually be...

The metoo movement is now going to be heavily associated with political smear jobs and other agendas which have little to do with achieving justice for victims.

This situation could be radically changed for the better if hard evidence to support the claims could be delivered. Maybe that will happen, and I'd welcome that. If hard evidence could be put on the table then the perception would change to this situation really being about defending injured victims.

In case it matters, I'm a Bernie Sanders liberal geezer hippy commie pinko. :smile: I definitely don't want this guy on the court. I'm not defending the nominee, but the metoo movement.

I'm not going to argue with you about your presumptions about #metoo as that's irrelevant to anything I've said. — Baden

Or rather, inconvenient to what you've said.

But then you go to the other extreme and simply reject her out of hand even before she has a chance to tell her story. — Baden

I didn't reject her or her claim. I specifically said she sucks as a witness, because she can bring nothing to the table but a claim.

My point is that Ford has now become the poster child for the metoo movement, due to the huge importance of this particular case. That's not good for either Ford or the metoo movement because she isn't standing on solid ground. If the other guy who was supposedly in the room would confirm her story that would change the situation dramatically.

But until something like that happens, the metoo movement is now being branded as "anybody can ruin someone's career just by making a claim with no evidence". That's not good for the metoo movement because it's going to taint all the claims to come in the future.

Think of this case as an important branding moment for the metoo movement. This case is going to heavily influence many people's relationship with that movement, and the players involved just aren't up to the challenge.

The Bible, for example, sounds every bit like a story developed by human beings, so it’s like God is designed by human beings. — praxis

Actually, the Jehovah character seems remarkably similar to nature. He's both a gloriously beautiful giver of life, and an utterly ruthless killer of the innocent, just like the real world is.

And what is the rational relationship to have with such a character (theism) or with such a reality (atheism)? The rational relationship is to make peace with this situation, to love it with all your heart if you can, because it's way to big to change so there's no point arguing with Him, or if one prefers, It.

The rational person doesn't waste a lot of time in the God debate, but instead picks which ever system one can best relate to, and then focus on the falling in love part.

The bottom line question for all humans, religious or secular, is that we are here in this place for a very short time, so how do we want to experience it? The rational answer is to embrace this place and love it, by whatever method works best for us.

The problem here appears to be that you're pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the cause of human psychological suffering (or a diluted deep psychic connection with reality) and fail to acknowledge that mammals use the same process of conceptual division but don't share the same affliction. — praxis

I don't fail to acknowledge this, and already have done so above. Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough.

My theory is that thought has been evolving in animals and primitive humans for a long time, and continues to do so today. This evolution involves a long slow gradual shift of focus from the real world beyond our minds, towards the symbolic realm within our minds. As example...

I've gone to a lot of trouble to travel to the beach for a vacation, and now I'm walking down an empty gloriously beautiful north Florida beach. My body is there, but my mind is still here on the forum going blah, blah, blah. I'm lost in thought. And so while I'm on the beach, I don't really see it, don't really experience it. And so my psychic connection with reality is diluted, broken.

My theory is that at some point in human history this "lost in thought" experience became dominant enough that the loss of psychic connection with reality became problematic and we began looking for solutions, and religion was invented. Religion personalized reality in the form of a God to make it more relatable, and the focus became "getting back to God", or re-establishing the connection with reality.

As example of the connection with reality, consider your dog with his head out the window as you drive down the road. You're lost in thought to a significant degree as you drive, but your dog is totally in the moment, his focus is right here right now, in the real world.

Sorry, I didn’t realize that I wasn’t addressing it. — praxis

No problem, you're under no obligation to do so. I'm just suggesting that the universal nature of psychological suffering seems an important clue which merits our attention. If others don't find this interesting, ok, that's their call.

Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory?? — praxis

This seems a quite useful and relevant question to the subject of religion, so thanks. I agree, thought has been evolving in the animal world for a long time.

As I see it, religion emerged in response to thought evolving to such a degree in humans that our experience became dominated by abstraction. That is, our focus became increasingly dominated by the symbols in our mind. This took much of our focus off of the real world, thus seriously diluting a deep psychic connection with reality that animals and previous humans enjoyed.

Religion is an attempt to restore that psychic bond. But as we've discussed above, it typically uses thought as it's methodology, the very thing which has broken the bond. And so it's often the case in religion that the harder we try, the behinder we get.

As example, Christianity was intended to unite humans in peace, but before long we're burning each other at the stake for being a different flavor of Christian than we are. We can observe that it's the people most wound up in the thought content, ie. ideology, that do most of the burning.

Thought operates by a process of division. Understand that, and many other pieces of the human story fall in to place.

Hope this response is at least somewhat helpful.

You appear to be unwilling to clarify what you mean by 'thought'. Most neural activity is subconscious.

Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory?? — praxis

Until you're willing to address the universal nature of human psychological suffering I don't see the point of further exchanges on this particular topic. Happy to engage with you on other topics where the opportunity arises.

Please can you tackle my arguments. — SnoringKitten

The entire structure of your arguments is built upon the very common assumption that our simplistic yes/no, either/or definition of existence is binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods which may contained within. An observation of reality suggests this assumption may be false.

You want to skip over this inconvenient possibility and dive right in to the usual God debate arguments and definitions, because those arguments are familiar and comfortable to you. This is completely normal. But not very interesting.

Sorry, i've really tried to understand you, but l cannot due to either something being left out of your sentences and/or the sentence structure. — SnoringKitten

Does space exist, or not, yes or no? Once you are willing to admit that none of us can firmly answer that question, you'll get that we are not required to apply the "exist or not" assumption to the issue of God either.

You like the "exist or not" rule because you're comfortable within those limits, which is completely normal. But reality is not required to limit itself to what is understandable and comfortable to human beings. Reality is not required to follow the rules of reason, which are after all a human invention.

What can else can there be: God exists, God does not exist. What other stable option is there? — SnoringKitten

Again, the vast overwhelming majority of reality in the form of space suggests another option. Something which appears to fit neither our definition of existence or non-existence.

You are not tackling my points. — SnoringKitten

I've tackled and crushed your points, but you're not ready to have them crushed. This is very very normal. You aren't really interested in the God topic, but in the experience of debate. Thus, like almost everyone else, you will decline any theory which takes away all the clever debate arguments which you have carefully assembled.

That's cool, I don't mind. Feel free to continue with the God debate process which thousands of years of evidence has decisively shown to lead to nothing but more of the same. That's what pretty much everyone does, so you should feel to do so as well.

Please can you tackle my arguments. — SnoringKitten

I prefer to pull the rug out from under the entire structure your arguments are built upon. If that doesn't interest you, ok, no problem, so continue as you wish.

I believe you are telling me l cannot prove God exists. — SnoringKitten

I'm telling you that the "exists or doesn't exist" paradigm at the heart of the God debate has a serious conflict with observations of the vast majority of reality, space, which can not be firmly said to either exist or not exist.

Like almost all God debate commentators you're basing everything on the unexamined assumption that a God must either exist, or not exist, one or the other. An observation of reality reveals this assumption is likely to be excessively simplistic.

whereas the plane of our discussion: "God exists or not?" - is defined as two possibilities. There is no middle ground in the definition, nor can there be. — SnoringKitten

Ok, yes, in the realm of artificially constructed conceptual boundaries you can if you prefer will middle ground to vanish. Ignore the evidence provided by reality if you wish, that's your choice to make.

Space contains things such as what we call space, plus dust, plus stars, planets, and so on. — SnoringKitten

Yes, those things within space can be said to fit the definition of existence for they have weight, mass, shape, size etc. Space itself has none of those properties, or at least it is unclear what properties space may have.

I'm not making a physics point. I'm pointing only to the fact that it's very unclear whether the vast majority of reality (space) exists or not, according our definition of existence. As currently observed, space seems to occupy a place outside of our simplistic definition of existence. Thus, there's no logical reason to insist that a God must either exist or not, one or the other.

You will have to reject this of course, as do almost all God debate commentators, because if you accept it the entire thread collapses under it's own weight.

A new term I made up for fun, Fundamentalist Agnostic.

A Fundie Agnostic rejects not just particular positions within the God debate but the God debate itself, embraces the reality of our vast ignorance, and looks for ways to put that ignorance to constructive use.

We've conducted a long investigation in the form of the God debate. That investigation has revealed that none of us really know what the #$%%^ we're talking about. The rational person accepts the ignorance the investigation has discovered, and attempts to make good use of what has been found.

Either God exists or does not exist, so there is no middle ground, as we are talking about absolutes. — SnoringKitten

This is a very common assumption which unites the vast majority of atheists and theists. This assumption is easily questioned by using the atheist principle of referring to an observation of reality.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality is space. Does space exist? This isn't such a simple black and white question. Something separates the Earth and Moon, but whatever it is between them appears to have none of the properties we associate with existence. Space is there, and yet it is not.

The point here is that if the vast overwhelming majority of reality can not be firmly said to either exist or not exist, there's no logical reason to assume that a God would be limited to either existence or non-existence. And yet, the vast majority of God debate discussion for centuries has made the dualistic "exists or not" assumption, and rarely questions that assumption.

This is the state of the God debate. We love to argue over competing answers, but the truth is we actually have little idea how to even frame the questions. Which leads us to....

PS: I respectfully ask members to please don't turn this thread in to a gun control debate. I've used that issue only as an example to illustrate that we already readily accept limits to our power in some important respects.

Please forgive this bump, have a new idea which I thought would be useful. As a quick review the premise of this thread is...

This article will argue that the "more is better" relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous. — Jake

NEW ARGUMENT:

Let's consider gun ownership. There is of course a great deal of debate here in the U.S. about what exactly the limits of gun ownership should be. But as far as I know, pretty much no one is arguing weapon ownership should be unlimited. You know, the NRA is not arguing that attack helicopters, surface to air missiles, and nuclear weapons should be legally available at the local Army Navy store.

So within the realm of weaponry we have wide agreement that our access to weapons should be somehow limited, and we are arguing only over the details as to what degree that access should be limited.

This group consensus regarding weapons is compatible with the thesis of this thread, which is that the power available to human beings should be somehow limited. I don't claim to know exactly how it should be limited, or to what degree, I'm arguing only that a "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and thus power, is simplistic, outdated and dangerous.

And, I ask members again to reflect upon the fact that modern science is pretty much defined by a simplistic "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and thus power. The mantra seems to be, if we can learn something, we should learn it.

This "more is better" relationship with knowledge and power really makes no sense, just as selling nuclear weapons at the Army Navy store would make no sense.

Thus, I am claiming that the intellectual, scientific and political elites of our civilization are selling us a theory which makes no sense. The selling of such assumptions is understandable, but not logical. Their intentions are generally good, but their reasoning is not.

It's not that simple, as I tried to explain. — praxis

Why is psychological suffering (ie. a shortage of personal peace leading to a shortage of social peace) a universal human condition in all times and places?

Why have a seemingly endless number of philosophies in every part of the world attempted to solve this problem for thousands of years, but never really succeeded?

The theory I am offering to explain the universal existence of suffering and the universal failure of all philosophies to end that suffering is that the source of suffering is not found at the level of the content of thought, but arises instead from the medium of thought itself, a universal property of the human condition.

Hmm, that's a tad harsh don't you think? — Posty McPostface

Yes, it is, sorry about that. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to challenge the group consensus, one of the more useful purposes of philosophy. The theory behind the harshness can be explained by the following cliche...

If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.

You want to hear that endless talk is useful. Other members of the thread are agreeing with this premise, thus they are understandably more popular than this poster. But it's not the job of philosophers to be popular, but rather to try to help a conversation explore territory not already being examined.

I mean, how does one objectify progress when dealing with depression? — Posty McPostface

Here's an experiment. Do you smoke? If not, please take up smoking until you're up to a pack a day. Then make an observation to see if you are more or less depressed. Pretty simple, eh? That is, if one wants it to be simple.

I hear you that depression is a low motivation state that makes implementing changes difficult. I acknowledge that the reality of that obstacle, and am just suggesting that the choices still are:

1) One attempts to implement some kind of constructive change in spite of the obstacles, or...

2) One should make peace with depression.

The worst option would be to 1) not attempt any change and 2) not make peace with depression, thus leaving one stuck in perpetual distress.

I want to get a new laptop as mine is getting kinda old. But I don't want to part with the money. The path to peace for me on this issue is to make a choice and make peace with the price tag of whatever I choose. Either say goodbye to the new laptop, or say goodbye to the money, and make peace with whatever price tag I've chosen.

Imagine that I was continually starting new threads about my laptop dreams, and never showed evidence of having implemented any of the suggestions of other posters, or any of my own ideas. I just kept talking about my laptop dream day after day after day.

At some point you'd at least be thinking that I should probably shit or get off the pot, right?

On the other hand, apart from my lack or lesser disliking of Trump, I haven't seen the necessary steps being taken by the Democratic party to ensure that he doesn't get reelected. I mean to say, that there is no appeal to ideals or a more social democrat, which have consistently shown a greater amount of engagement and stimulus provided to voters. So, if the Democratic nominee loses the reelection, I won't be surprised. — Posty McPostface

I cast my vote for this. Trump won't win, but the Democrats can be genius at defeating themselves. The next election is only 2 years away, and actually begins in only a little more than a month, and we've yet to see any interesting candidates on the Democrat side, or any compelling coherent message.

I'll be voting Dem even if they nominate my neighbor's dog, but I do have real concerns that the Dems just aren't up to it.

It can't be said too often on philosophy forums that religion is not exclusively a matter of belief.

We're not necessarily geared to 'live in peace', we're geared to pass on our genes. — praxis

Please provide the names of everyone who enjoys psychological suffering and wants theirs to continue.

If you agree that psychological suffering is universal, then we should be looking for a source that is also universal. Thought content, ideas, concepts, philosophies etc are not universal, they vary greatly.

To clarify, I didn't say that all talk is pointless. Talking whose goal is to identify solutions, so that the discovered solutions can be implemented, is good talking. That's not what's happening in this series of threads.

Which is fine. If anyone wishes to talk just for the sake of talking, this is a forum after all, so that's appropriate. However, this is also a philosophy forum and we are supposed to, in theory at least, be reaching for some higher level of clarity.

All I'm suggesting is that if we're going to be talking about depression just to be talking about depression, with no observable movement towards implementing any discussed solution, that we simply say that out loud and make it clear to ourselves what it is we are doing.

I'm not objecting to talking. I'm objecting to going endlessly round and round in circles while pretending we are making progress towards some goal other than going endlessly round and round in circles.

If the thread were renamed "Let's Talk About Depression Every Day Without Ever Doing Anything About It" I'd withdraw all complaints.

I see things in much the same way, but it’s much more difficult than it can be made to sound in that kind of analysis. — Wayfarer

It's difficult if we want it to be difficult, as we often do.

Most expert commentators on these subjects want it to be difficult and complicated, because otherwise they can't play the role of expert. :smile:

And to be fair, the primary problem most of us face is that we spend way too much time thinking about ourselves, a problem we attempt to solve by thinking about ourselves some more. And then some expert comes along and says, "Our situation is very complicated, we need to think about it in great detail!" and we can't wait to jump onboard because the expert is offering us just what we most want, a reason to think, think, think, more, more, more about me, me, me.

I have this fantasy image in my mind of a real priest (not one of the fakey ones). We take our problems to the priest and he listens patiently. When we're done talking we await his response to all our problems. The priest says, "That's very interesting, thank you so much for sharing your situation". Then he looks at his watch and says, "Oh my, it's time for lunch already, let's go work in the soup kitchen together."

I disagree that "thought" or dualism is the problem, however. I believe the problem may center around particular thoughts, or rather concepts, that arise in our cultural conditioning, particularly those involving our self-concept, our personal narratives, etc. — praxis

If this were true, if these problems arise from bad thought content, then over thousands of years some group of people would have found the correct thought content and would be living in peace. Other people would see their experience of peace, desire it, and adopt the correct thought content. Over time everyone would jump onboard and we'd be living in utopia.

What we see instead is that the problems which afflict human beings are universal, arising in every time and place. This suggests a source of such problems which is also universal. And so we should ask, what do all human beings have in common? It's on this reasoning that I suggest that the source of these problems is the nature of thought itself, the way it works.

If true, this has huge implications for philosophy. If the source of our problems is thought itself then no collection of thoughts, however clever, are likely to solve the problem. And this is what we in fact see in the real world. The best minds among us all over the world have been searching for the correct thought content for thousands of years, and here we still are, killing each other with abandon, enduring inner personal conflict etc.

"Me" is very big or significant, and "everything else" is small or of less significance, and it's this selfishness that makes us fail to act cooperatively. — praxis

We try to make "me" very big by a variety of means out of the realistic understanding that it is actually very very small in comparison to the environment it inhabits.

In a perfect world, religion functions to reduce our selfishness and increase our cooperation for the mutual benefit of all. — praxis

Imho, religion is ultimately not about social cohesion, but personal "salvation", by which I mean achieving psychological reunion with nature, reality, god, whatever one wishes to call it.

Imho, such reunion is not technically possible because we have never been divided in the first place. So it's more accurate to say that religion (and other techniques) are about easing the illusion that we are alone, isolated, vulnerable, divided from reality.

Imho, that illusion is generated by the divisive nature of thought. Thought is a medium that operates by a process of conceptual division, and so everywhere we look we see division. The illusion is profound because not only are we observing reality through thought, we ourselves are made of thought psychologically. Thus, we are fully immersed in a medium whose primary function is division.

This might be compared to being born wearing pink tinted sunglasses. Everywhere we go all our lives all of reality will appear to be pink colored. But the pink isn't a property of what we are observing, but rather of the tool being used to make the observation.

Belief based religions might be compared to an attempt to buy bigger pink tinted sunglasses with a stronger prescription. :-)