↪Athena The universe of Star Trek is a positive one but it is fiction. I try hard to keep my personal ecological footprint low. Are you talking about New Age spirituality? — Truth Seeker

A notion of a New Age was carried by Masons and the forefathers of the US. It is part of the Enlightenment and hope for our democracy.

Spirituality may or may not be part of a person's understanding of the New Age. It is a time of technology and the end of tyranny. A time of peace on earth resulting from advanced intellectual strength and I believe we can achieve this if we do not destroy our planet before we do. This mental evolution means people in the New Age will not be able to relate to our more our primitive past that is dominated by being as animals without a well-developed intellect.

↪Athena Might is right. Adapt or die. This is how the real world works. I wish we lived in a nice world where every living thing is forever happy but we don't. — Truth Seeker

Be careful you might get what you wish for. It might not be what you want.

I have no desire to go to heaven. The idea of living eternally in perfection is not desirable. There would be no good movies or novels without problems to overcome. I have no idea what would motivate me to get up in the morning. Without problems to resolve, what would give me a sense of propose? Might such a life be intolerably boring?

"Might is right" is pretty primative and comes from the notion that God is the might and chooses who will live and who will die. Really? what kind of statement is "might makes right". You jest, right?

↪Athena I didn't know things were so bad. What is the solution? — Truth Seeker

At this point in time I don't know if there are any good solutions but I am very excited about the possibility of a New Age that could be more moral than any previous time in history. To prepare for that we must consider the possibility that we are in the Resurrection now. The past is being brought into the present by the archaeologist, geologist, and related sciences. It is our job to learn all we can, and reevaluate everything, so we can move into a New Age that is so different from the past those in the New Age will not be able to relate to the history of our past.

You know, like a Star Trek show where an advanced civilization makes us look primitive.

"morality" is that morality as cooperation is the underlying principle that explains why past and present cultural moral norms and our moral sense exist. — Mark S

Cooperation with whom? We are very diverse and we hold different ideas about God and God's will for us. I sure as blazes will not cooperate with people I want to avoid, like the Jevohva Witnesses who want to explain God to me and make me one of them. :grimace: Or the Christian Nationalists who are more authoritarian than liberal.

Neither I am going to support Israel at the expense of Palestine.

To me, it looks like we all have different ideas about what an ideal civilization is and want others to conform to our notion of how things should be. I don't feel very cooperative. My bad.

I've only read a few introductory summaries about Hegel but did not see that connection. — Mark S

I am sure freedom was not the grand Christian idea of what is desired and all German philosophers were influenced by Christianity. Martin Luther thought the witch hunts were necessary and that God decided who would be a master and who would be a slave. The Methodist believed they held the answer to making people good people. Quakers and Puritans competed to produce the most saints.

I have held the impression that Hegel thought freedom was obedience to the state and the state was God.

“The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth. One must worship the state as a terrestrial divinity.” “A single person is something subordinate, and as such he must dedicate himself to the ethical whole. Hence, if the state claims life, the individual must surrender it.”Jan 6, 2017

Hegel on Worshipping the State - Library of Social Science — Library of Social Science

I am no authority on Hegel but for sure he was influence by the Christian notion of God and this blending of religion and the state holds some dangers.

I agree, but I think Mark is saying something more than this. Being a social animal is not a principle that underlies and encodes what it is that people think is moral. Within a societies there may be agreement but between societies there may be disagreement as to what behavior is and is not acceptable. He points to cooperation within a society but this is not the same thing as cooperation between societies. And even within a society we may cooperate with some members while conspiring against others. — Fooloso4

How about you are both right? I think we need to start at a base line. How would we behave if we did not have language and therefore the ability to argue with each other? Genghis Khan told his people to never pick one religion over another and never settle down in cities and begin accumulating things. Among the Mongols lying and stealing could be a death sentence. As Genghis Khan saw it there was no reason to lie of steal because a stranger lost in the storm was always given shelter and food. The reasoning for that is anyone could be lost in a storm and to refuse someone help could be a death sentence. We know these people as great warriors who would kill every man, woman and child and raze their towns to the ground, making the land good pasture land for their horses.

As they saw things people living in cities were immoral as they refused to help those who needed help, and some of them were very rich while others starved to death and had to lie and steal to have a chance of surviving this immoral city living.

Who was the most moral?

Yes, the difference in our environments can lead to differences in our understanding of morals, but we are all human, just as horses are horses and birds are birds. We most certainly can look at evolution and come to conclusions about being human. Then move on to understand why these humans don't agree with those humans. Or we can just study the Greek and Roman classics and pick up where they left off, as we all must work on our agreements just as the ancients did when they traveled and their paths crossed with people who were different.

↪Gnomon Please see https://thehumaneleague.org/article/environmental-benefits-of-veganism — Truth Seeker

:gasp: Just because the factory farm produces plants instead of meat, that does not make them sustainable. It is not possible for us to use soil over and over again without replenishing the nutrients in the soil and even than this does not give us the soil that is replenished by volcanos or flooding or an ice age that shoved top soil into valleys. One of the most important nutrients is phosphate and if current usage of it continues, the world's supply maybe depleted by 2050. Just as serious is our fertilizer is made with petroleum. We are less worried about that than we were before fracking made oil more available to us but believing our farming practices are healthy and sustainable is just wrong. Not only are we depleting the minerals but we are polluting rivers and oceans. "GeoDistinies" by Walter Youngquist.

The huge industrial farms we have today resulted from a study to improve the lives of small farmers. Instead of the study improving the lives of small farmers, it destroyed them because the study revealed the industrial farms could feed more people than small farmers can feed. So the small farmers were sacrificed for the good of the millions of hungry people.

Now we have the global warming that is rapidly depleting our water supply. In area fed by meling glaciers, we can see the trouble coming but the depletion of underground water is not so visible. The world is about to experience severe water shortages that could lead to desertification of our once fertile land.

The moral of this story is the ancients were correct when they foresaw the day when there would be more life on earth than the earth could support. There is nothing mystical about the Biblical last days. It is just Fibonacci math and knowing the struggle for survival.

I do not mean becoming vegetarian would not improve things temporarily, only that solution is temporary.

↪BC I agree that we also go to war over resources e.g. land, oil, etc. — Truth Seeker

And so do most animals. What makes us different is our ability to think about such things. We want to believe our wars are just wars, whereas animals don't ask the question, they just chase away the immigrants. :lol: Do we have anything to gain by allowing the immigrants to move in or take control of a neighbor's homeland? What are the morals we might gain from Greek and Roman history versus the success of Christianity and other religions?

I didn't claim or imply that it did. You make it an empty phrase, Mark, by confessing you do not know what "our ultimate moral goals" are and yet propose that a "science of morality" can describe conditions which determine them. This kind of jugglery is of no use to moral philosophy. — 180 Proof

We used to read our children moral tales and at the end of the story ask them what is the moral of the story. The moral was a matter of cause and effect. The Little Red Hen did not share her bread because no one helped her make it. The fox did not get the grapes because he gave up and walked away saying they were probably sour anyway. The Little Engine that could, made it over the hill because he did not give up.

The book titled, "The Science of Good and Evil" uses animal studies to make its point. I think that pretty well determines some of the science of morality.

That what is thought of as moral is biologically encoded is at best a hypothesis and at worse an unsubstantiated assertion. In either case it is in need of scientific evidence. What is that evidence? — Fooloso4

I am not sure I understand you correctly but I do know doing something nice for others is one of the best ways to feel good. We know our sexual behavior is linked to our hormones. We know men's testrogene level increases when they watch football and this can lead to aggressive behavior. Isn't our knowledge of hormones scientific evidence?

Or how about the study of animals and how it can help us understand our own good and evil? We are one of many different social species. All social animals are biologically influenced to conform to social expectations and if one of their kind steps out of line, another will react in a way that encourages conformity. This results in nonconformers being pushed to the outer circle where they are the most apt to become a carnivore's dinner.

The potential to "do anything." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Looks as though you put some serious effort into expanding your consciousness and writing your reply. I want to respect that. I also want to move the discussion forward with argument.

Potential to do what? Is Trump a good model of a free man grabbing women by the pussy and bragging about it? Is this the model of leadership we want or is there something wrong with that understanding of freedom? Do we want a leader who says he can get away with murder? Are there desired restrictions to "freedom"? Freedom without principles and good moral judgment can be an evil. Education that has nothing to do with principles and good moral judgment, but focuses on power and freedom, might increase evil.

When we tore down all the restrictions on freedom of speech and action and promoted Superman, did we open the bowels of hell? I think this has something to do with the development of Nazi, Germany and what is happening in the US today. The story we tell ourselves is very important so we should pay careful attention to them.

And the father who gets up to tend to the baby may not gladly do this if the mother does not share this responsibility. There are negative consequences to sleep deprivation and taking someone for granted. I am struggling with this argument because I think our motive to do this or that is complex. It is not just about our character but also the circumstances.

How do we decide what is fact and what is opinion? There are more than 8.1 billion humans on Earth and our conflicting ideologies, religions, worldviews and values divide us. I worry that we will destroy ourselves and all the other species with our conflicts. I think that if we could work out what is fact and what is opinion, it would help us get on with each other better. — Truth Seeker

I agree with you. We do need to know the difference between a fact or an opinion. Believing in a God can not be a belief about fact because there is no substance that can be empirically studied. However, we can study animals and learn about humans.

Religion has to be opinion. An opinion that a mythology is true. The temperature of the sea and reality of increasing natural disasters are a fact. Believing a God will save our sorry asses and give us a new planet to destroy, is not based on fact.

One is in our heads and not empirically studied. The other can be empirically studied. However, :chin: math is pretty abstract and not exactly matter but it is amazing what we can know with math. Is there a word for this that is other than "opinion" or "fact"?

Interestingly, for Hegel, this historical question is central the ethics proper. Both what we "have done," and what we "ought to do," are ultimately driven by reason's propelling humanity towards the accomplishment of human freedom. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Freedom from what?

I for one, would rather have a sense of duty than freedom. I want a life based on principles, not a life without them. And I want a society that values virtues, duty, principles, and an understanding of being part of something much bigger than myself.

I forgot to say I want liberty that is curbed with morals.

Descartes wanted to achieve a scientific moral code. Due to the fact he couldn't, he came up with a provisional morality whose maxims, more or less based on common sense, are given in the Discourse. — Lionino

"God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice." Cicero

Many sources talk about the science of morality, but I find no agreement on how to define what it studies. — Mark S

The relationship between cause and effect.

As for the idea of political correctness as a 'horror show', I am wondering who determines what the horror is exactly? — Jack Cummins

:scream: Nazi, Germany-fascism! The essentials for that are firmly planted in the US because it adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education. The good intentions of a fascist political organization are good but poorly thought out.

I was going to start a thread about Christian Nationalism and Shia law and Muslims. In the US past people did not discuss religion as we do today, and they did not blend religion and politics because they held a passion for liberty. That is all changed and today. We have much to fear from Christian Nationalist as we reason to fear Shia law and Muslims. The only difference between the Christian Nationalist and Muslims is the Christian Nationalist out number the Muslims. Both want to control us through politics because both believe this is pleasing to God.

Never mind what such belief has to do with the state controlling everyone, and fascism, and the end of liberty. Both Christian Nationalists and Muslims want the power of God in their hands, to interpret and enforce the will of God as they see fit.

Yes, I’m not speaking about any particular mythology, or even necessarily God. (I did use dead grandma to make the same point.) I’m saying if there was any unexplainable physical event someone experienced (maybe unexplained because they were stupid), but unexplained by all reason they can muster, AND, that fantastical miracle forced into their face came with words and a message, AND those words showed a meaning to that person that was bigger than they knew before - then they might say “no wonder the bush didn’t burn, or the phoenix rose from the ashes. Something even more than all of this happened here. I am now included in this new meaning, by hearing this new message.”

You don’t have to say more here. The point is made. Amadeus gets it and rejects it.

I do think I’d need a pretty big, crazy miracle, with some trusted witnesses around maybe to compare notes, before I delved to deeply into the message. But I’m just guessing how I’d be listening to a “sprit” or something. — Fire Ologist

This argument might do better in a different thread. What exactly is the experience? Words can be "heard" but they do not "show" meaning.

Any sense of meaning comes from the thoughts of the person hearing the words. We are observing animals and attempting to explain the meaning of the noises they make. Only after we have ascribed meaning to the sound do we know the meaning of the sound. Otherwise, the meaning is not implicit in the sound.

If someone believes a burning bush and a loud voice means a god is present, that meaning is based on what that person believes. In other words, you have to believe in gods and that gods do such things, before you can think that is the meaning of the moment.

Nonbelievers just can not believe such stories. If I had an experience like that, I might look for aliens but not a god.

If you are interested in how deductive logic 'emerges' from neural networks, you might like G. Spencer Brown's The Laws of Form — unenlightened

Now that is a little more interesting than the Bible and it goes nicely with my math books. Thank you.

Retrospective accuracy is not a commonly recognized scientific term or concept in the field of science or research. It does not have a specific definition or understanding within the scientific community.
However, based on the words themselves, "retrospective accuracy" could potentially refer to the accuracy of information or data collected or analyzed after an event or study has taken place, looking back in time. This could involve the evaluation of past records, memories, or historical data to assess the accuracy of previous assessments or predictions. It could be a way of determining how well something was predicted or measured in hindsight. — Josh Alfred

As I read this, what I thought you were talking about was how we judge if something is believable or not. For example, one may be persuaded to believe the mythology of Christianity, if one already holds an idea of gods who make things happen and who punish or reward humans. Whereas, if one had no concept of such supernatural beings, the mythology of a god punishing sinners and saving people, may not be believable. Do my beliefs make what is said of a god a possible reality? How empirical is that?

So my point was there may be more reason to think a burning bush was an impossible miracle of God, not because the bush burned but wasn’t burned, but because of the words that were communicated. Something, to that person (not you, I don’t know what words might give you pause, because I’m not God), something to that person brought awe and fear and inspiration and power, something overwhelming making one willing to say God, just because of the words spoken. — Fire Ologist

How about this.... You are speaking of a mythology and not about a god. Do you have anything to say of the concept of "god" that is not dependent on the God of Abraham mythology?

The United states likes to think of itself one of the strongest democracies. But it does not rank with Europe, Canada and Australia, as much as with India, Brazil and Indonesia. — Banno

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread but here is information about the space efforts made by all the nations. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-space-programs

It was the USSR that was the first to enter space. The Sputnik launch changed everything!!! That is one of my most passionate arguments because it is what resulted in the 1958 National Defense Education Act that replaced US liberal education with education for technology. https://www.nasa.gov/history/sputnik/index.html

Also if you follow my arguments, I credit the Prussians and Hilter's Germany for where the USA is today. Had it not been for the Prussian bureaucratic order and WWII and the USSR developing a nuclear weapon and a satellite that circled earth, the USA would not be the country it is today. Like if you and others want to argue with me about perceived US elitism, I am willing but that should be a different thread. I don't think my arguments are the arguments you expect from a US citizen.

Sis, it is not an emergency. There are always enough competing selfish interests to balance things out. — L'éléphant

Hum, I should never post when In a rush. My post was missing a lot of words. But to get back on subject, I don't think selfish interest are much good compared to having a good understanding of what is so and why.

"Unless we're motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there's no coherence," Kucinich

am currently watching Fareed Zakaria's Sunday program on CNN. During his "Fareed's Take" segment at the beginning of the show, Zakaria discusses religiosity and political events in the US and elsewhere.

It's worth checking out for people interested in this topic. — wonderer1

Thank you. He seems well-informed and pleasantly rational. He says it as it is without emotionalism. I think he is right up there with Walter Cronkite. :up:

Doesn’t mean it might not still be a hallucination or just a dream, or a fantasy wish, but if what was said really meant something, and hit home to you, and it was new, you might have to wonder about God. — Fire Ologist

Reading these posts and thinking about them often is an enlightening experience. I am holding a new concept or get a deeper meaning of a concept and then wonder why it took me so long to realize it before. When we old we have a much broader perspective. We may have trouble learning facts, but our ability to understand meanings increases.

However, if Einstien were to speak to me about math concepts, I am quite sure I would not understand him. If God spoke to me, he would have to make it very simple. It worries me when someone thinks s/he can know the word of God and God's will. I don't think things work that way.

Notice the contradiction in "Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace." Does soft despotism give the illusion of control or induce fear?

Sure, there were mistakes made in education, as there were in health, economics, International relations. None of these are determinative of the course of history.

Perhaps the problem is a turning against 'merca's own expression of liberal values. Or were they ever broadly understood? — Banno

What a delicious question about despots!!! How do we organize ourselves so the Government can do what Government has to do? The answer may not be that easy. I kind of what to stick with the subject of the thread so I will point out that the organization problem was a big problem for the Church. The Church had to rely on kings to take care of worldly matters. In the competition for power and authority, some kings aligned themselves with the Church to legitimize their claim to power and authority. Then the Church loses the struggle for power and Protestants are broken up seats of power that in the US is no power at all without the blessing of the Government. :lol:

This gets even messier because when Franklin Roosevelt came to power he with the help of Hoover adopted the Prussian model that is Prussian military bureaucracy applied to the masses. This is a huge shift if power and authority away from the people, and the people in the US are clueless. They have no idea that this happened and the are virtually powerless because they are so ignorant of the bureaucratic change and what it has to do with them.

Hum, why would say education does not influence the flow of history? :gasp: How did you come to that notion?

“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” Aristotle

"Give us a child till he's 7 and we'll have him for life." a Jesuit

"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
Vladimir Lenin

Every nation prepares its young for life, just as tribal people did with storytelling and rituals. The word "civilize" means to make another one of us. In some ways, this is even more important in a nation dependent on technology. The US has forgotten what education has to do with being civilized and it may self-destruct as culture wars tear us apart. We began preparing our young to be products for industry. Immigrants who have not had this preparation are not of much value. For military and industrial reasons our children must be prepared as we are doing it but this is not the culture we once had that made us strong in wars.

Oh yes, our liberal values were understood, but the meaning was not shared. In different degrees none Whites were excluded from the benefits of our nation, and most White people saw discrimination and exploitation of the powerless their right. Oh, oh, oh, this has so much to do with the change in our bureaucratic order but now I put so many points into this thread it has lost its coherence. My grandmother walked away from a teaching job when the Principle interfered with her authority in the classroom and today we are seeing teachers, nurses, and doctors walk away from the corporate control of them. Today's reality is not the one I grew up with, where women accepted low pay or did things for no pay because they believed what they were doing was the right thing to do and very meaningful. Our liberty is tied to a sense of dignity and self-worth. We have destroyed that.

There are well known problems with historicism. That civilisations collapse is a Western notion, an expectation that we must reenact the fall of Rome. The collapse of the British Empire was felt keenly in the decline of Great Britain. It did not bring with it social collapse in Australia, Canada, India, and Africa, these nations seeing it instead mostly as an opportunity. The end of the 'mercan hegemony will similarly have the greatest impact inside that nation. — Banno

I think our economies are intertwined and the fall of the US would strongly impact other economies and possibly technological advancement as well. Which other country could maintain the satellites and earth studies? I expect China to become a technological leader but it is taking longer than I expected. Japan is very impressive but it is too small to have the economy for space projects. Again I am not confident of what I think but it sure is fun making the effort to think. What if the world united to save our planet and advance technology for the good of the whole world. :groan: That is not going to happen with religion or leaders like Trump because religion relies on a god not the potential of humanity. The religious still have not adjusted to reality of what we have done to feed the world, keep the young and old alive with medicine, improve life on earth with clean water and in-door plumbing, etc.. We have over come evils with science but the religious folks don't see it as what we have done with our desire and effort.

I am watching college lectures about the rise and fall of South American civilizations and they also lived with a prediction of doom. I am thinking, their expectation of doom caused their doom just as it could cause ours. Whoopy, we could be entering a world war and prove all the religious people right about the will of God is to destroy us just it destroyed Mayans and Aztecs who walked away from the great cities.

am not disagreeing. However, doesn't this apply, even if to varying degrees to: Communists, Capitalists, Racial Supremacists, Certain groups of Academics and Scholars, etc. Note also that while historically, the same might not have applied to "Hinduism," but the Hinduism of Modi? — ENOAH

I am out of time but want to say all this is very complex and it is my hope when have a good understanding of the complexity, we will gain power and avoid disaster. A lot is going on here beginning with evolution gave us some thinking power but enough to manage without a strong way to work together.

Democracy is underpinned by a liberal system of values. that system was distorted to individualism and greed in the Seventies, and has been exposed to oligarchic alternatives with the opening of trade and travel since then. Libertarian absurdities abound, community institutions are underfunded, the common wealth has been striped to feed private wealth. — Banno

I am reading and rereading what you said and that brings me to a second thought. Around 1835 Tocqueville wrote "Democracy in America" and he warned because of Christianity, Christian democraies would become despots.

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.[1]

Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace. — Wikipedia

"habits of the heart" come through education and the US replaced its liberal education with education for technology and left moral training to the church in 1958. The US added training for technology to education in 1917 for military and industrial reasons but it kept its education for citizenship as a priority until the 1958 National Defense Education Act.

Because of forum communication, this change seems to be universal, even in third-world countries. So the only question would be how might things have been different before leaving moral training to the Church? How has technology birthed a backlash against science? What might the New World Order have to do with destroying family order?

I agree with you but I don't know enough to organize that complexity in my head. I am also loath to give up the notion that this is related to education and a failure to understand the importance of culture and how it is transmitted. However, I want to know more.

What about the book "Immoderate Greatness> Why Civilizations Fall" Might this book be worth buying?

Book Overview
*Immoderate Greatness* explains how a civilization's very magnitude conspires against it to cause downfall. Civilizations are hard-wired for self-destruction. They travel an arc from initial success to terminal decay and ultimate collapse due to intrinsic, inescapable biophysical limits combined with an inexorable trend toward moral decay and practical failure. Because our own civilization is global, its collapse will also be global, as well as uniquely devastating owing to the immensity of its population, complexity, and consumption. To avoid the common fate of all past civilizations will require a radical change in our ethos-to wit, the deliberate renunciation of greatness-lest we precipitate a dark age in which the arts and adornments of civilization are partially or completely lost. This description may be from another edition of this product. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/immoderate-greatness-why-civilizations-fail/9180382/item/7370178/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pmax_high_vol_scarce_%2410_%2450&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwwr6wBhBcEiwAfMEQszmao1Nvr8VQL1R4emGu6cGu0hSDDjBWtbAQhuk2cgBNivMVNrFS6RoCo-MQAvD_BwE#idiq=7370178&edition=8527883

There is a tone of 'Mercan chauvinism in your posts. But your democracy is broken by far more than a touch of religious thinking. — Banno

Please explain. Do you mean you think that I think the democracy in the US is superior to all other nations? If so why do you think that?

I so envy Europeans who in my opinion have a much better sense of democracy than Americans, and on the internet, I met a Syrian Professor who was amazing in his knowledge of democracy as it came from Greek philosophy and through the history of that region. Maybe we can establish some talking points?

No one saw democracy in the Bible until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. That literature is essential to defending democracy and Americans stopped transmitting a culture based on that literature when liberal education in grade schools was replaced with education for technology and moral training was left up to the Church. God has not chosen Trump to be our leader. But evangelicals believe Trump is God's choice. These people have a lot of power.

I am, trying to keep the focus on the subject of the thread. This is a matter of power and authority and the abuse of religion. In America Protestants were thrilled with science that was part of the break from Catholicism. Now they believe telling people to wear masks, wash their hands, and get vaccinated is a conspiracy of the government that did those things to have control over us, not because science says that is the best way to deal with a pandic. What is happening here, happened in Germany only today it is rural Evangelical Christians causing the problem not Nazis. The Evangicals can get the upper hand because of mass ignorance and emotional appeal, just as Nazis were able to win by being emotionally appealing to rural people with a strong belief that God is in control and evil is real like Satan and devils.

Thank you for bringing Hypatia's into the discussion. Can you expand on your comment about cultural/political importance. What Christians are loath to do is acknowledge what made America great was the people they call pagans. All around us is complete denial that Christianity pulled us into the Dark Age of ignorance and that did not end until the power of the Church was broken and Protestism with all its divisions was unable to gain the power of the Church on a national level, until maybe recently? Evangelicals lining up with political power could be the New Rome?

↪Hanover, ↪Athena asked if there were a problem with the "God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason. ↪Ciceronianus suggested that it's "not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so". I am just pointing to a common root, the place from whence the idea that faith trumps rationality might issue. — Banno

I think you are right. But we can not be sure without a good fight. By that, I mean making a strong effort to raise awareness. This may not change the minds of strong believers but it may build the strength to oppose this threatening tragedy.

Then comes the prediction of a Blood Bath. :chin: Our history is a history of blood baths that we learned about when Protestant-controlled schools taught the young about the Holy Wars and Chruch. We know during the US civil war both sides claimed God was on their side. I think we should take the threat of a blood bath seriously, and throw all our energy into raising awareness of history and why the US broke away from Christian Europe and created a New Social Order.

In the book "Preparing for War" the author mentions how the belief that we are in the last days plays into this coming Holy War. What can we do to raise awareness?

Yes, but it is also what happened in Germany, a strong Christian nation when the Nazi party rosed to power. I look at videos of Hitler and he is not at all appealing to me, but he was seen as very charismatic. So is Trump charismatic to some.

Also, the Nazi party never stopped campaigning. It went to the rural areas and questioned people about what made them angry and then their speakers used this gathered information as subjects of speeches. They rented large buildings for these speeches and at times, used entertainment to attract people.

This follows Christianity and the Prussian control of education that kept education focused on technology for industrial and military purposes. I think we underestimate the power of public education and the importance of culture. This brings me to the subject of the Protestant opposition to the Catholics having control of the US. This is a power and authority issue and nothing is more powerful at any time in history than what people believe is the "power and glory" of God. (Bush jr. and the invasion of Iraq to oppose evil.) We adopted everything German that we opposed in world wars. This blend of controlling education and setting its priority on preparing for war, and then the politics, and religion that go with this superpower. We are Nazi Germany (Holy Roman Empire) on steroids and it is awful that the Christians do not see this. Is there any chance of raising their awareness?

You bring up awareness of what technology has to do with the problem. The Evangelical preachers with modern media have a huge advantage compared to the Nazi party doing surveys and then renting a dance hall to rile up support for the Nazi party.

good is rewarded, evil is punished, — schopenhauer1

Yes, that is the understanding of logos that seems to be universal. The problem is knowing right from wrong. From one point of view cutting down the forest is a wonderful idea and from another point of view, it is a terrible idea. Then the ones who want to cut down the forest may come to an agreement with those who want to protect the forest and both sides get part of what they want. This thinking does not require religion, and denying non-religious people also weigh the good and the bad, is just wrong. I say so because I have dealt with Christians who think they have morals and people without God, do not have morals. While coming from a science point of view, science deniers lack morality and are the problem.

How do we know truth?

Yes that is an ominous change in the lexicon.

Ideology enforcement is what I was ranting about. Having an ideology isn’t in itself bad. It is good actually. Encourages people to think if all goes well. At worst it is imposed on others or forced in society. Theron lies the problem — Metaphyzik

Today this forum is really challenging my poor little brain and I have come so close to saying something I would regret. I am by nature a conservative, and I was going to object to the long list of words related to ideology. My conservative self was jumping and screaming too many choices, too many choices. On an emotional level, I can 100% appreciate clear thinking that imposes "the right thought" on all of us.

Your notion that that imposition might not be a good thing, wakes up my intellect. You used very strong stories to make the point of what is wrong with the leadership of tyrants.

I know several people who didn't have a good start in life when they left home. Their home life may have been good or bad. Either way, they entered adulthood on a spectrum of fear to self-confidence. Christianity helped them deal with their fears, and socially, churches can be very supportive. That is a wonderful thing until we get to the downside of believing false things. For a while, Satanism was popular and filled the news with shocking stories. I don't think the belief in evil is a healthy belief. Taking the nation to war to destroy "evil" on the other side of the world, was not a good thing.

Being an independent thinker and accepting the responsibility of citizenship can mean enduring uncomfortable feelings. Can anything be done about this?

Thank you and I especially like "Correct, and I guess what I wrote can be interpreted one of two ways."

I am struggling not with religion as much as with how we think. Empirical thinking is not natural. It is a learned system of reasoning. Gods do not manifest themselves on earth so we can not properly study them. I feel very nostalgic about worshipping a pharaoh and being a part of building his pyramid.
I wish life were so simple, but my education made that impossible.

It may not matter what individuals believe until we are no longer speaking of individuals. The authority and power of national leaders today have far greater ramifications than in the past.

There never was a large population educated to think scientifically until the 21 century. This might matter more than knowing when all Jews were aware of Kosher foods, but that search for answers inspired my thinking. It might not matter when the Jews shared a concern about kosher food, but understanding how the idea spread does matter.

Today, our culture war is a clash between different ways of determining the truth. Should we look for truth in the Bible or turn to science? The pandemic and how Trump managed it versus how Biden managed it makes the question of how we know truth a serious question. The decisions have global consequences. Where should the authority rest today, with the people?, with the pope?, with a president? What does education have to do with this?

I think our Declaration of Independence is a declaration of individual responsibility. In a democracy, the people hold the responsibility of their government. Handling that responsibility without training for empirical thinking could be a problem. I don't think we can manipulate a god with our prayers and sacrifices unless that means giving up our dependence on fossil fuels. We will surely die if we do not get things right.

This goes along with the uniquely Israelite spin on a god who protects his people if they maintain their faith in him. — schopenhauer1

:chin: Just about everyone had a patron god or goddess and around the world people have done all in their power to please the gods and goddesses. There is nothing unigue about believing the Nile or an irrigation ditch will flood or there will be a good harvest if a god/goddess is pleased and bad things happen when they are displeased. People turned on their leaders when it seemed obvious the gods no longer favored them. I don't understand what you said if you said others didn't have a god's protection.

That is to say, there is no way you can read that text and not come away with the impetus of it, which is that faithfulness in God is what is necessary. — schopenhauer1

You put so much work into your post and I want to honor that. My questions are sincere wonderment, trying to figure out a puzzle about how we judge truth.

Those men could not have experienced a god in an empirical way because that god is not made manifest on earth. So in want did they have faith? It seems to me they had a very high opinion of themselves, to think they could know god. What evidence of god were they using?

Mao tse dong and the cultural revolution. Millions starve when farmers were supposed to do their own industry, and city workers grow their own crops. — Metaphyzik

It is my understanding Mao thought if seeds were planted deeper the plants would be better. Farmers knew better but the authority of Mao was unquestioned and strongly enforced. Only farmers far away from Mao's ability to control were able to plant crops properly, and this made matters worse. Farmers wanting to please Mao got plants from the far away farmers who had plants and they faked having a good crop. It makes me think of Trump and his denial of the science needed to limit the impact of a pandemic. Denial of science can cause a very serious problem and this why I write.

I wrote of the Protestant opposition to the authority of the Pope, and I intend to wake Protestants up to the danger of giving authority and power to the wrong person. Democracy and our freedoms depend on science and ancient cultures, not a religion or leaders who deny science and attempt to have the power of Mao to rule over us.

I like your opening statement

IMHO there is no more problem with one religion more than another…. They are all capable of the worst traits imaginable. — Metaphyzik

From there you speak of ideology. There are different ways to understand that word. The changed meaning is alarming.

i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌidēˈäləjē,ˌīdēˈäləjē/
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar:
beliefs
ideas
ideals
principles
doctrine
creed
credo
teaching
dogma
theory
thesis
tenets
canon(s)
conviction(s)
persuasion
opinions
position
ethics
morals
2.
ARCHAIC
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature. — Oxford Languages

the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature. Is the most important definition because that is what separates an opinion from reason. This is a serious cultural matter. This is directly related to the change in education, our culture wars and the popularity of Trump or the power of the Pope. We are basing our notion of false or true on our feelings, not empirical thinking that demands a study of the subject.

Please notice my irritating post when someone is finding fault with me. I may seem pity but it is about how we think and what this has to do with democracy. Putting me on the defensive and side-railing the thread instead of advancing arguments about the subject of disagreement has a cultural impact. (like mass murders) Democracy is rule by reason, not rule by passion. It evolves out of a notion of logus- reason, the controlling force of the universe. The Pope and Trump are not logos but they have a strong emotional impact on people. Democracy needs to be rule by reason to advance the human potential and that is what made America great, but education for that was ended and that brings the US to the cultures we have today. Winning an argument by finding fault in the poster does not advance knowledge.