Though I must admit I find the comparisons between science and religion which dominate philosophy forums to be overblown. The constant comparison is basically an attempt to declare the acquisition of knowledge to be the "one true way" and then measure everything by that standard. — Jake

That may be, and I can't help that. Religion has never been practical knowledge (except accidentally or peripherally). For most of our history, religion and practical knowledge has been perfectly satisfactory. At the present time, science is clearly a much better form of practical knowledge, and religion does as well now as it ever did at providing a grounding: "This is the human situation"; "this is where you stand in the universe". The details of the universe vary--Buddhism's universe is different than the Abrahamic universe, and there are a several other universes (in terms of different religions).

But because of my insistence on comparing art to science I've been unable to offer any useful commentary on the value of art. — Jake

I get your example. Religion isn't science or practical knowledge or engineering and one should not compare the two -- like in, "Biology has a better account of birds than the New Testament does." I would hope biology has a better account.

Fundamentalists (and pre-enlightenment, maybe pre-renaissance religious) have mucked things up by insisting that Genesis is a practical account of the earth. Genesis is a theogony with the same purpose as Hesiod's theogony. Neither are or were meant to be taken literally. I doubt that ancient Greeks thought that Aphrodite was literally born from the white foam produced by the severed genitals of Uranus (Heaven), after his son Cronus threw them into the sea. The business between Cronus and Uranus was about the unpleasant succession of gods. God, the Garden, Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and the Tree are clearly, obviously, dead ringers for literary characters who explain how it came to be that life sucks.

There is nothing wrong with loving the story of creation. There is something wrong on the part of religionists to claim it as any sort of stand in or form of science. It isn't. It never was, until reactionary fundamentalists got carried away.

Yes, and the useful question here is, why do we feel alone? We might shift our focus to trying to better understand the problem which god theories are attempting to address. This seems particularly relevant to those who find they are unable to be involved in religion. — Jake

"Why do we feel alone?" he asks. The religious answer is that man is fallen and that fallen man lost the sense of oneness and unity which he enjoyed in the Garden before the fall. It's more theogony: How did we come to be chronically cold, wet, miserable, and lonely? Life did not suck in the Garden of Eden until we screwed up, and life has sucked ever since.

The religious solution to being cold, wet, miserable and lonely is to find reconciliation with God and our fellow cold, wet, miserable and lonely fellows traveling through this world of woe.

The scientific answer is not a lot more comforting: We are beings locked up in our skulls with only second-hand sensory information to rely on. Furthermore we're descended from proto-primates who bequeathed to us certain characteristics (like desires that are difficult to fulfill, competitiveness, vindictiveness, and various other fine traits) that prevent us from achieving satisfaction of our peak Hierarchy of Needs.

The scientific solution to sucky life is to improve social performance. Become more competitive, only with a better arsenal of offensive and defensive skills. Don't just sit there and take being called a diseased pariah. Get up! Assert your worth, your value. Demonstrate your puissance. Don't just sit there being cold, wet, miserable and lonely: Fight for the warm dry blanket and the girl (or boy) wrapped up in it. It's a blanket stealing world, so take it, and if you have gotten tough, strong, and can fight like a MAN you will be successful.

Do you have further questions?

Why did religion arise in the first place? — Jake

People are imaginative, curious, intelligent... We like to know what is going on. For the last several hundred years we've been using science (broadly defined) to figure out what is going on. Before we had science (broadly defined) we had myth and mystery -- in other words, religion. Religion was a reasonably capable system to describe at least some of what was going on, in the absence of anything better. Beside religion there was a body of practical knowledge.

We bright, curious, imaginative creatures are also lonely, quite often. We sometimes feel isolated, alone, alienated, cold, wet, and miserable. A warm dry god comes in handy at times like those.

In time, religion became less important as a way of explaining physical reality to prescribing human behavior: what one ought to do, what one should hope for. Religion was capable at directing human affairs, though the priests usually didn't have the stage to themselves. There were also emperors, philosophers, generals, benevolent pisspots, bureaucrats, et al who also wanted stage time to tell us what to do.

Science (broadly defined) doesn't do a very good job of being a warm dry god. More often than not, science is a cold wind that chills us a little deeper. People still turn to their warm dry gods in time of cold, windy, wet despair. Frankly, it makes sense. If one is deep in cold, wet despair, one ought to pull out a warm dry god and wrap one's self up in it.

we come to know "emotive content" before we come to learn it's an effect on other people and thus affect in ourselves, through learning. — Wallows

Yes, I agree; human emotions may not be fully developed in infants and children, but they are there from the beginning. Over time both cognitive, motor, sensory, and emotional capacity and complexity develop (not all at the same rate).

Platonic. Why do we still appreciate Mozart, Chopin, or Bach to this day? It evokes a sense of aesthetic appeal through emotion or nostalgia further through quite unknown means... — Wallows

I don't believe in platonic forms.

There are plenty of people who, in fact, don't appreciate Mozart, Chopin, or Bach. These unlucky children grew up without hearing Mozart, Haydn, or Beethoven, or Gabrieli, John Dowland, or Michael Praetorius, or Hildegard of Bingen (d. 1179) or 500 other great composers, both living and dead. There is absolutely no reason why someone who has grown up hearing not a lot more than the lowest grade of mass market country western music or rap would be ready to enjoy opera by Mozart or John Adams (Dr. Atomic or Nixon in China).

All music has 'conventions' which one has to learn something about. Not being familiar with the conventions of a given genre can scare one off.

A private education isn't required. Ordinary people can prepare their children to enjoy serious music (Bach, Chopin, Mozart et al) by enjoying it themselves and exposing their children to it frequently, in various venues -- some churches, live concerts, and of course radio and recorded music. (It has to be treated as something more than wallpaper, however; the parents need to engage with the music and be seen engaging with it.)

Formal concert attendance tends to be a gray-haired phenomena--partly owing to the cost of tickets. The audience for classical music is shrinking--<3% of music sold is classical. In 1937, the average age of orchestra concerts in Los Angeles was 28. Not any more-- it's closer to the social security average. average. There are a lot fewer classical music stations than there used to be, even 15-20 years ago. In 1995 Minneapolis-St. Paul had 3, now it has 1. Of course, there is the internet now, which wasn't a factor in 1995.

Way back in the 1950s CBS AM radio was still broadcasting live classical music. Imagine that!

We learn how to identify a melody, and whether it is a happy or sad melody; we learn how to recognize a rhythm; we learn how to recognize harmony; we observe the tempo, the timbre of the instruments and voices, and so forth. We learn that certain melodies, rhythms, tempos, and instrumentations have certain uses.

An Irish jig or a polka wouldn't be appropriate at a funeral. A dirge wouldn't suit a wedding. A military march might not fly at a peace conference.

The meaning of music isn't natural; it's a human invention, pretty much, and it's a physical thing. The fact that we have two feet and not 5 makes marches and polkas what they are. We can only sing so high and so low, and one can hold a note only so long. If we didn't have fingers, the piano (harpsichord, guitar, flute, bassoon, etc.) would not exist. Our ears can only hear a range of sounds, and our bodies can produce movement (on a keyboard, for instance) only so fast.

The meaning-making of music is very old. The first flutes are... something like 40,000 years old, and were made out of bone and found in a German cave.



Music, body, emotion.

Here is a link to a page where you can hear a 9,000 year old flute being played. Why does it sound "normal"? Because it was designed for a human with 2 hands, 10 fingers, limited lung capacity, limited hearing, etc.

I've heard the Peking Opera doing traditional Chinese opera; I've also seen Japanese No plays, and must admit that neither of them meant anything to me. Zero. It was advertised as true to the form and first rate, but one has to have a set of knowledge and understanding to obtain meaning from music.

Were you to find a western audience of musically naive people (who had never heard music) and gave them a typical orchestral concert performance, opera, or rock song it is unlikely they would get much out of it. Music does communicate, but we have to learn its language.

The average 21st century peasant is far more musically sophisticated than the 18th century counterpart. With recorded sound, radio, television, and film (and live music, when available) even ordinary people have heard a vast amount of music. So, when people watch a movie, they respond appropriately to the music. They know the difference between romantic interlude music and approaching evil music, or victory, or defeat, or comedy, or excitement, etc.

So here is a piece of Balinese gamelan music; you or I may find it pleasant, interesting, repellent, or whatever -- I don't think we can find the meaning someone from Bali could without some preparation.

Martin Luther called the work of lay people (whatever that was) as holy as the work of monks, nuns, and priests. Religious work (preaching, praying, serving) is holy, but so is bricklaying holy; so is milking cows holy; so is mining and smelting iron holy; so is teaching school, and all manner of work. That what the Protestant Work Ethic is about: The work of man is the work of God.

So, that's one way of looking at it.

Our problem with work, people living 500 years after the Reformation, is that most of us are engaged in work that is far removed from the more obvious work of the 15th and 16th centuries: extractive, agricultural, building, domestic, relatively simple manufacturing, and a very limited number of intellectual jobs (like teacher). Processing words, for instance, does not feel like holy work; in many cases it feels like a sickness unto death. Service work can seem like an extremely bureaucratic rigamarole that never touches people in a meaningful way.

Skeptical theism has this great virtue: One doesn't have to engage with any believer about what God is or is not like. Whether Baptist, Bahá'í, or Baboonism, one can avoid godly discussion with them because you already know that they don't know, can't know, and will never know what they are talking about. The only secure position for the skeptical theist is to keep his mouth shut.

wackdoodle — tim wood

What is whack doodle is always having to weigh up the lesser of two evils, the less repugnant, the slightly better, and the obviously unsuitable.

It hasn't always been this way. Going back to to 1952, Stevenson/Eisenhower, Kennedy/Nixon, Goldwater/Johnson, Humphrey/Nixon, McGovern/Nixon, Ford/Carter, and Carter Reagan, Mondale/Reagan, Dukakis/Bush, Bush/Clinton, Dole/Clinton, which takes us up to this century, most of the candidates from both parties were at least adequate candidates and performed more or less satisfactorily. Goldwater was a little scary, but he was competent. Nixon had a large following of people who disliked him, but not for incompetence. Reagan may have been losing his competency over the 8 years of his 2 terms, owing to alzheimers. No president up to Trump has come close to being as unprepared for the job, as impulsive, as ill-informed, as willfully uninformed, as Trump. If his pre-election years were morally compromised, he'd fit in with Nixon, whose bad reputation came out of his California campaigns.

The opposing party has not liked its opposing candidate, of course. Eisenhower was obligated to campaign against Stevenson. The public enthusiastically voted for one candidate over another. Not all of the presidents listed were good. Stevenson would probably have made a better president than Eisenhower, Humphrey would probably have been better than Nixon, Carter was better than Reagan, and so on -- but whether McGovern would have been better, hard to say. I liked McGovern, but didn't have much company. Dukakis? Can't remember much of anything about him. Clinton managed the federal budget better than the Republicans before or after him (actually balancing federal spending and taxes), but on other points I'd fault him (and not for getting blow jobs from Monica).

How...do...we...live? So morals are dead? So fuck the founding father's then? What do we use as guidance then? Satan? — Drek

There are several good guidance systems kicking around. Most of them are from religious sources, but there are secular ones too. Nothing wrong with religious sources. The ethics taught don't really have to be paired with all of the religious beliefs. For instance, Jesus said "love one another." You don't have to believe in the resurrection to follow that ethical teaching. Love one another, take care of each other, be kind, be considerate, be responsible. It's not very complicated.

IF they are doing that, what is our obligations then? — Drek

Your obligation is to the nation or your community, not to the debased spectacle that politicians and big money can put on. I love my country; I don't love the the behavior of the elected representatives.

Just take it up tha ass? — Drek

No, Donald will do that for you.

So what are we really then a corpocracy? — Drek

Well... yes. To be precise, we are ruled by an oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. Oligarchs are usually either very rich or they are well armed.

A) Is it true that only a few people are capable of reason, as Plato says?
B) Are there really philosopher kings? — ernestm

A) Plato was grossly underestimating the abilities of the competition
B) I hope not

Mitch McConnell is an honorable man — frank

Mitch McConnell is a slime ball. (In the spirit of bi-partisanship, so is Nancy Pelosi.) As far as I can tell.

I think American culture is hypocritical — Drek

Of course it is. ALL societies, ALL cultural and religious institutions, ALL individuals everywhere are hypocritical. Hypocrisy is part of the human condition. That's why we advise each other to not believe everything they read and hear and not take others' statements at face value. People aren't hypocritical all the time, and you won't detect each instance that they are being authentic.

We are prisoner's of our own minds. We need to be free. — Drek

And once you escape your mind, where will you be? Yes, in a real sense we are all trapped in our skulls with nothing but a stream of second-hand information from the senses to inform us of what's "out there". Carry that far enough and you end up with encapsulated solipsism: "I am the only mind that exists".

How do you teach children ethics? How do you teach people to care? — Drek

You teach them the simple rules of ethical behavior when they are young, and then you model the desired behavior as they grow up into adulthood. Show your children what ethical behavior looks like, and correct them when they behave wrongly. Show them what caring behavior looks like.

Fundraising: There is no reason to donate money to rotten charities. Go here for ratings of charities.

https://www.charitywatch.org/join (may be a donation/fee)
https://www.charitynavigator.org
BBB Wise Giving Alliance (Better Business Bureau)``

You can call your state's Attorney General to find out if the charity you are interested in is currently being prosecuted. The IRS also reveals some information about charities.

Give to charities that use less than 25% of their income for all overhead activities -- including fundraising. (Charities that use more may not be crooks; they may be merely incompetent.)

Here is a list of police/veteran fundraising outfits that Consumers Union considers least reputable:

***American Federation of Police & Concerned Citizens
Titusville, Fla.
***Disabled Police and Sheriffs Foundation
Ste. Genevieve, Mo.
***Firefighters Charitable Foundation
Farmingdale, N.Y.
***National Association of Chiefs of Police
Titusville, Fla.
***United States Deputy Sheriff's Association
Wichita, Kan.
Veterans
***Disabled Veterans National Foundatio
 Lanham, Md.
***Help Heal Veterans
Winchester, Calif.
***Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation
Annandale, Va.
***Paralyzed Veterans of America
Washington, D.C.
***Veterans Support Foundation
Silver Spring, Md.
***California Police Youth Charities
Sacramento, Calif.
***Law Enforcement Education Program
Troy, Mich. — Consumers Union

My hypothesis is government and business are in bed together. — Drek

Yes, sir, they are not only in bed but they are fucking each other's brains out.

A more gracious quote on the matter from Karl Marx: Government is merely a committee for organizing the affairs of the Bourgeoisie.

I like it, "for the sake of virtue".

I don't care whether you drive barefoot or naked.

A person needs to identify a key virtue with which they will weigh their choices. Love is a possible key virtue. Of the 6 kinds of love

Eros, or sexual passion. ...
Philia, or deep friendship. ...
Ludus, or playful love. ...
Agape, or love for everyone. ...
Pragma, or longstanding love. ...
Philautia, or love of the self

Pragma, Agape, or Philia -- love of others in any case, might suffice.

Or, maybe Freedom, or Loyalty to some canon of virtue suits being a key virtue. There are others. When it comes to judgement (especially of squishy categories like "hate speech" or "Patriotism") you need a consistent standard of what is important.

So, for instance, which approach towards a thing most advantages agape, freedom, or family values -- whatever you measure importance by. When I measure importance with freedom, then so called hate speech is and ought to be protected. If "family values" are my guide, hate speech, porn, liberal values, and much else will be deemed not worth saving.

Am I delusional? — Drek

Maybe, but there is insufficient data. Please provide much more information. Do you happen to have a a copy of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) around the house? If you do, fill it out and send it to the forum. That would help us answer the question about your possible delusional state.

My understanding of marriage is that in the US ONLY the state issues licenses to marry. One can not be considered "married" without the state issued license. A priest or a justice of the peace can marry people ONLY if they have the state issued license. The Roman Catholic Church can not make you more married than any old Justice of the Peace can.

We considered our gay relationship adequately protected by our mutual desire to be in the relationship. That worked for 30+ years till death did us part. There are fairly simple procedures to own property together so that in the event of death the survivor becomes the sole possessor.

two four six eight
ditch the church
& screw the state

Cover from what? — Wallows

I always thought it was better to be merely a nonconformist than be considered a diseased pariah.

he most often disregards the social contract they were born in and does their own thing. It takes a great deal of courage to be a Cynic, and stay a Cynic. — Wallows

IF one is going to be a nonconformist, if one is just going to do one's own thing, one ought to be nonconforming for some worthwhile end.

There is a great deal of pressure from society to conform to its commands — Wallows

Really cutting loose from the demands and commands of society may be a pretty dangerous thing. If society withdraws its approval and tolerance from non-conformers, life can become wretched, or one might be terminated.

How many people are deliberate nonconformists, and how many are people who have decided to call their unhappy fate the result of their personal rebellion? For instance, is someone rejecting property, material goods, and luxury because they lost what little they had, or failed to gain the vast sums for which they hoped?

I've always thought of myself as something of a non-conformist. In fact, in many cases I just didn't fit in (and didn't know how to fit) so declaring nonconformity provided me cover.

Likely it will require the testicles of all the Republicans be stitched back on — tim wood

If I had had Senate Republicans' testicles in a box, I would have fed them to the cats already.

Shutting down the government is not a violation of his oath? — tim wood

Congress has to appropriate funds for the government to operate. While a debt ceiling has been in place for quite a long time, the use of it as a political tool arose in the 1990s. Congress establishes the debt ceiling and either lifts it, or doesn't -- in which case non-essential government operations can be suspended.

The President can decide how much of the government to shut down, but whether shutdowns can happen is in the hands of Congress.

Richard Nixon was impeached for "obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress" while Bill Clinton was impeached for "perjury and obstruction of justice".

You all may not have been around for the Watergate hearings, but the proceedings were broadcast (for weeks on end) and the process of evidence gathering was extensive. By the time Nixon resigned, the case against had been very well built.

Operatives in Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President (aka CREEP) burglarized the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate hotel. What followed was an elaborate cover-up, proving again that covering up a relatively minor crime can self-inflate into a major disaster. Another thing that has been proved is that once investigators start digging, remarkable finds can be brought to the surface.

I think we can count on sufficient evidence being available to impeach President Trump. What will be needed for impeachment is the ability of the House Democrats to successfully carry out the proceedings, so well that the Senate would be compelled to try and convict. I wouldn't hold my breath.

If you are asking whether morality or legality is more important, it would matter what the stakes are, would it not? If the act is trivial and nothing is at stake, it doesn't matter. If the stakes are high, then the relationship between morality and legality are worth considering.

Which takes precedence--legality or morality? Which one do you think is the most reliable guide to behavior -- moral teaching or law? Law is more specific and detailed; morality is general and stated in principles. Law is perhaps more thorough than morality: In time the law is elaborated to cover all manner of behavior, everything from hunting squirrels to the way depreciation should be calculated. Usually following the law will result in one being moral, but not always.

Where morals and law become difficult to reconcile is when need arises that requires moral, but illegal, action. In order to save an accident victim, I might have to trespass and damage private property. Both are illegal, but the morality of the situation requires busting down the fence and trespassing. If an aggressive animal is treating the victim, I might have to shoot it--more illegality.

No formulae is foolproof. Some over-riding principle is needed to determine which system--morals or law--you should follow. Jesus says one should love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Thereby hangs the entire law. So, love might be the overriding rule.

"OH?" because I wasn't clear on whether you thought we did or did not need Soma. A gram saves a damn.

and don't need 'soma' to cope with the mundane and boredom that life may have — Wallows

Oh?

Because pot has been linked to improving bone strength — Athena

Pot has been linked to improving just about every ailment from which people suffer. Clearly some or many of the claimed benefits are not valid. Cannabis makes many people "feel better". Nothing wrong with feeling good or feeling better, but that feeling may not be the same as being cured or having a significant improvement.

The trouble with pot as medicine is that formal research into cannabis benefits was banned for a long time. Now, amateurs can gather real evidence, and some claims of benefit made by amateur researchers and users are probably true. [During the early years of AIDS amateur researchers gathered very useful information about various pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical medications. They tracked research, the conducted some experimental therapy, and published results. They provided something definite where there was nothing much.]

Smoking or eating cannabis may be illegal (or not, depending). Some people enjoy it; others don't. Most people don't use it at all. Casual use does not strike me as a moral issue. What makes any drug-use moral or immoral is the consequence. I would apply that principle to many other casual activities whose effects on self or others are trivial and transitory. An occasional modest use of heroin or meth strikes me as the same (but definitely involving more risk).

Where any activity, be it smoking or eating cannabis, playing video games, or watching shopping channels on television, or anything else begins to dominate one's life it becomes morally problematic.

Yesterday, for the first time in about 30 years, I got high (on edible cannabis). I was definitely impaired, but since I stayed inside listening to music, I put neither myself nor others at risk. Using cannabis is illegal where I used it, but not where I bought it. I find it difficult to judge the event as any more morally significant than having a couple of beers or taking the dog out for her daily walk.

Depression is real, I get that. I've been depressed for years at a stretch (diagnosed; medication; therapy; the whole bit) and I understand HOW it is debilitating. My late spouse was bi-polar and was severely disabled at times. Still, he managed to volunteer for causes he valued. His efforts were modest, but he found it satisfying and the places he volunteered found it useful.

When I suggest you volunteer, I'm not picturing you as SUPER VOLUNTEER who regularly performs miracles. I'm thinking of a small project, maybe involving 1 or 2 hours a week, doing something relatively easy and low stress. For instance, I used to volunteer an hour or two a week (or less) at a food coop. One of the jobs was cutting up large hunks of cheese into small hunks and wrapping them in plastic. This was low pressure, low skill work; there were other volunteers to chat with.

Are there any adult mental health day activity centers in your area? You might qualify as a client or volunteer, either one. At least the one's I've seen operate as drop in centers, sort of; they are places to spend some time at; socialization opportunities. Low stress, no great expectations. It would get you out of the house for a short while.

I'm not suggesting you start with anything more than quite small efforts. I picture you as being in your house most of the time. A worthwhile goal would be to go outside for a short walk every day. Do you do things of that sort? Do you have a yard in which you could mess around with? Plant some seeds, watch them grow.

Foreign aid given Per Capita
1. Norway $812.58
2. Sweden $701.10
3. Luxembourg $609.48
4. Denmark $447.05
5. Switzerland $421.37
6. Netherlands $338.38
7. United Kingdom $284.85
8. Finland $234.13 — ssu

Polls have for decades shown that Americans' estimate of US Government foreign aid to be far, far higher than it actually is. Many people think it is in the range of 5% to 10% of the federal budget. Of course it is nowhere close to that much. The Agency for International Development (part of the State Department) was budgeted for $50 billion 2016. $50 billion is peanuts in an almost $4 trillion dollar federal budget.

Besides $50 billion not being a big amount, no international effort operates without overhead, so significantly less than $50 billion ends up in goods and services overseas.

An international health NGO I worked for in the 1990s operated 3 small USAID projects, each budgeted at around $100,000 per year in a three year grant (Uganda, Kenya, and Nicaragua). These were child survival and maternal health programs. We were required to raise matching funds for about a third of each projects cost for a total of $100,000 in private donations over a three year period. The programs were good grass root capacity building projects. We delivered in the field, but we couldn't deliver in the domestic fundraising area. As a consequence, we were de-funded and went out of business.

Of course one can give donations to charities and even volunteer. Yet wouldn't be giving a job to an unemployed person be even more of a help? — ssu

It would indeed be better to employ someone without a job than to give them charity, but most people (who are working class) do not have it within their power to employ other people. So the best thing for those people to do is to act collectively in political activity to provide jobs.

But charity (caritas) is important to the individual giver and receiver, but especially the giver. Why? The act of caring for others establishes a connection between the carer and cared-for which validates their common humanity. The validation of common humanity is important because people tend to distance themselves from those in need. If the needy are distant enough, one can more conveniently forget about them.

Political activity can qualify as caritas et amo but the rigamarole of politics is likely to bury caritas et amo under layers of tedious procedure.

Therefore what's the solution? To start caring even more? — Wallows

BC: Right: Care more!

How? — Wallows

BC: By actually doing caring. Feeling like you care is nice; what matters is that you actually perform care. So glad you care about starving people. Now go do something about it.

WS: Yeah, but I don't have enough resources to solve all of anybody's problems.
BC: Nobody asked you to solve all of anybody's problem. Find a problem that is shared by people and make a contribution (time, talent, or money) to that group of people.

For instance: Donate $ or food to a food shelf. Donate toothbrushes and toothpaste to shelters and food shelves. Toilet paper, shampoo, sanitary products for women, condoms, paper towel, etc. are all things that people who rely on shelters and food shelves may need. Buy some, whatever you can afford, and give it to them. If you live in the northland, men's and women's cotton sox and cotton T-shirts, men's underwear, and women's underwear (most sizes are needed, not in equal numbers...)

Places like St. Vincent de Paul take used clothing. Some places take all manner of household supplies (clean and in working order; they aren't junk haulers)

Volunteer some time at a shelter; people with problems are real people and interesting to talk to; quite often have good reasons for being in the situation they are in (bad things happen). "Be ye doers of the word and not only hearers of the word."

There are a whole host of ways to help other people.

The NEW major centers of Christian belief and affiliation has moved south to Africa, Asia, and South America. ("NEW" here refers to the last 20 to 40 years up to the present.)

It is western Europe that is out of step with world practice, whether referencing Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Jain, Hindu, Daoist, or animism and ancestor worship.

I don’t think he is speaking of a celestial realm — Noah Te Stroete

I don't think so either. On the other hand, I don't think he was suggesting that the kingdom of God was interior. Jesus was prophesying the coming of a terrestrial kingdom, in the flesh, in this world. Just to connect current creeds with Jesus, "I believe in the resurrection of the body" the three creeds of the church declares. Christians (according to the creeds) believe in bodily resurrection

I'm not personally expecting resurrection of any kind, but that's my story and I'm sticking with it.

#me2 and various other manifestations of liberation or outrage emerge when they can emerge. Meaning, #me2 is possible because women have enough security that they can afford to go on the offense. That they have gone overboard in many cases is nothing against the #m32 movement: whenever people build up some momentum they tend to go overboard.

Women's liberation, gay liberation, Unionism, abolition, temperance, women's suffrage, etc. are all examples of movements emerging when economic and political circumstances allowed for these movements to develop. (Note: Sometimes economic and political factors caused these movements, other times they just opened the door.

Namely, that many (not all) people are selfish and egotistical. They want money so they can lead better lifestyles. We consume more than we need. Wants for "stuff" dictate our lives. The majority, do jobs that make them unhappy, and only to further this goal for personal satisfaction. If you zoom out, it seems like a sorry predicament with no end in sight. — Wallows

1. Egotism and selfishness are in our genes.
2. Just because people want more stuff doesn't mean that not wanting stuff will make them content.

Therefore, I have arrived at the conclusion that I am different in so many ways from other people, that it causes me to feel alienated from humanity. — Wallows

3. You are not all that unique. "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." (Henry David Thoreau, American Transcendentalist)
4. The Human Condition is, in fact, a sad state of affairs a good share of the time.

you should embrace the alienation — DingoJones

5. Alienation is a wretched feeling. Making connections to other people is the antidote.

Wallows: One of the ways you ARE different from many people is that you are drilling deeper into the reality of your life than most people do. It's a risky exercise. Do it anyway, but pay attention to #5: make connection with other people. Sorry, the cure for alienation isn't quite as simple as plugging in a toaster.

The Philosophy Forum is a safe way of making long-distance mostly anonymous connection with other people, and that's worth something. But aim for at least a few flesh and blood up-close-and-personal connections.

And Merry Christmas.

Yes, terrorists are not primarily arsonists intent on destroying buildings. They are out to destroy symbols and affective features of life, such as the sense of security, collective invulnerability [we are safe], and such. Non-ideological terrorists, like the ones who shot up a gay bar in Florida or opened fire from a hotel room in Las Vegas, accomplish approximately the same thing, whether their intent is ideological or psychopathological.

Some defense is necessary. What I think would be more effective at airports are more intelligence operatives looking for certain types of behavior. People removing their shoes, getting personally scanned, swabbing hands, and manual frisking (as pleasant as that is) is just plain nonsensical. It's theater.

Perhaps allowing more proactivity on the part of prosecutors would help: Terrorists are often on various watch lists. But prosecutorial proactivity can be a problem too. Certainly intelligence gathering directed toward detecting plots is necessary.

Otherwise, I think people do need to get on with their lives, knowing that they are most unlikely to be the victim of terrorism. Overestimating ones personal risk is easy to do, of course. There are many more likely risks which we live with quite comfortably.

So Merry Christmas, or Glad Yule, or reasonably satisfactory late December days--whatever works--and Happy New Year.

the fitness of a (critically) endangered species — Hans

The fitness of critically endangered megafauna is in good shape. There is no improved fitness possible for various megafauna if we decide to kill all of them for their tusk, tail, testicles, or whatever. Maybe somebody could modify the white rhino so that it could shoot to kill in self-defense?

As for modifying the genes of various non-glamorous non-megafauna, we don't know what conditions they should be able to survive (because global warming is changing so many environments so rapidly). At the rate we're going, WE won't be around long enough to carry out much genetic jiggering.

Why do countries do that? — Wallows

Suppose Canada (which wasn't a country yet) had territorial designs on the United States back in the mid-19th century. Suppose they wanted to seize the northern tier of states (Oh, would that they had!!!). What better time to make a grab than at the Union's low point during our Civil War?

Trying to find the right candidate from what's available is like trying to find one's chewing gum in the chicken coop. The choices are distasteful.

I have always found explanations of the Trinity to be pious gobbledegook. The Trinity can be pleasantly invoked for blessings, and referencing the Trinity is comforting for many people (a comforting ritual, making the sign of the cross...) but once theologians start to explain it, the whole thing falls apart. I'd prefer that there be one god (the father) or there be three -- father, son, and holy ghost. Making one god into three and insisting that you are only talking about one... it's crazy.

But then there are other difficult things to explain -- like how bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and why anyone would especially want bread and wine to be changed into flesh.

Then there is that star which guided the 3 wisemen to this alleged stable supposedly in Bethlehem: What happened to this exceptionally specific guiding light after the 3 wisemen arrived? Did the star just go out? Did it keep drifting to the west? Did it backtrack to where it started?

And let's not even get started on the virgin birth.

Wasn't it Socrates that said:

I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all

Another factor: Did it make any difference that the distribution of land was much different during the carboniferous? The continents were not distributed, but were clumped together:

The Carboniferous was marked by the progressive formation of the supercontinent Pangea. The present day Northern Hemisphere landmasses moved towards the equator to form Laurasia and to join the large Southern Hemisphere landmass Gondwana. The collision between Siberia and Eastern Europe created the Ural Mountains, and China was formed with the collision of several microcontinents and Siberia. The collision between Gondwana and Laurasia led to the formation of the Appalachian belt in North America and the Hercynian Mountains in Europe. Gondwana also shifted towards the equator while the continents moved from east to west.

[Tectonics and Paleoclimate ----> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/carboniferous/carbtect.html ]