I do not think a morality from a Creator deity/God is arbitrary.

Take for example the human built watch. We built a watch for a purpose, we designed it, it has a purpose and it has a maximum function and the same can be said of numerous human inventions.

We are the authority on how our inventions best work and have some strict guidelines to follow to maximise or simply realise their function.

So I think if a god created humans and the world he or she or it would be in a position to set non arbitrary guidelines for our flourishing. A bit like with pets we tend to try and maximise their wellbeing non arbitrarily based on our goals for them.

I think the godless position is weaker because it has a universe that exists for no reason which does not seem to have purpose or telos and so why should it have laws and be subject to reason or rationality?

For example a frogs tongue flicks out when a small dot moves past its visual system. This is a reliable way to catch flies but the frog doesn't need to know what a fly is it just has to have a mechanism with a probability that most of what its tongue touches will be edible. So heuristics for human survival need not be truth preserving.

I think if you want to be rid of an intelligent creator God type thing than you have to be prepared to explain everything without reference to it.

For example we can do away with Father Christmas because we know our parents brought us our Christmas presents. But if our Christmas presents appeared and no one took credit for them we would need to find out where they came from.

Likewise if you came across a watch and decided humans didn't create it you would then have watch existing for no reason or you would have to give an explanation for the watches creation that didn't invoke humans. This would obviously be very hard.

I left my family religion at 17 after a traumatic time but I didn't think everything suddenly made sense. I used to think a created world made sense with a designer and purpose, then the first question I asked myself is why does anything exist? What am I doing here? To me the brute existence of reality was inexplicable.

Leaving religion freed me from religious dogma and hypocrisy, abuse etc but it didn't answer any questions. I appreciate the question why is there something? The existence of even just only one atom would raise questions for me. if things can appear for nor reason then causality breaks down and reality makes no sense.

Indeed. But no one said that something was good just because it occurred in nature. You said that you can't imagine morality surviving in a purely physical design-free world, and I pointed out a mechanism by which morality could exist in a purely physical, design-free world: evolution. — busycuttingcrap

What I don't think survives in morality is truth value. My notion of morality is not just rules humans invent for various reasons but the notion of moral ought's.

I can't know whether my actions are morally correct or meaningful. I can read the article "Morality and Evolutionary Biology" and comment on it if you like but I need to know how to act now and not after reading the numerous tomes of moral argument.

Humans exhibit a wide range of behaviour we have recently had two world wars, genocides and communist atrocities. In the past we had slavery among other things. All these behaviours altruistic and extremely harmful have coexisted happily.

I don't see the point of a system that allows these behaviours to coexist in equal measure ad infinitum.

Unless morality is adaptive. Which is exactly what many scholars think is the case. So not only can morality survive in a "purely physical, design free world", its entirely possible, even probable, that the reason morality exists at all is because it helped contribute to survival. — busycuttingcrap

Just because something survives doesn't mean it is adaptive but nevertheless by that standard religion has been more popular than atheism and has encouraged mandatory procreation
has condemned other forms of sex and given people motivation to carry on against the odds so it could also be described as favourable and adaptive.

But it would the naturalistic fallacy to say something was good just because it occurred in nature. I can't see any reason why humans must carry on and person don't have children or favour other people having them. I find moral calculations condemn a lot of human behaviour including procreation.

I am concerned with the truth and making up systems on false premises to me is nihilistic.

Sure, but why not aliens? You can keep the list of suspects coming, or does 'the magic man' theory help the buck stop somewhere in a way aliens do not? — Tom Storm

Because like I said a deity would have extended versions of powers humans possess. We have done a remarkable job of exploring and explaining and creating so do you believe we are the highest intelligence and have the final say? or do you believe there are more intelligent alien species?

Do we know and understand God, and know and understand precisely how God accomplishes things (e.g. creating the world, answering prayers, causing miracles, and so forth). — busycuttingcrap

I am saying we just need to believe the world makes sense and then ask why it makes sense and has laws and coherency.

It is like Paley's watch maker. We know watches and computers and stuff are made by humans. To give a complete causal explanation of a watch or computer we would have to explain their entire history of development and human mental states. What thought processes the first watch maker was having etc.

My basic position is that I could accept it if it turned out there was a creator deity behind reality and it could explain things like laws physics otherwise, moral intuition, mental representation and structure.

Unconvincing (to me). Why would the creator not provide creation with clear unambiguous guidance from the start, to not only make its intentions clear but prevent suffering? Having us slide into wisdom so gradually across the millennia just seems absurd, not to mention cruel — Tom Storm

The religious stance I was brought up on was That Humans are inherently sinful and failing.
We do know the right answer but are disobedient and sinful.
It is like now we have thousands of laws and many people break them and we have high crime rates.

My contention here is that if humans can design morals systems why can't gods?

It does not seem they have and I am not arguing for that. I am arguing for the coherence of a god playing the same intelligent role a human does.

Parents play God creating a new life and choosing this reality for their offspring. Even if a god started creation I don't think he or she or it could be blamed for an intelligent human beings decision to chose this world for their child.

If humans invented religion they are to blame for that and religious atrocities like the inquisition and witch hunts, they are to blame for communist and fascist atrocities and world wars and genocide.

I can't blame a god for anything at this moment I can blame human for things so to me if a god turned out to exist it would not be worse than what we are already stuck with.

I believe there is evidence of atheists literally blaming a god for human failings even whilst claiming one doesn't exist and pushing the idea that without god and religion (despite copious counter evidence) we suddenly become rational and moral.

What makes these "moral issues" instead of political issues?

What I'm trying to get at is what you mean by "moral" or "ethical" because that's where I suspect much of your (or my) confusion lies. — 180 Proof

Morality as in a system of behaviour we expect ourselves and others to follow as if compelled.

I am not pro or anti abortion. I am man so can't have one anyway but I would like to know the answer of whether it is an correct action.

I would like to know what constitues theft and whether it is wrong. Is property theft? Is Capitalism immoral and indefensible is communism likewise?

Is the Government behaving ethically? Do I have any moral obligations? Is punishment justified? How should I treat other people? Is there a best way to live my life. Should I care about my health. Are suicide and assisted suicide right or wrong? And so on.

These questions so far have no answers. So whenever I act on a moral compulsion it is a leap of faith.

Well I think it requires faith.

Faith that you are doing the right thing and drawing the right conclusions.

"Moral issues" such as? — 180 Proof

All of them. There is no correct answer.

Prominent issues dividing people include Abortion and assisted suicide, capitalism and anti-capitalism.

Even issues with the greatest consensus are simply a reflection of a current consensus not a moral certainty.

I would be happy to have the answer to one moral question or ethical dilemma.

Politics is quite viciously split.

Well, firstly the time to believe in that is when there is robust evidence of it. And what kind of pissweak god would leave morality to old books, translations and interpretations? Where do we find this morality you claim is the product of some massive intelligence? Hasn't it or they done a stupid-ass job getting it out there? — Tom Storm

It took humans thousands of years to start understanding reality.

The notion is that we eventually uncover the correct morality which we discover is implanted by the gods or God.

Some people believe we already have god given moral intuitions and that we are just not following them correctly.

I am someone who left a religious cult that had lots of draconian rules, we couldn't shop on a Sunday, watch television, wear makeup and Jewellery, listen to the radio, join a union, get a mortgage etc. When I left it I realised it was all made up and became a moral nihilist.

So you can either realise it is all made up or hold out hope for uncovering a true moral system somewhere. Nihilism is not a good place to be. I have partial recovered an become an agnostic not trusting any human absolutes.

I can make a choice. That resolves it. I might regret it later, but if choice isn't part of a moral issue, it's a kind of illusion. — Moliere

The problem is we have had the Nazis, Pol pot and Mao along with the despots of religions.

People make moral decisions all the time with terrible consequences. The odds of getting it wrong are high and the consequences dire.

I think a potential restraint is an agnostic belief in an afterlife judgement that we may be judged for our actions later on by a higher power. karma or something

People who don't see that human morality has failed badly what with war, slavery and genocide etc are strange to me. I believe all religions are man made and they just add to the list of failures of human moralising. And you can't blame the gods if they don't exist. Just us.

Morality, wherever wherever we say it comes from, is always the product of human agreement and disagreement. — Tom Storm

If morality is the product of humans then why can't it be the products of gods?

If we think we can do a good job of creating a moral system then why couldn't a god?

If we view a god as a super intelligence, with more power and knowledge then it seems that gods proposed powers would be greater than ours.

I would see any proposed god as a being with our unique capacities at a higher level hence the idea we are made in Gods image.

I am playing devils advocate here. But I don't see a problem with a god like entity with powers like ours but greater. We invented this the internet we could end up creating an entire virtual reality playing God ourselves.

But the way I look at it is -- I don't care if it's true or false, I care about it. So morality survives, even in a purely physical, design free world. — Moliere

But moral issues can never be resolved. We cannot prove the Holocaust was wrong or a sin or breaking a natural law. Our current moral systems can be overthrown.

We will just be imposing moral systems by emotional manipulation and brute force rather than reason.

I am concerned that people claim to have abandoned religion, gods and superstition but then hold onto social norms without justification assuming they are entitled to them by their own belief system.

We are trying to understand ourselves in the process of that we explore our character in different ways and our limitations and capacities.

Religions have inspired art works and architecture and social systems. People have raised the question of what would existed if religion and beliefs in gods didn't exist.

as I said in a previous post

Science does seem to have to take the position that reality makes sense, is coherent, has laws and responds to human reason. — Andrew4Handel

We are trying to explain the world under a set of beliefs an assumptions. Some things are explained like the human body and its mechanisms as having a purpose. We don't just accept chaos we believe for some reason in some kind of underlying order.

What reasons would we have believe reality was rational, law driven and explicable prior to religion?

One thing In do believe is that morality cannot survive in a purely physical, design free world where we are just an another animal.

I am currently a moral nihilist and I don't think moral claims have truth value and are rather the equivalent to preferences.

And I think the same goes for a lot of other human beliefs and institutions we want to preserve.

Well, if you already know what I'm thinking, why should i make an effort to tell you? — Vera Mont

You said:

The fact that theists try to make everyone else behave and think as they do does not indicate that everyone else thinks and behaves as they do. We are not trying to make you into anything. — Vera Mont

I am not a theist but you clearly have your prejudices towards them and seem to assume I was one with no evidence.

You have given me some insight into your thought processes as has years of debating with atheists as a non theist. I got a lot of vitriol for disagreeing with atheists despite repeatedly stating I am anti religious, non theistic and agnostic and don't currently believe in God.

Science does seem to have to take the position that reality makes sense, is coherent, has laws and responds to human reason.

Maybe a better question is, does theism explain anything? Is theism explanatory at all? — busycuttingcrap

Maybe it explains the human dilemma and the human character?

"explaining these types of things that a purely materialist atoms banging together doesn't explain,"
This does not exhibit a deep understanding of science. — Vera Mont

As opposed to what? You have a deep understanding of science you want to impart which does not reduce things to fundamental particles? Go ahead.

"like meaning in language, concepts, desires and so on"
What makes you think those are other-worldly, or non-physical phenomena? — Vera Mont

They are non physical by definition. How is a dream physical? How is a concept physical? How is consciousness physical etc?

That's the Big Misconception. The fact that theists try to make everyone else behave and think as they do does not indicate that everyone else thinks and behaves as they do. We are not trying to make you into anything. We just don't buy your version of reality or want to follow your rules. — Vera Mont

I am an agnostic and I am antireligious and don't believe in God.

As an agnostic I have debated heavily with atheists over the years and I know what common trends and beliefs are amongst them.

They also assume anyone who disagrees with them is religious and attribute all sorts of motives and beliefs to them. I can quote prominent atheists on this.

For example Richard Dawkins:

"Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control.

They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines."

Why do gods need defending? If they can't take care of themselves, even to the extent of being safe from non-believers, how will the gods take care of their faithful? — Vera Mont

I am defending them as an explanation. Giving them explanatory powers. The thread title was "Does theism ultimately explain anything?"

Somethings have not been explained and there is no potential physical/material explanation for them things like the meaning of words and symbolism, mental representation and consciousness etc.

These things may give a reason for speculating about the existence of a deity in the shape of the human mind. I didn't specify any specific sect of gods other than ones sharing our traits and traits we have no explanation for

Humans have now invented millions of things, including writing millions of books and composing hundreds of thousands of tunes. This is design, purpose, meaning and creativity. The explanation for this involves human intelligence.

But it doesn't tell us anything about the ethics of humans and there limitations.

If one invokes God in some process they don't have to cast aspersion on his or her or its ethics.

They say gods are made in mans image.

Nature is described through human faculties and perception, reason, meaning and intent and these are the attributes people give gods but not nature.

Humans have purposes/motives but evolution says nature doesn't have a teleology. We design things for a purpose like a computer. We create moral systems nature doesn't.

I think you can defend gods and the esoteric as explaining these types of things that a purely materialist atoms banging together doesn't explain, like meaning in language, concepts, desires and so on.

Atheists appear to be trying to make us just another senseless causal determined mechanism of brute nature in my opinion.

I feel much the same about the atheist, that they’ve given up the quest to find a deeper reality. — Art48

That is the impression I get.

I may have described myself as atheist before I studied philosophy and psychology at university and in particular philosophy of mind which raises questions about the physicalist, materialist paradigm and mental states etc.

Now we have prominent Atheists like Dennett and the Churchland's going to the point of denying consciousness exists. Which is ridiculous and indicate they want to exorcise anything that challenges an atheist framework.

I now describe myself as an agnostic.

The atheist may respond that religions have had millennia to get their act together, and have failed — Art48

Well we know what happened when atheist and communistic regimes took hold and the level of brutality including The French Revolutions atrocities and their attempt to De-Christianize France.

I think science has failed to rescue meaning and morality or offer something equivalent to religion and can be accused with evidence of dehumanising us.

(..)instruments used by doctors to monitor conscious levels — noAxioms

I have heard of the Glasgow Coma scale.

"The GCS assesses a person based on their ability to perform eye movements, speak, and move their body. These three behaviours make up the three elements of the scale: eye, verbal, and motor. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale

None of this relies on brain analysis. There is persistent vegetative state.

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

"Whether or not there is any conscious awareness with a patient's vegetative state is a prominent issue."

They cannot say for sure what degree if any of consciousness someone is in this condition. It is speculative.

They can detect something like intent before the subject is even aware of it. — noAxioms

This is probably based on the Benjamin Libet experiments that are widely debated and controversial and are actually only coherent on a dualist paradigm.

By dream states are you referring to studies into REM sleep? It is correlated with vivid dreams but dreams have been reported when people are woken from other states of sleep.

I don't know anyone who is arguing consciousness is unrelated to the brain and doesn't interact with it in any way. The argument is against the coherence of describing mental states in only physicalist language. The other alternatives include idealism (the mental universe) Solipsism, Dualism and Panpsychism which all lend themselves easily to afterlife scenarios.

The position with the most evidence is idealism because all humans have to analyse are conscious states. Science creates changing models to explain conscious states. The model of the atom changed several times because it was just a model not proof of a physical reality behind our experiences.

It is not clear how you would describe any unobserved phenomena and what attributes it would have. This is most stark when it comes to colours and pain and sound.

But I know nothing about this afterlife - not its characteristics, requirements, rules, form, expectations - nothing. — Vera Mont

But in my question you know that you will continue to exist. The important part is the continuation of your existence.
What happens now when you make plans for the future? If you have children you don't know what the future holds for them or for their hypothetical children and so on.
There is the element of the unknown in all our decision making.

One aspect I think an afterlife can have bearing on is justice.

If you are murdered and no one is prosecuted for your murder then some kind of justice or Karma may happen in the afterlife. If you are considering a murder the thought of afterlife consequences may make you think twice.
I have mentioned Pascals wager in this regard. There seems to be nothing to lose by living as if your existence continued after death.

In the reverse scenario other people claim believing this is their only life make them live it more fully.

I personally find the prospect of personal extinction on death makes life pointless. Something that we will forget like an irrelevance once dead.

I think in the face of the unknown we have to at speculatively and with agnosticism but we are not limited by the unknown but it offers potential.

I don't see a problem with transferring an identity across mediums.

Henry the 8th wrote the tune Greensleeves it is thought.

It was turned from music on a lute into some kind of musical notation.

Musical notation has changed over time so the melody was represented in a different notation instructing future musicians how to recreate the tune.

Eventually it was recorded in different mediums including Vinyl and CD. All the while the basic tune has remained recognisable across different mediums on different musical instruments (indeed on ANY musical instrument.)

So it seems very simple to preserve an identity across time and different mediums.

Can you demonstrate that consciousness is not identical with anything in the brain, or was that just a wishful assertion? — noAxioms

I think the burden of proof lies with you if you want to disprove this claim. However In what way can it not be proven?
Nothing I have read about the Brain so far is anything like consciousness or its contents. You can't even detect consciousness in the brain. I have read literature on the search for the correlates of consciousness and literature on brain structure. I see nothing identical with a thought or dream in any of these descriptions.

The closest they come is crude retinotopic mapping which suggests that the shape of light signals to the eyes is recreated in the brain. But it is the equivalent of a footprint in the sand preserving some limited info about a foot.

Therefore, the very autonomy of the Cartesian subject presupposes a profound potential laxity and arbitrariness to individual free will in relation to the moral norms of a wider social community. — Joshs

That is how we have progress because people reject social norms by thinking for themselves and not being bound by social norms and reasoning models.

If we ask why the agent endowed with free will chose to perform a certain action , the only explanation we can give is that it made sense to them given their own desires and whims. — Joshs

This doesn't follow.

We do live in our own solipsists universe where we have to judge the contents of our perceptions that doesn't mean we can't cast moral judgement on our own actions and have standards we created that we want to conform to.
I have never believed in hitting children despite at times most people supporting smacking children. This was a conclusion I reached myself with nobody else expressing it or prompting it.

So if I became angry and hit a child I would be failing myself based on the Standards I have formed over the years.

I don't need anyone else to dictate my morality to me. Which is why I find the Strawson et al stance patronising and undermining the remarkable powers of self reflection humans possess and autonomy.

Sounds like you are an adherent of conservative social politics. No bleeding heart nonsense for you. — Joshs

How does that follow? I am actually opposed to the notion of punishment and a prison abolitionist.

But I believe in truthfully and correctly attributing responsibility. I accept and understand the notion of mitigating circumstances.

There are degrees of mitigating circumstances from severe mental illness to having some adversity like everyone but not enough to act to causally determine ones criminal activity.

I don't define my life in terms of the state of some optional parts that I've lost — noAxioms

Consciousness is unnecessary for life to exist. I don't assume plants are conscious. Whether or not consciousness is dependent on the biological notion of life is a question (but somewhat irrelevant here).

Consciousness is not identical with anything in the brain.
— Andrew4Handel
Can you demonstrate this, or is it just a wishful assertion? — noAxioms

Can you demonstrate that any conscious states are identical to brain states? When I think or dream it doesn't tend to be about neurons or the structures of neurons or biochemicals. If you think brain states are identical to conscious states then you need to provide examples.

I mean, what if you suddenly woke up as a different person tomorrow morning. What would that be like? Would you notice? — noAxioms

You have to define "different person."

I would notice if my hair changed colour overnight or I changed sex in my sleep.

What is continuous is the coherence of my consciousness. A ship could be gradually altered over a few decades to become a different ship altogether but it wouldn't care because I assume it is not conscious.

If I woke up and found I had turned into a woman that scenario only makes sense if I had the same stream of consciousness as the night before. It is the severing of a stream of consciousness that would cause a loss of identity I assume.

In sum, Strawson et al are not arguing against blame , punishment and justice but against revenge, retribution and backward-looking blame, which they see as the outcome of a traditional belief in free-will. — Joshs

They are presenting a straw man then or being patronising.

It does not follow that if you believe in free will you become a foaming at the mouth lynch mob. People who have believed in predestination have also supported punishment. People that don't believe in free will can believe in punishment as a deterrent to others

A lot of Christians have believed in the theory that we are born sinful not by choice and have total depravity which is not a free will stance but that we deserve to be punished.

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

"Total depravity (also called radical corruption[1] or pervasive depravity) is a Protestant theological doctrine derived from the concept of original sin. It teaches that, as a consequence of man's fall, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and, apart from the efficacious (irresistible) or prevenient (enabling) grace of God, is completely unable to choose by themselves to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered."

I think the no free will brigade commit themselves to denying blame where it is due in an inappropriate way that has a negative effects on the victims of someone else. It is the culture of making bullies equal victims to their victims and further victimising victims.

Disappointed. — javi2541997

Because you dislike life?

That would seem to be a continuation of life, not an afterlife, a word which implies the conscious thing is no longer alive, a contradiction as far as I can see. — noAxioms

If someone's body is dead how is the continuation of their consciousness the continuation of life?

If a radio breaks down the radio programme still exists it just ceases to interact with the radio.

Consciousness is not identical with anything in the brain. It is its own thing and the thing we value (i.e. experience)

I can actually think of no empirical test — noAxioms

Why do you need to test whether or not I am the same person?

In what sense would I be a different person? If I dye my hair blue I am still the same person. If I move to America likewise etc.

What is the same is my consciousness associated with my memories.

There is no plausible reason to assume I become a different person between time 1 and 2 unless you are arbitrarily defining me as every atom currently in my body

As Descartes said "I think therefore I am" the only think we can't doubt is our conscious self. Indeed everything else could illusory.

We have no idea how consciousness works to know whether or not it survives bodily death. We don't see consciousness in brains and it is a private subjective state only accessible to ourselves.

With this complete lack of knowledge about how consciousness is instantiated it is faith position not to believe in the afterlife.

I have no reason to tell someone who is bereaved that they will never see a relative or friend etc again bus I don't know that likewise I cannot say they will see them again. but I would not take away hope based on my lack of knowledge about what happens to consciousness.

Even if you don't take a Pascal style wager you don't have the knowledge to tell someone one way or the other on this issue. But not knowing means we can speculate not that we should be silent. Science operates on speculating before facts emerge or knowledge is created.

When I went under general anesthetic it was sunny one moment then I woke up in what seemed like an instant and it was dark outside.

If death is like complete unconsciousness then we can have know concerns about the present or future.

Yet we live our life based on concerns for the present and the future.

Making plans for the future is hence irrational because you are planning for a future you won't exist in and won't know anything about. You can create children but have no idea what the future holds for them and any descendants. I doubt Hitler or Stalins ancestors predicted them.

We have to speculate about the future to live.

The rationality of these speculations depends on how they are framed.

Pascal's wager says you have nothing to lose by believing in God but everything to lose by not believing. Is there anything to lose by believing in an afterlife? Not believing in it could be an inaccurate and hence irrational stance. We always make plans for the future without any way to be certain.

I am referring to a coherent continuation of a persons consciousness.

As when we wake up each day aware of being the same person.

For an afterlife My body dies but my consciousness is relocated whilst preserving my mental identity.

It hinges on the nature of consciousness. It could be that consciousness goes to another realm or enters another body or entity as with reincarnation.

My question is if you knew that some scenario like this happened how would it impact you?

I wasn't at all thinking of my autism diagnosis when I started this thread and it was unrelated to that.

But now I think of it it is probably a situation where someone never feels completely compatible with other people.

Not conforming can be good and useful but never feeling you understand other people isn't good.

But I think now the notion of normality is being questioned and we might all be non neurotypical.

That sounds contradictory to me. And both seem to contradict what you said before about not taking beliefs seriously enough. Now, I can't tell what you're advocating. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure what you mean. I was trying to illustrate how compromise can be harmful and can hide societal malaise.

By someone sacrificing their belief that society needs to cater for cognitive differences because taking their belief or values to their conclusion one has to change society.

Communist societies have taken it to the extreme of pathologizing political differences. In the west we seem to have resorted to medicating people on psychiatric medications who can't cope with society.

So do you believe compromise is always possible and healthy?

The opening argument is taken from Galen Strawson.

https://iai.tv/articles/moral-responsibility-without-free-will-auid-2115

I know someone who got an autism diagnosis as an adult.

So they asked their boss for some small changes at work then their boss sabotaged the persons bicycle which could have seriously injured them. The manager got the sack but that has led them not to want to reveal their diagnosis to anyone.

I am the reverse I think you should tell people you are on the spectrum and what your needs are and not sacrifice your needs to fit in or through fear.

But that persons case indicates that people who want something to change for them can face extreme hostility.

A peaceful society might be a mentally ill apathetic one where people have given up hope of serious change.