I meant that TARP didn't make a significant impact, and it wasn't intended to. — Tate

Yes but TARP wasn't the Fed. That was legislation from Congress. I was talking specifically about monetary policy and its relation to inflation. It's certainly true that the bills this time around (for COVID) were MUCH larger, and that undoubtedly had an impact on inflation. No question.

I repost this as it may be helpful:

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:



That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

I was addressing the OP which states Climate Change as the biggest human problem and that I do not think that is the case at all. The biggest problem is more or less people as generally lacking the ability to communicate and discuss in a calm and civil manner rather than tarring and feathering anyone who appears deluded, evil or wrong. — I like sushi

Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood. The way you worded it was ambiguous in my view.

Incidentally, I don't think those who disagree are evil, but I do think they're ignorant and wrong. That often gets conflated.

And I would add that we still do not understand the properties and behaviors and operations of water in certain circumstances. — spirit-salamander

And...?

Remember what I said: we can be as certain of this as we are of anything. Yes, absolute knowledge and 100% certainty isn't possible. So what? We don't inject this truism into discussions about gravity or electromagnetism or walking out the door -- so why make it here?

We're as certain about the role of human activity on climate change rate as we are of anything. The evidence is overwhelming and available to all who wish to be educated about the issue. Does this include you or not? Are you interested in learning about it or not?

Again, this has been done by climatologists, among others. Plenty of information about it for those not hellbent on ignorance.
— Xtrix

In this regard, please read Bjorn Lomborg. — spirit-salamander

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climatologist. His writings are often misleading and have been shown to be misleading multiple times -- although I'm not surprised that this is the person you've chosen to follow. Ask yourself why you choose this person over the scientific community?

Steve Koonin — spirit-salamander

Yes, the author of the ridiculous "Unsettled" is now your second citation? Is this really what you've been filling your head with?

How about balancing it out and read what the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, or any reputable climate scientist has written about this?

Then why is it being discussed here in this forum? It can only be for the reason that science presupposes philosophy. — spirit-salamander

Lots of things are discussed on this forum.

True, science does have its roots in philosophy. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. What's being discussed is climate science. If you want to make a connection between the evidence from climate science and philosophy, be my guest.

How do you know you're not the ignorant one? — spirit-salamander

I could be. But it hasn't been demonstrated on this particular issue. Why? Because I'm citing scientists and evidence, not my own musings.

If you say they can't possibly be right, then you're not a true philosopher and have no business in this forum. — spirit-salamander

I'm really not interested in your sophomoric thoughts about what "true philosophy" is. So far you've cited two widely debunked non-climate scientists and repeated long-refuted claims about climate change. Forgive me if I question your judgment.

So it didn't inflate the money supply. — Tate

It did increase the money supply. For years the supply has increased, in fact.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0

Actually, no. — Tate

Actually, yes. The fact that the financial sector was the primary target is irrelevant. The entire global economy was on the brink of depression then -- it was on the brink of depression during COVID, as well. The Fed has a few tools to fight recessions. All of the tools used thus far has increased the money supply, and has done so for years.



https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/opinion/04meltzer.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html

The 700 billion loaned to banks was eventually paid back in full. — Tate

So what?

The pandemic response was specifically meant to stimulate the economy, where the Great Recession payouts were meant to shore up confidence and unfreeze credit. — Tate

Both were meant to stimulate the economy. The Fed printed money back then too and people screamed about inflation. Didn't come.

But you're right that there are multiple causes of inflation, one being the sluggishness of the Fed to respond before inflation had set into the American psyche. — Tate

Yes, the Fed should have raised interest rates last summer, at the latest.

Yes. We can be as sure of it as we are of anything.
— Xtrix

No, climate is an extremely complex thing and not like anything. — spirit-salamander

Boiling water is a complex thing too. It's fairly well understood though.

Tell people in Pakistan and California how beneficial it is.
— Xtrix

That is not a substantial response. I might say severe droughts have always existed. And natural catastrophes too. How do you know that there are many more now? This could be a distortion of perception. — spirit-salamander

Natural catastrophes have always existed. Believe it or not, climate scientists know this too.

How do we know there are many more now? Because we can count. We can measure frequency, duration, and intensity. Again, this has been done by climatologists, among others. Plenty of information about it for those not hellbent on ignorance.

Your whole response is unphilosophical. — spirit-salamander

Makes sense, since this isn't a philosophical matter. This is a matter of science and, in your case, ignorance.

No it is not. To question the possible effects of a changing climate is reasonable. — I like sushi

That's not what you said.

but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. — I like sushi

Human activity is the reason we see the rate of change we're seeing. There are people who have studied this their entire lives which will explain it to you -- the evidence is available to anyone with an internet connection or access to a library.

Like I said, a great many so-called ‘Climate Deniers’ are simply questioning nutcases at the other end of the scale who talk about human extinction. The kind of folks pushing for all kinds of policies that result in destructions of environments and poverty. — I like sushi

That's also not what you said.

But even this is stuff you'd hear in the WSJ editorial pages or Fox News. Who cares about "nutcases"? We're talking about scientists. The IPCC isn't a group of "nutcases," so what are we arguing against besides a straw man?

Why is that so hard to grasp? I am not saying there are not people who outright deny the human effect on climate change but THEY are quite ignorant. Questioning the impact our actions will have and have had is not denial. — I like sushi

What do you think climate scientists have been studying all these years?

For one, central governments and banks have no reason to admit being at fault. Economies are complex enough that it's always possible to find another patsy - financial markets, covid, the Ukraine war, etc. — Tzeentch

The Fed was printing plenty of money in 2009 too. No inflation.

An unprecedented global lockdown has major consequences. Claiming this is used as a "patsy" is laughable.

Inflation has multiple causes. One cause is the money supply. COVID's disruptions is another. The war is yet another.

This isn't difficult for anyone who isn't insistent on blaming one thing.

Can we be absolutely sure that we are primarily changing the climate? — spirit-salamander

Yes. We can be as sure of it as we are of anything.

Perhaps there is even no reason to panic at all, as some scientists, who seem objective to me, think: “Global warming is real. It is also – so far – mostly beneficial.” (Matt Ridley) — spirit-salamander

Tell people in Pakistan and California how beneficial it is.

But the chance that the train has already left seems very high to me, assuming that we are responsible for the mess. But why should 2030 be the point of no return? — spirit-salamander

No one is saying 2030 is the point of no return.

A great number of people are framed as ‘Climate Change Deniers’ when in fact they do not deny that the climate is changing, nor that humans have an effect on the climate, but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. This is a reasonable position to have. — I like sushi

No, it isn't. It's an ignorant position. It's a position which ignores the scientific consensus, decades of research, and overwhelming evidence available at a keystroke.

I’d say those are all relevant problems pertaining to his existential situation. I’d prioritize those questions over whether he believes abortion is a human right.

Some problems are more important than others. Not every problem is an existential one.

For those that are existential— than yes, they’re equally important. Nuclear weapons and climate change are existential — hence, they’re more important than others. Is there ONE problem or ONE cause? No, not always. But so what? My question is to provoke thought about the problems we face.

One need not hope in order to undertake, nor succeed in order to persevere.
-- William I, Prince of Orange — Olivier5

:up:

I find those quibbling over whether the term “existential threat” really applies to climate change rather amusing. Especially when it’s become clear, over and over again, that projections have been far too optimistic. The latest about the Greenland ice melt is one example.

There are solutions to climate change. Many of them are under way. Those who believe it’s hopeless are entitled to think so — they may be right. But we can’t act on that basis.

We should recognize that if global warming is an automatic consequence of capitalism, we might as well say goodbye to each other. I would like to overcome capitalism, but it’s not in the relevant time scale. Global warming basically has to be taken care of within the framework of existing institutions, modifying them as necessary. That’s the problem we face.

When we turn to human nature, the first thing to remember is that we know essentially nothing about it. It’s what I work on all the time. There’s a few small areas where there’s some understanding of cognitive human nature and very little about the rest. It’s all surmise.

If it is true that human nature is incapable of dealing with problems developing over a longer term, if that’s a fact about the way humans are structured and organized, we can, again, say goodbye to one another. So let’s assume it’s not the case.

Then we work within a set of parameters. The fundamental institutions are not going to change in time. Human nature allows the possibility of thinking about what’s going to happen in a couple of decades, even centuries. Assume all that.

Then we turn to solutions. And there are solutions within that set of assumptions. So let’s proceed and work on them. If those assumptions happen to be wrong, tough for the human species. It’s what we have. — Noam Chomsky

I think that sums it up better than I can.

About 30% of most issues is not "some". — Benkei

?

What would you call it?

It’s a lot — the Fed buys a lot of bonds. Maybe that’s what you’re getting at. The point I was making is that it’s one part of the overall debt — an important part, but not even the majority.

The whole point is that CPI is not an adequate measure when asset inflation has real life consequences for consumers with regards to housing and pensions. That inflation existed well before covid and Ukraine so really had nothing to do with either of them. — Benkei

I can’t speak for Holland, but in the US the housing market really took off around the start of COVID. I know this well only because it corresponded to when my wife and I started looking for a house. COVID changed a lot of behavior — but it wasn’t only that. It was also the Fed lowering rates to almost zero. That played a huge role — no denying it.

Maybe I have missed your point. If your main argument is that CPI doesn’t tell the whole story about inflation, I agree.

So you've just made Friedman's case that printing money causes inflation. It indirectly funds government expenditure (increased demand) because banks always have a buyer for bonds which governmental demand cannot be answered in a near full production environment. — Benkei

They buy some bonds. The Fed has been doing so for decades. During QE in 2009, they were doing it on steroids. People screamed of inflationary effects— and the CPI stayed roughly the same. It did, however, have effects on markets.

As I said before— I’m not saying that increasing the money supply has no effect on inflation. But it’s much more contained to the three main asset classes than to the economy as a whole.

What’s changed this time around is the fiscal stimulus and COVID programs put into place. And COVID itself, of course.

That's not just "some" inflation, that's a huge chunk of people's disposable income and should figure strongly in any inflation figures but usually doesn't — Benkei

Yes, housing is certainly affected by low interest rates. They’re one of the asset classes I mentioned. Having been in the market for the last two years I can tell you it’s not only interest rates, however. COVID played a large role in behavior as well.

That has nothing to do with covid and Ukraine — Benkei

It has a lot to do with COVID. It greatly changed supply and demand.

True, it has nothing to do with Ukraine — I never claimed otherwise.

Energy price and food inflation, that's Ukraine. Broken supply chains, that's covid. — Benkei

COVID factors into both— but Ukraine added to the problems, yes.

In any case, energy prices have a huge effect on all aspects of the economy, from plastics to cars to shipping costs. And those increases have led the charge. They haven’t led the charge because of the Fed. That’s the point.

Right. The Trump Party, where loyalty to the leader must be pledged and demonstrated, where even minimal descent will be punished, where there is no State only the whims and desires of Trump is a much better option. — Fooloso4

:fire:

It really is farcical isn’t it? The biggest Statist here claims to hate the state (now that Biden is president, of course).

Don’t look for principles or consistency. At the heart of it all is simple sociopathy.

Seriously, I don't get this type of reasoning, it's like saying to someone you will lose most of your limbs, your eyes, your stomach etc, but don't be alarmed we can keep you alive just fine by hooking you up to this machine for the rest of your life. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes indeed. :100:

We need to be alarmed. — Olivier5

Very alarmed.

Anyone who isn't an idiot understands why they stormed the Capitol. They were trying to stop the Electoral College vote. — Michael

Where’s the evidence? Besides them explicitly saying it, I mean. Who are we to look into the hearts and souls of these people?

We must be NUANCED. Except when it comes to BLM riots — screw those people.

I suppose if they had found Pence, there was a chance they’d have a reasonable, rational conversation with him, laying out their grievances. Can we REALLY say for sure?

Repeat after me: there was no insurrection. The people there were not there because the votes from a free election were being certified —they were there because the election was STOLEN, as told by the Great One. They were defending democracy, peacefully.

:starstruck:

Do you think they were there for selfies with Pence? — Fooloso4

They were there on a tour. They just forgot the visiting hours. Honest mistake.

Many were deleted. A lot of really bizarre stuff, claiming he’s God, etc. Was warned but kept at it. Could be a mental health issue (and I’m not saying this jokingly).

Anyway — it was clear cut.

Love to watch Trumpists try to square the circle in service of their delusions. :starstruck:

Insurrection to overthrow a free election? Nah, nothing but a little, tiny riot. Actually, not even a riot — it was a field trip that went wrong. Actually, not even that wrong — just some minor trespassing. Actually not even that, since technically we the people own that place.

So basically it was a tour. What’s everyone getting so upset about?

get the general idea, printing money →
→
inflation, but I don't understand the actual mechanism so to speak - — Agent Smith

Monetary policy — the actions of the federal reserve — inflate asset classes like stocks and housing. Currently, it accounts for some inflation— some.

Mostly inflation is the result of COVID and the war in Ukraine. People who want to reduce it all to “printing money” have read too much Milton Friedman, and are unwittingly giving cover to austerity policies, which will hurt mostly the working classes. But it’s not that simple.

The mechanism involved is this:

The treasury issues debt to fill the gap between expenditure and revenue — the deficit. That debt can be bought by individuals, companies, institutions, foreign countries, and even parts of the government itself. We run deficits every year— This is why we have a high national debt, which is the total of all deficits.

The federal reserve owns some of that debt — but only some. When they buy treasuries, they buy them from institutions. With what money? Mostly through “printing” money — in todays world, by adding digits to an account — which only they have the power to do.

The institutions are banks, mostly. If these banks hold more cash than bonds, they tend to lend out money and for better interest rates. More companies and individuals borrow, and you have more spending. This simulates the economy, in theory.

Banned @Yozhura for incoherent, delusional, low quality posts.

Are you OK buddy?

I really can’t make heads or tails of any of this either.

A tiny insurrection. No big deal. After all, they were “burning down cities” all summer leading up to this.

Election was stolen — can’t prove it yet, and all evidence is to the contrary, but we’ll go on believing it. The deep state and whatnot…

Always good to have at least one delusional Trumpist spouting nonsense. Helps to identify the crap they’re being fed.

“Russia interfered in the 2016 election” (turns out it was true, but not enough to swing the election — as I was saying from the beginning)

=

Literal insurrection at the Capitol building, threatening to hang people, claiming the election was stolen by mass voter fraud…

Yeah, it’s a wash. Seems like a fair and balanced assessment to me.

There is no "key problem" to address first, second third... — Bitter Crank

Of course there is. Unless we want to claim all problems are the same— or that problems don’t exist. But that’s absurd.

I’d say any issue that’s potentially existential— nuclear weapon proliferation, for example — is more urgent and deserves more attention than others that are also important but not existential (say abortion rights).

we are stuck with problems that are nigh unto insoluble. — Bitter Crank

I don’t think that’s close to true. Plenty of solutions. But if you’re correct— then we might as well “wave goodbye to each other,” as Chomsky would say. Either way I’m fighting to the end — for no other reason than “why not?”

I would argue there there is no experience for Heidegger that is simply unconscious , automatic , habitual. — Joshs

Seems at odds with almost everything I’ve read of Heidegger, but okay,

Look at the effort to defend racist, fascist Trump. :starstruck:

Gotta love those fascist tears.

As someone who has written a lot here about Heidegger’s questioning of the ‘is’, isn’t your notion of non-judgmental awareness part of what Heidegger was critiquing? Isn’t all experience evaluative? Can there be such a thing as a neutral, passive subject of awareness, a pure , empty self-reflexivity? — Joshs

I'd love it if there were some link, but I see very little in Heidegger in terms of discussing meditation.

I wouldn't say all experience is evaluative -- in fact, most isn't. Most is unconscious, automatic, habitual, etc. Most ready-to-hand activities aren't evaluative. We may be able to do a little evaluation afterward, but then we'd be in a present-at-hand mode of being. At least that's what I think Heidegger would say.

My own opinion is that meditation is indeed a present-at-hand type experience, without necessarily involving any ideas about "substance," which crept in fairly early in the history of Western thought. I would say Parmenides and Heraclitus were seeing similar things as the Buddha: "is-ness." It changes/becomes, it stays the same, it is differentiated in trillions of ways, etc. The ancient meaning of phusis and logos and noein and aletheia, for example, suggest this -- decades before idea and ousia came to dominate.

Whether or not these early thinkers grasped the importance of time (as temporality) is another matter.

If only one thing exists, then we are “it.” We ourselves literally are made in the image, or Isness, of God. But we don’t experience ourselves that way. We are immersed in the world. We live in a steady stream of touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing, emotion, and thoughts, day in, day out. How can we experience the Isness which we are? Or, rather, is us? By quieting the stream and searching within. Meditation. Sitting in a quiet room. But the stream goes on. I relive experiences and thoughts of the day. But if I sit long enough, the stream flows more slowly. If the stream stops, you may experience yourself as Isness itself, as “Uncreated Light”—or so they say. Sadly, I don’t speak from experience. — Art48

It's difficult but not impossible -- just keep at it. Eventually you do reach a state where anything that
arises (to use the lingo) -- thoughts, images, sounds, sensations, or any phenomena whatsoever -- just becomes something to be aware of, without reacting to or judging.

When you get good at that, it feels like a rather odd place to be, and you start experiencing first-hand all the talk of "oneness" and "unity." I like to think of it as "being," -- what you called "is-ness."

I think of it as an exercise. It's good for me. It's much harder than yoga or running or lifting weights. Which is why I rarely do it!

But anyway -- I don't see how meditation has much to do with quantum mechanics. A lot has been said about QM and meditation, but so much of it strikes me as woo-woo.

The speech was rather tame compared to the lunacy of the delusional right-wing nuts out there. For those that didn't read it or listen to it, here are some highlights:

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.

Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.

I see nothing inaccurate here.

These are hard things, but I’m an American president, not a president of red America or blue America, but of all America. And I believe it’s my duty, my duty to level with you, to tell the truth no matter how difficult, no matter how painful.

And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election, and they’re working right now as I speak in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

Ask yourselves: Are they or are they not saying the election was "stolen"?

Yeah, they are. Biden's being too kind by saying "not even the majority." The polls indicate it is indeed a majority who believe the election lie.

They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, brutally attacking law enforcement, not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger at the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots. And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections.

They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people. This time, they’re determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people. That’s why respected conservatives like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans “a clear and present danger” to our democracy.

Yep.

We, the people, will not let anyone or anything tear us apart. Today, there are dangers around us we cannot allow to prevail. We hear — you’ve heard it, more and more talk about violence as an acceptable political tool in this country. It’s not. It can never be an acceptable tool. So, I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America, period, none, ever.

Spoken like a true dictator! lol

I'm not even a Biden fan -- but let's at least be honest about things.

I believe that the majority of the harms that death visits on a person are post-mortem. Why? Because the ante-mortem harms seem relatively insignificant compared to the harmfulness of death. — Bartricks

If we think of death as an event, then it's the point where life is over (where one goes from "here" to "no longer here," as you put it). That event may be harmful (here I think "painful" or involving suffering) or even defined as harmful regardless of whether there's suffering (as it appears you do). But it's still an event, and once it's occurred I don't see how anything afterward (post-mortem) can be spoken of as "harmful." Pain, suffering, joy, pleasure, are all phenomena that apply to the living.

What you're doing in the OP is arguing that death itself, as an event, is more harmful than anything life can bring. But you never discuss "post-mortem" harms -- and I think for good reason: namely, because it's nonsensical. I cite the following:

And the death penalty is a stiffer penalty than life imprisonment - or at least, we generally consider it to be - even though life imprisonment is a ilfe of discomfort. — Bartricks

Here arguing that death is worse than living even a miserable life in prison.

Yet death is harmful to a person even when it deprives them of nothing worth having, — Bartricks

Same as above.

So, the intrinsic value of life is clearly eclipsed by the disvalue of the discomfort. Yet if such a life is up and running already, then one should keep it going for as long as possible. That makes no real sense unless death itself exposes the person who undergoes it to new and worse harms than those this life is exposing them to. — Bartricks

Two things here.

(1) The assumption that you make is that one should go on living "for as long as possible" is begging the question. Some people really would rather die than go on living. So it's true that IF everyone wanted to go on living no matter what life threw at them, then it makes sense that death must be far worse than even the worst of life. But that's simply not the case.

(2) Even if it were the case, you're still only speaking of an event: death. So all you've done, even assuming (1) is correct, is shown that death -- as an event -- is worse than any kind of suffering in life.

With the stipulation in place that talk of an existence after death is for another time, and that death is just when a person is "no longer here," how can we possibly discuss harms inflicted "post-mortem"? What does that mean unless we assume an afterlife of some time? How can the dead be harmed?

Again, all you're doing -- in my view -- is saying that death itself is a greater harm than going on living. That's arguable. So why add anything about the harmfulness being inflicted "post-mortem"?

I'm afraid this is essentially incoherent, at least without further explanation.

Imagine voting for and endlessly defending Donald Trump and then blathering about dictators. :lol:

From where I'm sitting, the most important "problem" facing humanity is a lack of inner awareness. — Bret Bernhoft

Maybe. If those in power were a little more aware, perhaps then they wouldn’t make such short-sighted, greedy, anti-social decisions. In that case I can see it. But we can’t all be meditators, I guess.

Anyway — even with awareness, ideology still lurks. One can be an aware Christian or Buddhist or capitalist. Doesn’t necessarily change that belief system and corresponding actions. Culture and education can help, but that’s a long term solution.

When you speak of Zeus and Shiva, they are images of what greater reality may exist. — Jack Cummins

That's an interpretation, sure. But then "greater reality" is really what you're discussing, no? Why use "God" or "Shiva" or "Blue Unicorn" and argue about whether "it" exists, knowing the connotations? Just inquire about a greater reality, and we can talk about what that means and whether it exists.

The only thing which has to be remembered is that even science is models, and like the images arising in religious perspectives we are still left with models and representations as approximations. — Jack Cummins

We're left with human beings, with human brains and senses and perspectives, yes. But that doesn't make every perspective equally true or equally valid. It doesn't mean we have to take every claim seriously. I could claim right now that there's a god called Yojimbo, with 5 eyes and 7 arms, who created the world and controls every thought we have. Should we argue about whether or not it exists?

We give extra attention to stories and myths we were raised with. That's understandable, but there's little need to continue with it straight to the grave. There are others ways -- in my view better -- to spend our time. For example, better to inquire about the human being itself, the being interpreting the world in various ways -- the being that says it's created by this or that god, or is infinite, or material, or natural, or whatever.

If that's what we mean when we're arguing about "God," fine. But I'd still say that there's so much baggage associated with the word ("God") it leads to unnecessary confusion.

My own mother died last September and was extremely religious right until the end, although she was so extremely afraid to die. — Jack Cummins

Most of my friends in real life are theists. — Jack Cummins

I was often surrounded by African Christians and they really were inclined to preach. — Jack Cummins

Exactly...so it's no wonder you care so much about the issue. Hard not to when you're surrounded by people who think alike.

I have to admit that it does still niggle in the back of mind as one of the toughest questions. — Jack Cummins

Do you also consider the existence of Zeus or Hormaz or Shiva as one of the toughest?

I think you see my point. The reason this question is especially relevant to you— understandably — is because you have been raised in the Christian faith and live in a predominantly Christian culture.