But now we have to define "god." — tim wood

Go ahead. You like to make this term a moving target, so please pin it down for me as you interpret it.

Science is about the how, not the why. For so long as people ask an unanswerable why, god is as good an answer as any. — tim wood

The how is the why. To paraphrase the wisest of all philosophers, master Yoda, "there is no why."

If you have created a God, perhaps in your own image, that you can object to, then that's your own straw man and your own problem. — tim wood

Even if I could take credit for the creation of God, I would not - I wouldn't like to admit to such a crime. I agree that he is a straw man, though. Here again, you use the Christian God as a shield from whatever your own conception is. When one gets into conversations of this sort, yahweh/Jesus is the most common adversary to reason. If you have a straw man of your own design to substitute in his place, go ahead. All the same criticisms will hold true unless your deform your use of the word god to the point that you really just mean something else.

You understand that in the last paragraph of mine you quoted I was speaking for the position I intended to refute in the paragraphs right after that, yes? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I understood that. I was saying that I think the analysis holds up right there. I think to go further is to stretch beyond what the data supports.

Also "blanket" is kind of a weasel word. Statistics don't show, don't expect to show, that every white household has more money than every black household.

Also this post is not about what I would call "white privilege" but about systemic racism. — Srap Tasmaner

This goes back to the argument that has perpetuated this thread for 21 pages and counting - the meaning behind the term "white privilege" and whether it refers to anything observable and/or useful. I have never denied that there is systemic racism - it is quite obviously real. I use the word "blanket" in criticism of "white privilege" which is too broad and poorly defined (among its other shortcomings I have enumerated repeatedly). I was using the economic statistics you provided to support the idea that racism is systemic, but to the extent anyone "benefits" from it one is better off looking at the wealth gap between the rich and everyone else than trying to imply some widespread benefit to all white people.

The fall back position has seemed to relocate itself into interpersonal racism (e.g., white people don't get harassed by police officers the way blacks do). I agree that there are differences in treatment of individuals on a large scale and that there is an undeniable racial element to this - but I don't think it logically can be joined up to the broad systemic scale to say "all white people are benefited by this." In fact, I think it detracts from real issues like the fact that white supremacists are gravitating toward jobs in law enforcement and those organizations are doing nothing to police their behaviors, allowing them to create horrifyingly racist institutional norms. The current demonstrations as embodied by ideas like "Black Lives Matter" keep the focus on this difficult problem without explicitly seeking to create "discomfort" among all white people, which I see as beside the point and counterproductive.

the Egyptians and the Romans,...were,... engaged in observational science.
— Pro Hominem
Small point: almost everyone but the Romans? And preceding the Romans by in some cases thousands of years — tim wood

Look, I was trying to use low-hanging fruit to prove a cursory point. The thread wasn't about history so I didn't want to go very far down this road. Suffice to say that "science" is not dependent on Christianity per se.

religion is part of history and science is part of history, they must be connected to one another. That is not logically valid.
— Pro Hominem

Maybe not valid, but a fact. But only in this sense, and expressed here briefly, because expressed elsewhere multiple times. To do science requires consistency. If it falls down here, it's a problem if it falls up there. At a time when god(s) were understood to have arbitrary control over the world, that consistency could be guaranteed only by having one God in authority, and that one a mainly beneficial - and consistent - God. Otherwise there could only be provisional and contingent "house" sciences that could neither communicate with nor cooperate with each other. Most scientists, then, are essentially monotheistic, though the object of their respective beliefs vary from a God, to logos, to law. — tim wood

This is the God of the gap. God is only "necessary" to the extent one has no way to explain a phenomenon. As a worldview becomes increasingly scientific (reason-based), the formulation of god shifts (diminishes) until it is eventually not "necessary" at all. God is a crutch, created by man, to help him learn to walk on his own. If he doesn't discard the crutch once he can walk, he will never learn to run.

I'm going to try this again. You both claim:

1. White Americans do not benefit from systemic racism in the United States.

Perhaps my usage of "systemic racism" is nonstandard, but I take it to refer to things like the Black-white wealth gap:

In 2016, white families had the highest level of both median and mean family wealth: $171,000 and $933,700, respectively (figure 1). Black and Hispanic families have considerably less wealth than white families. Black families' median and mean net worth is less than 15 percent that of white families, at $17,600 and $138,200, respectively. Hispanic families' median and mean net worth was $20,700 and $191,200, respectively.
— The Federal Reserve

In American society, as currently constituted, whites have one hell of a lot more money than Blacks!

You can support (1) by also claiming:

2. A white household with a net worth of $171,000 derives no benefit from a Black household having a net worth of only $17,600.

The total wealth of Americans is not a fixed number to be carved up like a pie; white households don't have higher net worth because non-white households have lower net worth. If it counts as evidence that our system is racist, it's not because there is white benefit here, but because there is non-white deprivation. — Srap Tasmaner

This is all consistent with my position, probably reinforces it. I have said from the beginning that oversimplifying this to purely race without including the dimensions of wealth and class is an inaccurate framing of the issue. You correctly note that your data supports the conclusion of a disadvantaging of one group but does not clearly demonstrate a blanket "privilege" to another (much larger) group.

I would also point out that your data shows that no matter your race the ratio between mean and median net worths is in the 8:1 range, which is a great argument for massively uneven distribution of wealth among all Americans. In short, the ones "benefitting" from the system are the rich, not "all white people."

The best ways to address this are race-neutral, e.g. raising the minimum wage or first-time home buyer credits or student loan forgiveness. Such policies will disproportionately benefit minorities and assist them in wealth building over time. The policies should be paid for by taxes directed at the richest individuals and corporations, which is race-neutral but will disproportionately effect whites. Thus we address systemic racism without reinforcing categories of race and their attending stereotypes.

The major exception to all of this is the criminal justice system which remains in Jim Crow mode and must be fundamentally reworked since they don't seem inclined to address their behavior internally. This is the movement we are seeing right now and every decent person should do what they can to reinforce it.

So let's address this first. You must remember that science was first studied on religious motivations. — TrespassingAcademia

First, I would say you need to define how you are using "science" here. I think you are indicating the post-Renaissance rise of the experimental method in Europe. I would point out that the Egyptians and the Romans, just to name the prominent examples, were heavily engaged in observational science.

Regardless, I don't see how you can make the generalization that the motives of these people were purely religious. They may have identified culturally with a religion, in many cases it would have been deadly not to do so, but that doesn't require that religion was their motive.

Furthermore, the development of the modern scientific method by Descartes was claimed to be 'inspired by the divine'. — TrespassingAcademia

Descartes appears to have been quite devout, but there is a certain mysticism to his words that demonstrates spiritualism, as opposed to devotion to a religious institution. Again, you must remember that creative people like this were forced to pay lip service to organized religion at that time, or face a wide range of negative consequences up to and including painful execution. Also, Descartes is not the sole creator of the scientific method, and as someone living at the beginning of science's application, he was not the beneficiary of its accumulated results, which demonstrate that the fiction of god is no longer necessary to explain the universe, its processes, or its origins.

The reasons for pursuing science remains based on a dogmatic argument even today. One does not do science for any utilitarian/economic purpose, but instead for the pursuit and understanding of reality. Most of our scientific facts do not have any application beyond satisfying the curiosity and developing the understanding of those who study it. The idea that this is a valid way for humans to spend their time has no argument beyond 'the pursuit of truth' which is an argument deeply rooted in religion. — TrespassingAcademia

There are a host of unsustainable ideas here. MOST science being done today is in pursuit of utilitarian and economic purposes. It is paid for and done by corporations who seek to profit from their discoveries, from mobile phones, to pharmaceuticals, to video games, to space travel, etc. etc. etc. Most of our scientific facts are part of a huge and complex weave of knowledge that allows us to cure disease, send selfies, go to the moon, bake a cake, etc. etc. etc. The facts support that it is a valid way for people in the modern world to spend their time because they are handsomely compensated for doing so.

Even if this were not true, to the extent science is done for simple curiosity about the universe surrounding us, that does not require those scientists to be religious practitioners. Also, your presumption that "pursuit of truth" is religious in nature shows your reliance on dogma here. You are starting with your conclusion and then trying to argue backwards. That is explicitly unscientific, by the way. In other words to equate "truth" or its "pursuit" with "religion", to say that these concepts cannot be severed from one another, is circular dogma. You may believe this, but it is demonstrably not true. There are all sorts of people interested in truth but not interested in religion. More of them every day, in fact, because pursuing the former leads you away from the latter.

Now beyond science, would you say the conclusion that slavery is bad is a shortcoming? Would you say that assumptions like 'murder is bad' and 'don't sleep with your neighbor's wife' do not make life better for mankind? Would you say the ideas of charity and peace do not make life better for humankind? All of these core assumptions, so fundamental to how our society functions today that we forgot we assumed them in the first place, are derived mostly from religion. Even much of our big laws today is derived verbatim from the Jewish laws of 4000 years ago — TrespassingAcademia

The institution of African slavery was created and wholly endorsed by practitioners of Christianity, as were the Crusades and the enthusiastic raping of the American continents upon their discovery. This is where you lose all your supposed moral high ground. The greatest atrocities in human history almost without exception have a religious component to them. There is abundant evidence that religion is responsible for at least as much pain as happiness. You seem to be quite taken with the 10 commandments, here. They are not the first written laws. Murder was clearly wrong long before they were published - even the Old Testament affirms that. You cannot support your idea that charity, peace, or any other generally "good" concept are reliant on religion. They occur in its absence every day. Sometimes because of its absence, particularly with regard to peace. Incidentally, the US legal system is based on the British Common Law, which is decidedly practical in its focus, being disproportionately about property and the equitable treatment thereof. Religion is the realm of the clergy, not the barrister.

In a nutshell, most of your argument seems to rest on the idea that because religion is part of history and science is part of history, they must be connected to one another. That is not logically valid. Religion is a lingering artifact of our past, science is a tool to help us into the future. You may wish to resurrect the past, but I choose to focus on the future.

You are wrong. About almost everything. Your ideas are dangerous and if they ever become the norm, that society will be hell on Earth. I really wish there were something I could say that would help you and make a difference. Talk to a counselor or something. Unless you really are a sociopath there has to be some way for you to see value in something other than your own selfish interests. Just try.
— Pro Hominem

That's what you keep telling yourself.

The truth is I hit the nail on the head in my original posts, and you know it. You have difficulty swallowing that pill, so your reaction is to get angry, misrepresent my point and demonize me so you can tell yourself you don't have to listen to my ideas.

Here, I'll repeat them for you:

Socialists want to spend other people's money because they think they know best.
— Tzeentch

[Government is] a form of coercion: a means to force individuals to do things by threat of violence.
— Tzeentch

Governments assert power over individuals based on what are essentially territorial claims, [governments are], at their basis, [...] no more legitimate than a despot
— Tzeentch

Finally, and most importantly:

And beware those who see government as a legitimate means to an end.
— Tzeentch

Now, that last sentence obviously didn't make it into a discussion about socialism by accident. That sentence is exactly about you.

Everything you've provided so far shows you have a great deal of trouble accepting the fact that people have different views than you, and that you would happily use coercion to force them to act in accordance to your beliefs. You're little tyrants, masquerading as philanthropists.

I like to think philosophy and psychology go hand in hand, and the gaggle of angry socialists on this forum being shown a mirror never fails to provide some interesting cases.

Now go on and reflect, as will I. I'm done conversing with you three. — Tzeentch

If a young person were trying to develop their reasoning skills and learn to think philosophically and I wanted to show them a counterexample, a mind clouded by dogma, this post would do nicely. "Government = bad". The end. That's all you've got. The difference between what I and others are saying and what you are saying is that we actually have articulable reasons for our beiiefs. I can cite history, law, science, ethical theory, and a whole range of other fields to support the general claims I'm making. You have not, because you cannot. You just believe what you believe because it easier to do that than to think, and because its easier to whine about "your" money than to acknowledge that people who enjoy the benefits of a community have a responsibility to that community.

I knew talking sense to you was a waste of time, but I have just enough optimism left to hope that maybe there's some way to reach people like you. It certainly didn't happen here, but who knows? Maybe one day you will see something that makes the coin drop and you'll become a better person. Let's all hope so.

I am saying that using aggressive language will not lead to any conclusion other than some injured egos and - eventually - banishment. You may disagree with ech other, there's nothing wrong there, we are not yet living in times of totalitarianism. — Gus Lamarch

There is net social utility in adamantly rejecting perverse and dangerous ideologies and being seen doing it. We need to make marginalizing people like this a social norm again. It is possible for people to just be wrong. Every idea does not have equal merit. Some need to be removed root and branch.

This particular formulation is a stain on American life right now. These people are stooges for their corporate overlords who want them to continue to destabilize public discourse and politics so they can continue to rape the populace without intervention. It is on par with Nazism as a backward and exceedingly dangerous anti-human ideology. I will denounce at any and every opportunity.

What I said is that coercion is something inherently problematic. When we apply that to politics, it results in the position that government is, at best, a necessary evil (↪JerseyFlight, ↪Pro Hominem, pay attention next time). — Tzeentch

Your conclusion is false. Government is at worst a necessary evil. At best it is a major contributing factor to human happiness. You did get the necessary part, though, so why are you taking the inconsistent position of arguing it should not exist?

Thus I believe government interference in individual's goings-on should be minimalized at every opportunity. — Tzeentch

Ok, so you don't believe in the abolition of government. You recognize it has a critical role to play and you acknowledge that it can only do this through taxation (I realize I'm putting some words in your mouth, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). You like the idea of "small government". But you have shifted your focus from taxation to some as yet undefined sense of individual freedom. I suppose it wouldn't do any good to point out that the US government is probably less involved in people's personal lives than almost any government in history? What is your personal gripe?

A classically liberal (read: not the "modern" use of the word), perhaps libertarian, view. — Tzeentch

"Classical liberals argued for what they called a minimal state, limited to the following functions:

- A government to protect individual rights and to provide services that cannot be provided in a free market.
- A common national defense to provide protection against foreign invaders.[17]
- Laws to provide protection for citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which included protection of private property, enforcement of contracts and common law.
- Building and maintaining public institutions.
- Public works that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures and building and upkeep of roads, canals, harbors, railways, communications and postal services."

So this is classical liberalism. It is exactly what we have today. You seem to be against much of this though, because the government has to take "your" wealth to do it all. For future reference, you should not misrepresent yourself as a classical liberal. You are not.

"In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian[15][18][22][23] ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[8][24] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[25] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States,[23] where it advocates civil liberties,[26] natural law,[27] free-market capitalism[28][29] and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[30]"

Ah, here you are. The doctrine of "biting the hand that feeds you." Anarcho-capitalism...that sounds a lot like what you're saying. Would you say that term sounds like something pleasant? You might.

Anywho, this where I could go into a long diatribe on the practical and philosophical poverty of libertarianism. How it is self-contradictory and pointedly ignores obvious but inconvenient facts. How no one would actually want to live in the world that it envisions - watch The Running Man sometime and imagine yourself as anyone except Arnold. I could do all this, but you won't listen to any of it. Libertarians expressly avoid taking responsibility for anything, including their own ideas.

You are wrong. About almost everything. Your ideas are dangerous and if they ever become the norm, that society will be hell on Earth. I really wish there were something I could say that would help you and make a difference. Talk to a counselor or something. Unless you really are a sociopath there has to be some way for you to see value in something other than your own selfish interests. Just try.

I love to read discussions where people respect each other. :smile: — Gus Lamarch

This is fairly obviously a tongue in cheek statement to demonstrate how asinine the logical results of his position are. Or perhaps you were referring to the fact that I am wasting my time talking to someone who is obviously deeply committed to their dangerous fantasies and I should respect myself more?

I can tell you all I was really trying to do was give a very broad description of systemic racism, specifically because of Pro Hominem's position: he accepts systemic racism but rejects white privilege. I thought maybe we could stop trying to convince him to accept something he already accepts — Srap Tasmaner

Thank you for your efforts. Many people here seem not to be able to distinguish one concept from the other, which I could easily turn into yet another criticism of the "white privilege" terminology. As if it is not possible to say, "racism exists in this country, and it's attitudes and effects still resonate in many institutions in a sometimes more, sometimes less overt way," without saying, "all white people benefit from this feature of these institutions." One does not logically demand the other.

Then, even if one were to do all the work to try to define "white privilege" in any exact way, what would even be the effect? How would these now aware white people behave satisfyingly? Should they stop attending college? Should they stop buying houses? Should they antagonize police officers into mistreating or even shooting them? If one is told they are benefiting from an insidious privilege, what else could they do but try to stop indulging in these benefits. But how, and to what end?

If we look at point #1: first, the assertion is not categorical (at least intends to divide),differently from what is asserted in #2, 3, and 4. Next, # 1 does not state that "the system" divides all people into two groups. Therefore, we probably would not classify the system as racist. Yet, the next assertion is
I do not believe there is any disagreement here on (1)-(4).
— Srap Tasmaner
Actually, the mentioned consensus functions as an indicator of the conventional understanding of the system. Conventionally, it is understood as racist. It looks like Srap Tasmaner wanted to avoid the explicit labelling, but cautiously enacted the 'racist' understanding. Maybe, I misenterpreted him/her. Anyway, probably, the general framing of contemporary public debates
fails similar attempts to avoid the direct stereotypic labelling. — Number2018

Was that a yes or a no? It looked like you took both sides.

But I'm thinking now that what you're really after is detaching the use of racial categories from the conferring of advantage and disadvantage based on those categories. — Srap Tasmaner

I've been arguing for it all along. The cause of the inequalities we are discussing is not addressed in this outcome-based labelling. Figuring who got what benefit when is not useful in addressing the underlying causes of racism, and probably serves to increase resentment, tribalism, and recrimination. I say this acknowledging that it is possible to disagree with my position, to say that the "white privilege" concept is useful for achieving "wokeness" in white people, and that that is a necessary condition of change. I don't happen to agree, although I want to see the end of racism just like someone arguing "white privilege" does.

I feel this way about religion as well. You're not going to talk people out of it. You have to conduct yourself as though it doesn't exist, hold people accountable who engage in bad behavior because of it, and push for education that will teach more people to see its falsehood. There is no silver bullet. Change takes time.

The difference being; there's no state that gets to take one's things, to provide one with services one didn't ask for nor wishes to receive. — Tzeentch

Awesome logic. You're so right. Just send me your location and I'll send someone over to murder you and take all your stuff. Of course, you can't even describe your location without the benefit of these services you neither want nor need.

How are you managing to join this forum? The computer you're using, the electricity it runs on, the internet this information is traversing - all completely impossible without the act of government. Without the government you claim to not need, you likely would have died in childbirth, killing your mother along the way. If not, you would probably have been killed by a minor infection, been eaten by wolves, or just starved to death before reaching adulthood. You have already lived way beyond your without-government life expectancy, so if you want to be true to your "values" you should take one of the guns you're undoubtedly stockpiling with your government-given rights and use it on yourself.

For many, me included, it is the fact that a government may force individuals to part with their wealth. — Tzeentch

1. Being a part of a community "forces" people to part with all sorts of things. In isolation, you might be able to do whatever you want all the time. If there are other people around, there must be limitations on that power or everyone will eventually just end up killing one another. This is where systems of law come from - the need to organize humans in groups. That law is encoded in governments, which provide a framework for the behavior of large numbers of individuals, and if they are good governments, they provide all sorts of services that the individual could not achieve by themselves.
2. In order to do this, governments posses two main powers of force. One is taxation, the other is policing. They are each fundamental to government's very existence and its ability to fulfill its promise of providing a working system for large groups to live in.
3. In a complex community, the notion that wealth is held by the individual is a fiction that the group agrees to support to one extent or another. The reality is that without the community as a whole and the government that organizes it, none of these people could accrue wealth in any significant measure at all. Therefore taxation is best understood in the negative - how much does your government let you keep? Ultimately, your actual labor contribution to the wealth you "possess" is quite small, unless you are very poor. Thus, the poor should be able to keep a much higher percentage of their wealth that the rich, and the richer you are, the greater the share that government can and should reasonably take.

How exactly are we to read (3)? Are we talking about mandating and enforcing separation? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but without any preferential treatment of any kind. Completely neutral.

In general, are you wondering whether it's possible for a system to be racist against everyone? — Srap Tasmaner

Maybe. Or would it be racist against no one? What is essential in the meaning of the word "racist?"

to be privileged in some way is to be a member of the category that receives advantages and avoids disadvantages associated with that membership. — fdrake

I was totally on board with all of it until here. It was like the photo negative of Billy Madison shouting "Knibb High football rules!" at the end of his Industrial Revolution speech. I am happy that there is some recognition of the subtlety of what I've been saying all along, so I give you credit for a well crafted post.

So let's not lose the ground we've gained and fall back to pointlessly trading jabs, ok?
These are the issues as I see them:
1. "the category" here means "all white people, everywhere, all the time". If you say yes, I think it's ludicrously overbroad. If you say no, then you are going to have to limit its compass somehow and there's a whole mess of considerations to doing that. Either way, just throwing out "white" here seems a bit lazy.
2. "receives advantages and avoids disadvantages" - When? How much? How often? Is segregation from people of color to be considered an advantage? Because I sure as hell don't consider it one. I send my kids to a magnet school in part because of its diversity. I don't want them completely surrounded by the children of basic middle class assholes who look like them, but with whom I want them to have nothing in common. In other words, you have to be really careful with this "advantage"/"disadvantage" system you are invoking. The case for the disadvantages is much stronger and more obvious than the case for advantages. To the extent there are "advantages", they appear more easily in connection with discreet acts of racism than with passive enjoyment of anything.
3. "membership" - this is semantic, I'll grant, but doesn't this word imply awareness? Do we typically describe people as being members of something without their knowledge? Is it even appropriately applied in a circumstance where one cannot opt out of membership? I feel that there are problems of attribution here arising from oversimplifying something complex.

In other words, I think that whole many-layered framework you created is about the minimum level of discussion necessary to try to understand this phenomenon. A two word slogan, while "handy" for street use, doesn't do it justice.

↪Srap Tasmaner
1. There exists a system that at least intends to divide people according to a criterion it calls "race".
2. That system marks some members of our society as "black" and some as "white".
3. This system legitimizes violating the human rights of those marked as "black" but not of those marked as "white".
4. The system also legitimizes various sorts of unfair or inequitable treatment of those marked as "black" but not of those marked as "white".

I do not believe there is any disagreement here on (1)-(4).
— Srap Tasmaner

Should it be concluded from (1) - (4) that the society of the US is segregational and racist? — Number2018

@Srap Tasmaner

Pure thought question here. What if the following were true:
1. There exists a system that at least intends to divide people according to a criterion it calls "race".
2. That system marks some members of our society as "black" and some as "white".
3. This system legitimizes separating those marked "black" from those marked as "white" whenever and wherever possible.
4. The system also rigorously enforces fair and equitable treatment of those marked as "black" and those marked "white".

Again, this is a hypothetical, I realize these things are not accurate. Given the above statements, would we classify that system as "racist?"

Thats not what it seems to me, reading eg the FB posts from my friends in the academic left. Its more like just that "collective empaty". There is seldom a solution to a complex question. Refugees -"just let them come, no limitations, we have to open our hearts". CO2 emissions - "We have to find a new lifestyle". And this is from otherwise highly intelligent persons that for most other questions can acknowledge a problem as difficult and take part in a solution — Ansiktsburk

What you're describing here is the difference between Classical Liberalism and Bleeding-Heart Liberalism, an unfortunate modern off-shoot. Bleeding Heart leftists are almost as bad as these neo-conservatives because they miscast liberal ideas into these generalized "moral" statements that are unsubstantiated and produce terrible results.

Erasing national borders, environmental terrorism, political correctness, identity politics - all this stuff comes out of a theoretically well-intentioned, but rationally unexamined amplification of this empathy impulse.

A rational leftist understands that these problems are complex and their solutions must also be complex. Sadly, the empowering of mediocrity that social media has brought about combined with the resurgence of the reactionary right have pushed the leadership of the left in a more radical direction. Hopefully we will see a return to reason in the not too distant future.

Socialists want to spend other people's money because they think they know best. That's a statement of fact. If you don't understand why that is arrogant, you're ignorant. — Tzeentch

Based on this sentence, you do not know the meaning either the word "socialist" or the word "fact". This seems like a better argument for your ignorance than mine.

Then there's the quintessential bid for moral superiority, which I interpret as terribly selfrighteous. — Tzeentch

I didn't have to bid for moral superiority. You ceded that position when you adopted a set of beliefs that the only people that matter are you and those who agree with you. You stand in opposition to ideas like everyone having access to medical care, every child having equal access to a useful education, ordinary people being protected from the poisoning of their food and environment by uncaring corporations, and levying higher taxes against people who are struggling to make ends meet than against people with access to many billions of dollars. Your only justification for this is you think it is "your" money, but you completely fail to understand that it is precisely the systems that you say you hate that permit you to have a job, grow your wealth, aspire to a higher social class, leave your house without the expectation of being robbed, etc., etc. etc.

It would be hard to take a position that was not superior to yours, morally or otherwise.

My statement: 'the facts considered in these fields are considered to be true' was put there to say we do not need a consistent formal language to describe things that we describe to be true. — TrespassingAcademia

What does this have to do with medicine or evolution? There are consistent uses of terminology in these fields. They are based on scientific processes that produce consistency and (relative) predictability. They don't have to be infallible, just generally reliable. "Truth" really has nothing to do with it.

You are correct, there is a long history of mathematicians trying to make general language consistent. And this is somewhat analogous to what I proposed. I propose a formal language to describe theological theory in a consistent way, thus granting it the same level of 'reality' as mathematical objects like groups/rings/topological spaces or the real numbers. — TrespassingAcademia

So if you're aware that efforts have already been made to do this, do you also know that they are all failures? Language is more complex than that. It is specifically flexible in a way that mathematics isn't. They do different things and trying to reconcile them is a fruitless waste of time. But I'm sure your smarter than all the people who have tried it before, so no worries. :roll:

The best part is that efforts to simply create ANY language with the consistency of mathematics have failed in the past, but you want to create one specifically to talk about THEOLOGY?!?!? Sure.

Maybe you can make a ruler that measures dreams while you're at it. Or determine how many chromosomes a unicorn has.

The level of "reality" that theology has is roughly equal to that of Star Wars. No amount of math will change that.

Love is an abstract concept. Like numbers was an abstract concept 1000 years ago. We saw a bunch of examples of each, enough for us to talk relatively unambiguously about both and thus we started calling it 'real'. Other examples of abstract concepts are money, economy, countries, etc. which all of us come to call real. If someone were to develop a specialized language, as was done for mathematics, to pin down our abstract concept of God, then God would share the same amount of reality as all of the abstract concepts I mentioned. However note that I believe religions commonly attribute a stronger type of reality than mere an abstract human thought. — TrespassingAcademia

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

You might believe that God was created by the 'elite' as a ploy to power, but I doubt this is the case. — TrespassingAcademia

Then you need to read more on the subject. It's not like I created this notion. If you're on the left, I suggest you start with Marx, on the right, then try Ayn Rand. Only their religious views, however. Neither of them understands economics for shit. :cool:

Do you believe superheroes were created by the American shadow government to control your minds and influence the opinions of the masses? Because this is the same type of argument you are making. — TrespassingAcademia

Shit, no. That's insane. They were created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby because their comic book company was failing and they needed new material. They tried other stuff. People bought super heroes. So they kept selling. It's been a long road, but it's worked out pretty well.

The same argument? Hmmm. I agree that both religion and super heroes are fantastical fiction. I agree that they often purport to teach some moral principle, but are plagued by internal inconsistencies. I agree that they are both controlled by people trying to make a buck off of others' desire to imagine an alternate reality instead of the one they actually live in... Maybe you're right.

Comic books have the same validity as religion. There, I said it. You win.

At the very least one needs to treat religion as an abstract concept developed to try pin down some observations on what actions make life better and what actions make life worse. — TrespassingAcademia

I think it developed that way because the elites realized that order was better than chaos - for them. But in terms of actually reaching useful conclusions on what makes life better for all mankind, religion has and continues to fall short.

Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin: — 3017amen

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You are completely insane! I love it!

More! :rofl:

Banno gave a worked example using "stairs" for able-bodied privilege at the start of the thread, then linked an essay later in this (↪Banno) post. ↪creativesoul gave a long explanation. If this question is rooted in a failure of understanding, one of the essays Banno linked has a checklist of ways white privilege works on a day to day individual level (as a manifestation of systemic racism) — fdrake

Are you....joking?

If your answer in any way relies on Banno's asinine stairs analogy that he thinks is an example, then we can just stop. I thought you were starting to explore this a little more and realize this simplistic view of a complex problem might be insufficient.

Instead, you went "stairs."

My soul died a little when I read that. You should be ashamed, if you're able to.

Well let's parse one thing at a time carefully. Are you saying that mathematical formulas cannot explain the nature of your conscious existence? Or can it only explain things like laws of gravity... (?) — 3017amen

Neither. This is a false choice. Mathematics doesn't explain things. It correlates with them. Mathematics will allow you to design an aircraft, but it doesn't explain why it flies.

Consciousness exists because complexity accumulates in the universe. When complexities interact they beget more complexities. These complexities must continue to increase or they fall prey to entropy. Eventually, human consciousness arose and is one of the greatest complexities we are aware of currently. However, our consciousness must continue to increase in complexity or it will deteriorate and disappear. It started out individual, then tribal, then religious, now rational. Rationality will allow us to uncover our further evolution. Religion is the obsolete past.

I'm a little confused, what does loneliness have to do with mathematical truths? — 3017amen

What does math have to do with natural selection? You questions are stupid, but I'll answer them. Perhaps you will learn from example.

Are you sure? Surviving in the jungle doesn't require knowledge of the laws of gravity do they? Survival depends on appreciation of how the world is; not any hidden underlying order. Surely that couldn't be the case, could it? — 3017amen

No, survival does not require knowledge of gravity, or even knowledge of the world. The world IS, and some survive in it.

So using that example, it seems like you're implying that in order to evade falling objects, I must first run calculations (or at least have knowledge of mathematics) in order to avoid the object. But if I did that, how would I have enough time to avoid the object itself? Wouldn't sensory perception in itself be sufficient? — 3017amen

No, I wasn't, and I'm still not. Whether sensory perception ends up being sufficient is exactly what determines survival. If it is, you survived. It it isn't, well...

I realize I'm not playing along by giving the answers you've scripted for me, but I know you will continue your inane meanderings anyway. Go ahead, I'm entertained to see where you end up. It's weird, but sort of adorable in a way.

Full disclosure, though, I need to go make dinner soon, so it may have to wait for tomorrow. I keep praying for God to deliver manna from heaven, but he's not doing it. Mathematics must be broken. :scream:

It is not about letting our perceived superiority belittle others theories we dislike. — Philosophim

Oh, come on! Where's the fun in that?!?!

What if they're like, BEGGING for it? :rofl:

Yep, you're clearly an AI.

You don't understand consciousness, you can't follow the conversation closely, and you have never experienced love. Robot.

Keep spamming. Maybe "God" will turn you into a real boy.

Are you sure? You're implying that mathematical truth correlates to the reality of consciousness. Is there a mathematical formula that explains consciousness? — 3017amen

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said mathematics was invented by human consciousness as a tool. It is a piece of technology. Stop putting the word truth next to it if you're going to accurately represent what I'm saying.

There might be, but I don't know it. As for explaining consciousness, what's to explain? We all have it.

Are you sure? Surviving in the jungle doesn't require knowledge of the laws of gravity do they? Survival depends on appreciation of how the world is; not any hidden underlying order. Surely that couldn't be the case, could it?

So using that example, it seems like you're implying that in order to evade falling objects, I must first run calculations (or at least have knowledge of mathematics) in order to avoid the object. But if I did that, how would I have enough time to avoid the object itself? Wouldn't sensory perception in itself be sufficient? — 3017amen

You know, you clearly don't seem to need me since you want to make both sides of this argument. I imagine you play with yourself this way a lot. Must be lonely.

That nonsense is in no way connected to what I said. I said natural selection is about the environment acting on organisms, not the other way around. I also specifically said it had nothing to do with math. Are you an AI? Are you just sampling my language and spitting out preprogrammed responses?

True, but by this argument this is also a proof against evolutionary theory/ modern medicine/ any other modern science not formalized in this way. The facts generated in these fields are nonetheless considered to be true. — TrespassingAcademia

You don't think evolution or medicine are evidence based and correlate to the real world? Are you a Trump voter?

Would you reject the concepts of mathematics as irrational and not correlated to the real world? What I tried to do was explain that one may consider mathematical reality to be based solely on the fact that the language used to describe it is logically consistent. So my proposition is that if we can do the same for our language used to describe God, then this gives our concept of God as much 'reality' as mathematics. — TrespassingAcademia

No. It is specifically correlated to the "real" (observable) world. Mathematics is internally consistent in a way that transcends language. There have been efforts to rest language on the solid foundation of mathematics (Russell for example) but I have never heard of someone trying to rest the reliability of math on the "consistency" of language. Language is not consistent. It is largely correlative, but it is agreement reality and fluid. God doesn't have nearly the evidence to support his existence as mathematics does, or even the less secure language.

This however does not yet prove the existence of a somewhat more 'platonic' God, but it does give us a sort of 'half' existence like mathematics/numbers/love etc — TrespassingAcademia

You are equating mathematics and love as concepts with the same level of justification? Wow. Where to start?

Math is reliable because it is predictable, and that predictability has been reliably transferable to the "real" world for thousands of years.

Love is a specious label that we've attributed to various brain states and as a (problematic) descriptor for interpersonal relationships. For example, the Greeks had seven different words for it. It's not scientific, but people use it because they'd like to believe in some of its more desirable outcomes.

God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. It is a concept that was invented to concentrate power in the hands of a few elites so they could maintain control of their tribes in the face of growing population numbers. Religion had a function historically, and allowed societies to increase their net security and stability to the point that the next step in human evolution, reason, could be developed. In the presence of reason, religion is not necessary and not even desirable.

They are invented in that they are correlative ideas manufactured by human consciousness in a effort to make sense of the world around them. Your God is another one of these fabrications. However, unlike your God, math actually correlates to observable reality.

No. What is required for survival of the fittest is for there to be organisms, and for the environment to shape those organisms such that some traits survive and others do not. Don't even see how you got here from math, but ok.

Next?

No so my friend. I was not advancing an apologetic, I was citing a simplification of reasons to establish government. I don't have a problem with those principles, of course a conversation as to what they mean is necessary, but that is for another thread. My point was about the necessity of government — JerseyFlight

Yes, I agree with you. I was making a joke at that other guy's expense.

If we are not free to say what we want about this thing, then it exists. — TrespassingAcademia

I have issues with the equivocation you did up to this point, but if you were correct, here is your proof against god. People are in fact free to say whatever they want about god and there is no evidence, nothing "real", to compare it to as a test. God's very "not-realness", its non-falsifiability, is plenty of reason to reject the concept as irrational and not correlated to the observable world.

Every society in the world contradicts this principle. Would you then try to enforce this principle on the societies of the world? Why do humans form governments in the first place? This is what the American constitution says: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." — JerseyFlight

You clearly don't know anything about the Constitution. It is to be fought for, died for, basically a whole bunch of violence is supposed to be done for it. Its purpose is to give people guns so they can do that violence. God Bless Merka.

I suspect that these were more likely middle-class than working class. My recollection is that even in the good old days, you needed to be pretty damn literate to negotiate the benefits system with any degree of success. I've known a few climbers too in N. Wales, and they climbed the slate quarries for fun, precisely because they were not the children of the quarrymen who climbed them with drills and explosives for a living. — unenlightened

I've been to North Wales. It's realy pretty there.

I'll see myself out...

Let's say that having "compassion" for those who have less than you is much easier when you are in a better situation than said miserable. — Gus Lamarch

Why is compassion italicized in quotes? :naughty:

Oh, well, that clinched it.
— Pro Hominem

Are you acquiescing already? — 3017amen

Oh, you think we're having a dialogue? Lol. Your position is baseless and futile. The lingering taint of religion is an object of unfortunate distraction, not serious consideration. You are attempting to justify your pre-rational ghost stories with rational thought. It's why the "arguments" for the existence of god all fail. God is inherently incompatible with a reason and science based view of the world.

But by all means, tell me about math... :roll:

Oh, I am concerned with the welfare of people around me. I just don't believe such concern should be forced upon me or anyone else through government.

You speak with the self-righteous ignorance of a true socialist. — Tzeentch

And you use ad hominem attacks in place of developing an understanding of reality that show you are both self-righteous and ignorant.

Feel free to not respond. I was not courting your mouth-breathing opinions. I already know everything you're going to say. I've considered your position and discarded it as ahistorical and anti-human. You are only here as an example, not a participant. You may go.

It is a challenging question. I am sorry, but I cannot give you some advice. Probably, it is a false choice between “being white” and “being fully conscious of systemic racism.” We need to avoid a trap of the imposed choices between fixed, rigid, and normative identifications. One of the functions of power is to reduce the complexity of our social reality to the easily recognizable obviousnesses — Number2018

So one can be white, be conscious of systemic racism, and be in opposition to it? If that is true, whither "white privilege?" If I denounce any claim to it and actively work against it, how is it properly applied to me?

Your point about reducing complex problems to simple formulations may be especially apt in this case.

What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

I think the access to academics is a big part. If your worldview expands beyond yourself and you start to think in terms of benefiting the system that all are a part of instead of only benefiting yourself or your family, you start to move in a socialist direction. Wealthy people have this luxury because their family being safe and fed is not a thing they worry about. Working class and even many middle class people are in the position of living paycheck to paycheck so they must have that smaller scale focus.

The same arrogance that makes any socialist think they know best how to spend other people's money. — Tzeentch

Like this for example. This person is only concerned with their own welfare, and not that of the people around them. All their money is their money because they earned it. There is no conception of the vast array of services and opportunities offered by the collective effort of everyone around them, mostly through government, that make it possible for them to be "self-made". In the US, this holds true even all the way up into the upper middle classes because the consumer culture makes even very rich people feel like they always lack something, so they don't expand their vision. Of course, the super-rich in the US have set it up so that they can buy the politicians to keep tax rates absurdly low. Most other developed countries haven't allowed this. That's American exceptionalism for you.

I am always curious as to what people mean by "socialist"?
Is providing basic health care to the population of your country "socialist" or is it responsible government? In either case sign me up.
Is free education for the most talented, motivated and capable regardless of race, sex, religion or socio-economic status "socialist" or an investment in the nations future? Again I am all for it.
It seems to me most cannot distinguish between "socialism" and "communism".
In terms of economies, central planning and state ownership of entire economies seem to have failed multiple times but there are other state interventions that would seem to be in the interest of both the state and the general welfare. — prothero

Seconded.

Oh, forgot to add:

Philosophy of Religion: God
Ethics & Political Philosophy (separation of church and state/In God we Trust). — 3017amen

Oh, well, that clinched it.