Violence is the use of force or power, physical or psychological, to impose constraints, dominate, kill, destroy or damage. — Akanthinos

Like when colleges force students, faculty and staff to stop using certain pronouns?

Like when activists, pundits, etc. use their positions to marginalize, shame, humiliate, etc. anybody who does not think and talk in lockstep with their ideology?

"In a fragmented global culture and economy of exclusion that deem entire peoples and the earth itself expendable, Francis insists that members of human communities encounter one another first as persons, before ideas, traditions, and ideologies, and that we strive to encounter the poor and excluded primarily and most deeply: “We need to build up this culture of encounter. We do not love concepts or ideas; no one loves a concept or an idea. We love people.” " -- Intentional Communities in Our Common Home: Building Interfaith Cultures of Encounter in a New Appalachia

most theists deny that evolution occurred and also deny that prayer cannot scientifically allow you to communicate with anyone or anything among others — Joel Bingham

Theism is belief in the existence of deities.

Please address how belief in the existence of deities is a mental illness, not arbitrary things like denial of evolution.

And please tell us that you are not implying that denying evolution is a mental illness.

"One apple+one apple=two apples". I cannot even imagine "one apple+one apple=three apples". — bahman

Well, I can imagine combining a cup of water with another cup of water and getting three cups of water. Therefore, it would be 1 + 1 = 3.

I don't think such a world exist. — bahman

In other words, you think that the laws of physics that you have been taught apply to all possible places in all possible times.

How do you know?

I don't even think that 1+1=3 is even intelligible. What would it mean? What would it look like? What would it represent? — Brian

1.) Everybody agrees on what one of something, S, looks like.

2.) Everybody agrees on what three of S looks like.

3.) You combine one of S with another one of S and get three of S.

If you don't know what I mean, imagine somebody pouring one liter of water into a container with one liter of water and it resulting in three liters of water. That does not happen in our world, but that does not mean that there are not other worlds where it happens.

does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why? — Starthrower

Please define "make sense".

Do you mean adherence to formal logic?

Do you mean subjective intellectual satisfaction?

Please clarify.

Of course as soon as ISIS are brought up everyone rallies round agreeing with whatever measures are necessary, but something about modern society (capitalism, greed, culture, religion?) causes ten times as many deaths daily as ISIS have killed in their entire tenure. The question is, are we going to throw our hands up and say "I don't know what that's all about" and just let it carry on or are we going to have a serious about what the root cause might be and try to change it? — Pseudonym

What does any of that have to do with theism being--or not being--a mental illness?!

If I asked if Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is really an illness would you bring up the number of deaths attributable to ISIS versus other sources?

If I asked if Bipolar Disorder is really an illness would you bring up "I don't know what that's all about" or "are we going to have a serious about what the root cause might be and try to change it?" ?

The issue is this. Somehow we've ended up with a society in which millions are starving whilst others live in ridiculous excess and the majority of the population are fine with that. — Pseudonym

Sounds like the disciples of Ayn Rand I have known, not the disciples of Christ I have known.

And Rand disciples like to make it clear that she was no theist.

And how do you know that people are "fine with that"? Your only evidence seems to be anecdotal accounts of people making the marginal choice not to help a stranger they encounter on the street. How does that prove "fine with that"? They could, you know, among other alternatives to "fine with that", simply not know how to respond to every marginal situation. Overall, rather than in isolated marginal encounters, they could be living their lives in a way in which they are trying to minimize the suffering of others.

I'm not saying I blame religion entirely for the extent to which we have become so cold-hearted, but I think that the sense, imparted by religion, that some external authority figure provides you with the answers to moral dilemmas allows people to 'switch off' that sense that Sitting Bull had which made it simply impossible for him to ignore these people. — Pseudonym

Where is the scientific evidence for such a claim?!

But each of our actions affects others, so each person's beliefs will affect you in some way, and your beliefs will affect others, because we act on our beliefs. — Pseudonym

Sounds like utilitarianism.

Sounds like it is the consequences of beliefs, not their correspondence or lack of correspondence to truth and reality, that they are to be judged by.

So if a belief adds 100 units of happiness to one person's experience but subtracts 200 units of happiness from other people's experience we have an aggregate net loss and every morally acceptable action to minimize that belief's presence will be justified, correct?

If somebody shows that science, democracy, free markets, etc. have given us that same aggregate net loss, we should, and will, discourage them with the same tenacity?

I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. — Harry Hindu

Anecdotal evidence.

Where is the scientific evidence? Anti-theists always make claims like, "Religious people believe in God because it makes them feel good", but they never provide scientific evidence in support of such claims. Then they beat their chests and say that they are champions of science and its superior reliability.

Now that we have technologies to discover the facts rather than stories from constantly edited books, I would say theism is more a type of denial verging on Luddism than a mental illness. — Joel Bingham

Theism is belief in the existence of deities.

What truth/reality has science/technology revealed that theists deny?

Theism is not "Belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old", so theists are not in denial of geologic fact or anything like that.

Seems like a really bad analogy. The specifics of religion are clearly cultural. People aren't born Christians or Muslims. People do seem to be born homo- or heterosexual. — T Clark

"Reminds me of" is not "is analogous to".

It just means that I subjectively sense the same vibe in both cases. Both are creepy to me.

Your initial statement is rendered irrelevant by the proceeding paragraph, so I'm not sure why you included it. — JustSomeGuy

Chain links are objects, not events. But they are connected and there is space between them. You said that when something is connected to another there is nothing between them.

Give me a real-world example of this; an event occurring spontaneously, without cause. The only time this could possibly have happened was the universe coming into existence. — JustSomeGuy

How do you know the latter statement to be true?

When I consume food, my hunger is satiated. Whether you believe these are actually two separate events or not is irrelevant. This is a clear, demonstrable case of cause and effect. And there are no gaps between them. One leads directly to the other through various biological and physiological processes and reactions.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. — JustSomeGuy

It sounds tautological, or something like that. It sounds like "This effect was caused by that cause because effects are caused by causes".

If we are being intellectually honest, we don't really know why things happen. We just know that certain things, like ice, appear after certain other things, like temperatures dropping below a certain level. We don't know why or how. It could be that an omnipotent being intervened and acts as a middle man or a bridge through which ice appears. Saying that decreased temperatures caused the ice is saying that we know everything there is to know about the relationship between temperature and ice. We don't know if we know everything.

I believe that that is a flaw in determinist thinking. How does a determinist know everything that contributed to a thought, action, state of existence, etc.?

when two things are connected it means they lead directly to one another with no space in between. I'm saying literally everything in nature is interconnected so that there is no space in between anything. — JustSomeGuy

There is space between chain links, yet they are connected.

And we are talking about events, happenings, occurrences, etc., not about objects. That means we are talking about gaps in and/or between events, happenings, occurrences, not space between objects.

Furthermore, just because one thing is followed by another with nothing in between does not mean that they are connected. It could mean that they are related, but it does not necessarily mean that there is any connection. Something could have, for example, been spontaneously generated.

No I'm not. "Necessarily interconnected" means they cannot be disconnected. Everything is dependent on everything else, nothing can be isolated from the rest... — JustSomeGuy

If we can't isolate two things then we can't say that one caused the other.

With the kind of causation I'm talking about, there are no gaps between events..." — JustSomeGuy

If there are no gaps between events, how can one be an antecedent cause of another?

but I could say that this discussion caused the idea of poking myself. — CasKev

How would you show that?

How is it anything more than speculation?

I could say my intent to poke myself caused me to pick up the pin. — CasKev

Again, how do you know?

I can definitely say that the pressing of the pin's point into my arm caused a pain signal to reach my brain! — CasKev

How can you say that?

You are not saying that after A occurred B occurred. You are saying that one caused the other. How do you know?

Did you empirically sense through sight, smell, sound, taste and/or touch the act of one causing the other? Or did you only empirically sense two different occurrences and then add something non-empirical--the act of causing--with your imagination?

There is no gap to be filled, other than the fraction of time it takes for the signal to reach the brain and be interpreted. — CasKev

If there is no gap to be filled then why do you bring an act of causation into it?

I think that this thread is based on a false premise.

There is no telos in the evolution of life on Earth. At least not in Darwinian evolution by natural selection. There is no purpose or direction to biological evolution. Mutations--sometimes thought of as bad copies--happen; environments change; and those in an environment who possess certain traits reproduce successfully.

What is beneficial today--including cultural adaptations like technology--could be a detriment tomorrow.

I don't know if it gets any more ethnocentric or anthropocentric than to say that one invention of one human civilization is the purpose of life.

If I grab a pin and poke myself in the arm, am I not causing myself to experience the pain of being poked by a pin? — CasKev

What is the cause, and what is the effect?

Isn't saying "physical reality is seamless" just a more concise way of stating what I said? That everything in the universe is inescapably and necessarily interconnected? — JustSomeGuy

No.

When something is seamless that means there are no gaps in it.

You are saying that there are gaps with events being effects of events that preceded them.

"There are no gaps in nature", Tallis says.

And you are injecting necessity into nature. Tallis shows how necessity is highly questionable.

Read the article.

Are you saying each individual event is isolated and unconnected, unrelated to all other events? — JustSomeGuy

No.

I am saying that causes exist only in the imaginations of humans. We observe an event, we observe another event, and we say that one caused the other. But that process of causing is never observed. Or have you empirically sensed/observed the process of causing? You see event E1, you see event E2, and you see P, the process of E1 causing E2, in a gap in between? Please share with us what P looks, smells, sounds, feels and/or tastes like.

P does not exist in nature.

The gaps that P supposedly fills do not exist.

I don't see the relevance of this distinction. Isn't saying "physical reality is seamless" just a more concise way of stating what I said? That everything in the universe is inescapably and necessarily interconnected? — JustSomeGuy

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? — JustSomeGuy

They are not my words.

They are Raymond Tallis's words.

Editing is being extremely difficult, but I have the complete quote and the link now.

What about the quote do you not understand? It is basically saying that causation/causes do not exist in nature. It is saying that causation/causes are something that we humans create to make isolated observations fit together, when in reality everything is seamless and not steps in a chain.

In a completely different article that I have read it was pointed out that we do not observe causes--we only observe relationships.

Have you observed causes? Have you empirically sensed such a middle man between events? Please share the details with us.

— JustSomeGuy

"It is easy to sympathise with those philosophers who have come to regard causes as, well, a lost cause. The venerable idea that everything that happens is caused to happen by other, distinct and separate, previous happenings – going right back to the First Cause, the mysterious Uncaused Cause (God or the Big Bang according to taste) that got happening to happen – has been under increasing attack for nearly quarter of a millennium. While it has fought back valiantly (mainly by re-defining itself), things are looking pretty bad for the idea of causation...

At any rate, physical reality is seamless and law-governed, (possibly) unfolding over time, not a chain or network of discrete events that have somehow to be connected by causal cement. Causes, far from being a constitutive stuff of the physical world, are things we postulate to re-connect that which has been teased apart..." -- Raymond Tallis, "Causes As (Local) Oomph", Philosophy Now, Issue 100

Physics. — JustSomeGuy

Please be specific.

On the other hand, just because something like wanting to belong is natural doesn't make it something to lament and overcome. — Bitter Crank

I get it now.

It's our old friend "us vs. them".

I believe that the more we can avoid "us vs. them", the better.

I am, and you, I should think, are also an inner directed person. — Bitter Crank

Do you mean autotelic?

A shortage of labels makes it difficult to think clearly about one's self and about other people. — Bitter Crank

I don't see a shortage.

I started this thread by suggesting that we are overdoing it.

We are, I think, much more alike than we are different — Bitter Crank

I would add that we are all connected.

I suspect that a lot of this labeling and categorizing makes us forget that.

I don't think that being in tune with one's interiority means being a complete narcissist and filtering everything through one's self. I believe that it means finding what transcends the self and connects all of us.

everything that happens in the universe is a result of some cause, — JustSomeGuy

How do you know?

If everything is determined, that includes illusions.

If everything is determined, that includes determinism.

Therefore, if determinism is assumed to be true, one's position on free will vs. determinism is determined.

Finally, if everything is determined, that would include physicalism/materialism. What determined physicalism/materialism?

I can't even remember the last time I asked anybody about him/her and any label or category.

I can say with certainty that I have never asked anybody, "Are you gay / homosexual?"

But that is just one example.

I don't recall ever asking anybody anything like, "Are you an atheist?" or "Are you a Christian?"

See what happens when you engage in spontaneous conversation; actively listen; ask about thoughts, feelings, etc. and ask nothing about labels / categories; use the Socratic method; etc.?

How about instead of asking me "Are you a believer?" show that you respect me as an intellectual and ask, oh, "What do you think Jesus would say about this?" Asking "Are you a believer?" is kind of dehumanizing.

It's axiomatic that we social animals do not want to be so unique that we don't resemble anyone else. We don't really want to be "one of a kind" — Bitter Crank

I am not convinced that the amount of resources presently spent on that regime is justified by the benefits.

I am not convinced that people would not benefit from getting in touch more with their own interiority and worrying less about what jigsaw puzzle piece they are and where in the external puzzle they fit.

Just because something is natural does not mean it is a good idea or should be a high priority.

You could simply tell the truth and say that you haven't put much thought into it. — praxis

That would not be the truth.

Closer to the truth would be, "I believe that the box about which you are asking if I am inside or outside at best tells us very, very little about me and others and at worst does not exist".

It feels like we are obsessing more and more with our differences and building more and more divisions between each other.

I'm not going to take a post-modern perspective and say that all of that obsessing and dividing is a method for manipulating, controlling, dominating, etc. people.

Just thinking about it in a practical sense, it seems like spending a lot of effort and energy on what most of the time is not really needed.

Then again, I believe that the differences between us are miniscule. Anybody who believes that the differences between us are profound probably can't empathize much with my concern.

"We're all the same", I remind myself frequently.

How about instead of asking me "Are you a believer?" asking me "What is your spiritual understanding?" and letting me convey my experiences, thoughts, feelings, outlook, etc. in my own words. They might not, gasp, fit neatly into any recognized category or under any common label. People can't handle that?

Yes, they absolutely are passing property taxes on. Does the state where you live offer property tax relief to renters? — Bitter Crank

I have never heard of such a thing.

When the chattering classes are on camera talking about good economics, they aren't thinking of people like you or me. they are thinking of people more like themselves, people who have made it well enough to be in the chattering lasses. Professional people, people who have good jobs, nice solid incomes that allow for travel, meals at better restaurants, a nicer car, better clothing--you know, up market stuff... — Bitter Crank

But when the masses rebuke such elitism (Brexit; the 2016 Republican Primary and 2016 U.S. Presidential Election), they are dismissed as homophobic, xenophobic, racist, nativist misogynists. Their economic concerns barely make it onto any radar.

The lives of us riff raff are not interesting, unless we fit into the preferred class of Victims Du Jour (fill in your preferred VDJ here). — Bitter Crank

If the elites and the powerful were honest and said, "It does not serve our interests to try to meet your needs" that would be 100 times better than "Everybody benefits when we take resources from some people and give them to others". Why? Because it would be honest.

In other words, I would say that it is not that any person's experience is "not interesting". I would say that if you are crapping on people you are going to do everything you can to portray them negatively and avoid bringing attention to the truth about them--and about you.

Plus, you are a gay white male (just guessing) — Bitter Crank

No.

I am in every privileged biological category. Heterosexual. Male. White. Cisgender.

That is unless left-handers and/or introverts count as underprivileged groups. But I only write left-handed. The basketball scouting report on me is guard me closely on my right--I can barely make a pass, let alone get a shot off, with my left hand. Then again, I'll likely be so far away in my own internal world imagining in great detail what I will have for dinner that you will pause for a moment in confusion and give me a step as I drive to the basket.

and everybody knows that GWMs are a privileged group again, especially now that we aren't dying of AIDS, left and right. — Bitter Crank

"Check your privilege" does seem to be fickle.

but they were much more focused on the methods by which one advances. — Bitter Crank

Much of such advancement has always seemed to me to be gained at the expense of integrity.

I have never been eager to play the game.

I am sure that if I wanted to play the game I could succeed at it.

If people have to pretend, lie, etc. about the game being honest, what does that say about "success"?

Of course, maybe it is all honest and all of us have exactly what we deserve. I invited everybody here to show us that that is the case.

A lot of people are getting crapped on. — Bitter Crank

And they are hearing--even from some of the most popular thinkers--that it is all perfectly rational; that it is good economics; etc.

No, it's not fair, and it never has been, for anyone. — Noble Dust

Yes, generally speaking, fairness and justice are not features or properties of the universe. I have never encountered any theology, science or other thinking to the contrary.

But I have lived my whole life in a society that says it values fairness and justice under the law.

The distribution of resources through me--being legally coerced into giving up resources; getting very little back while others receive a lot of those resources--is fair and just, I have been told.

That sound you hear is me scratching my head.

Fairness has nothing to do with happiness, let alone spiritual or psychological well-being. — Noble Dust

But truth, honesty, a coherent understanding, etc. do.

There is a conflict between the popular belief that I should be thankful for the just, fair way I have been treated and my personal understanding and beliefs.

If somebody could show me how my personal understanding and beliefs are wrong, or if people would just be honest with me and say, "It's not fair, and I don't care", there would not be a problem.

You say you have wanted "to be able to use" your resources. What is stopping you from being able to use those resources, resources you appear to already possess? — Noble Dust

Just to survive and hold on to the hope for opportunities to do good, I have to do bad. You know, like working in industries that I believe are destructive; driving a car and polluting the air; etc.

The bad that I have to do greatly exceeds any good that I get the chance to do..

— RepThatMerch22

Before a human is born, he/she is developing, growing, etc.

If the experience after death is like the experience before birth, is a dead human developing, growing, etc.?

A redistribution of wealth into regions most in need of assistance to adjust to change (the poorer countries, of course) could be arranged. Will it? Don't hold your breath. — Bitter Crank

Or those people are ahead in adjusting.

At least that is what I gathered from reading Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures, by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri-Prakash (1998 edition).

Just using contemporary America as an example: the republic is only a little more than 200 years old; the enjoyment of the contemporary American lifestyle en masse can probably only be traced to the 1950's. Americans have not had to adjust much. Other than two exact days--December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001--has U.S. soil ever been touched by an organized assault from foreigners, let alone extensive occupation and oppression?

"Grassroots Post-Modernism" is a riveting book that touches on many themes, and I can't do justice to it here. But I think that one theme is unmistakable: while the West struggles with the consequences of its way of life, the world's oppressed majority are already moving on. The world's oppressed majority has only suffered from the West's, the Global North's, or whatever you want to call its relatively recent way of life. That oppressed majority has resisted the encroachment of that aforementioned way of life and is regenerating their local cultural and natural spaces. The authors illustrate all of this with one people in Mexico who in spite of 500 years of being dominated by outsiders--first the Aztecs, then the Spanish, and since then, the Mexican government, multinational corporations, etc.--have managed to maintain their land, culture and identity.

The thesis of the book may be false. I don't know. But if at least one pair of scholars is asserting--and supporting with plenty of evidence, other sources, and footnotes--that the world's oppressed majority is already moving beyond all of the problems/issues being brought up in this thread, their view should be considered.

I should add militaries.

I hear plenty about how people like me and the companies we work for and consume the products of are destroying the Earth. But I do not recall ever hearing much of any such thing about militaries.

U.S. Navy sonar harming whales is the most that I recall any big deal being made out of.

Has pure science--the work of Darwin, Einstein, etc.--been harmless to the Earth?

Again, I am not talking about the byproducts of science, such as technology. I am talking about science activities in and of themselves.

The "green" mandate has not spared the practitioners of science, I'm sure. Energy efficient Bunsen burners are the norm now, I'm sure.

But I'm talking about a historical perspective.

The people who control the flow of information in society never miss an opportunity to remind us of (or to deny) the role of producers and consumers of mass-produced consumer goods in the destruction of the Earth. Scientists--with their rarely-questioned authority--are almost always the mouthpieces of those reminders.

My point is that the role of the everyday activities of science itself in the destruction of the Earth is, meanwhile, not on any radar. I'm not talking about the technology that is a byproduct of science. The environmental consequences of such technology are well documented and no secret to anybody who has at least a high school education and consumes the news media. I am talking about the facilities, activities, etc. of pure science.

We are constantly reminded of the benefits of science. When are we told about the costs?

He's all about keeping science separated from state so as to maintain human freedom and liberty. — darthbarracuda

The Wikipedia article is packed with interesting material.

Wow, a Western philosopher criticizing scientists' condescending attitude towards astrology. I never imagined ever hearing that.

What I am trying to say to you is that there are certainly sources, but you would need to condense what you mean when you say science because the subject is so broad it will yield either too much or none at all. There is no specific enterprise "science" but that science is a term that explains a number of things and thus you would need to condense that search to those things. So, the impact on the environment and energy consumption, even then you will have oil, gas, agriculture, supply chain, even further still politics, economics, law etc. When I said that you had not answered the question, what I was attempting to ascertain is what you mean by Science. — TimeLine

Here is an article that touches on my concern.

But it is talking about the social costs of science, not the ecological costs or costs to the natural environment.

Did you try a verbatim search? — Purple Pond

Yes.

You really have not answered the question, what exactly are you looking for? Do you want google to find an all-encompassing result on the environmental impact of technology or do you want information about specific things like electricity or gasoline having a negative impact on the environment? It is a huge subject that requires condensing. — TimeLine

I already answered this.

I want to know the environmental impact of a specific enterprise: science.

I am sure that if I wanted to find sources addressing the environmental impact of, say, religion, I would not have much difficulty. I would probably find sources saying things like, oh, the rise of megachurches in the U.S. has resulted in increased energy consumption.

I am not finding anything about that with respect to science. Why?

Are you familiar with Paul Feyerabend? Sounds like you'd like some of his stuff. — darthbarracuda

I'll check it out.