Namely, a critical examination of a paradigm would require stepping out of that paradigm; but such stepping out would be in conflict with one's committment to said paradigm.
— baker

Yes, that's exactly how I put the question. And moreover, what needs to be done to "go beyond the boundaries," to see from the outside? Is it possible? — Astorre

I'm not sure why you're asking about this; in reference to what are you asking this?


The problem can be formalized in the emic-etic distinction:

Emic (/ˈiːmɪk/) and etic (/ˈɛtɪk/) refer to two kinds of field research done in anthropology, folkloristics, linguistics, and the social and behavioral sciences, and viewpoints obtained from them.[1]

The emic approach is an insider's perspective, which looks at the beliefs, values, and practices of a particular culture from the perspective of the people who live within it. This approach aims to understand the cultural meaning and significance of a particular behavior or practice, as it is understood by the people who engage in it.[2]

The etic approach is an outsider's perspective, which looks at a culture from the perspective of an outside observer or researcher. This approach tends to focus on the observable behaviors and practices of a culture, and aims to understand them in terms of their functional or evolutionary significance. The etic approach often involves the use of standardized measures and frameworks to compare different cultures and may involve the use of concepts and theories from other disciplines, such as psychology or sociology.[2]

The emic and etic approaches each have their own strengths and limitations, and each can be useful in understanding different aspects of culture and behavior. Some anthropologists argue that a combination of both approaches is necessary for a complete understanding of a culture, while others argue that one approach may be more appropriate depending on the specific research question being addressed.[2]

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

Even if the origin of trolling is not malicious, it results in a breakdown in trust and in cynicism. — Colo Millz

Rather, it's the other way around. The breakdown of trust and the cynicism can lead to various socially unacceptable behaviors. Tellingly, the breakdown of trust and the cynicism are not considered socially unacceptable, but reacting to them in a negative way is.

OK, why not, as well as references to common sense decency where some semblance of humility holds. (You wann'a go all Western religion/tradition about it, it's also what JC seems to have meant by "meekness" ... as in "the meek shall inherit the earth"... kind of like those small, warmblooded and furry rodent-like creatures did after the last great extinction of them oversized, pompous dinosaurs — javra

I don't know the Buddhist book about dating that you mentioned earlier, but from what you said, it seems to be a humorous approach to explaining Buddhist teachings.

You said earlier:

The sophistic BS part was a separate issue to me: pivoting on the issue of ego and its desires for fame, fortune, power, etc. by mimicking (but not emulating) what good faith philosophers do

I'm not sure what you mean here.
What do good faith philosophers do in regard to the ego and its desires for fame, fortune, etc.?

In what way do you think that Buddhism is sophistic here?
Here is a scriptural reference to the eight worldy conditions: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html

I really want to understand this; I want to know how an outsider sees this Buddhist teaching.

Well, as far as poetic metaphors go, add some Hindu context to the expression and, yea, that's kind of part of the main point. Wouldn't it be swell if a nice lotus were to emerge from the swamps of filth so as to benefit all of humanity without exception, hence each human within their own perfectly individual contexts of existence (such that their own individual wants and needs get optimally satisfied),this rather than having humans suffer the swamps of filth (wherein nothing pleasing to anyone ever takes place) ad nauseam?

Put differently, is philosophy writ large about every ego perpetually being at odds with all other egos such that only filth results from the endeavor and interactions, as per in a mad house where everybody whats out? ... Or is it about best arriving at a communally-endorsed understanding of the world, of being itself even, which is accordant to all known facts while assisting all sapient beings in actualizing their individual purposes? This such that the filth no longer occurs due to this new understanding's growth. Yes, yes, the latter can all to easily easily be misinterpreted as endorsing and requiring authoritarianism; but, then, this would not only be contradictory to what was just explicitly stated in this paragraph but also to the aforementioned notion of common sense decency in the face of the first quote within this post. And yes, we all at times have our cockish authoritarian turns (some a hell of a lot more than others), but this too speaks to the same ideal of philosophy to me.

One of the Eastern ideas about lotuses is that they need filth, mud in order to grow; lotuses don't grow in the neat conditions that many other flowering plants do. What is more, the lotus plant has such a surface that the filth and mud it grows in doesn't stick to it.

Of course, feel free to disagree. But, if so, I am curious to learn on what grounds.

On the grounds of the lotus analogy above, I'm inclined to disagree. Conflict is the way of the world, a given, the natural state (also see agonism). The solution isn't to overcome conflict, or to banish it; but rather, not to be affected by it. Like a lotus, which grows in the mud, but mud doesn't stick to it.

What I see are people faced with a smorgasbord of choices: religious, political, and social, with almost no barriers to access because, for the most part, everything is permitted. That abundance of choice seems to make people freeze: what do I do in a world where culture is so varied? How do I focus my life when there’s a multiplicity of choices, faiths, and lifestyles all available to me? All potentially true or rewarding or superior. — Tom Storm

I think what makes them freeze is that they still haven't realized that they don't actually have all that many choices, realistically.

For example, we have a constitutionally granted "freedom of religion". But this has no bearing on whether one will actually be accepted into a particular religious community, or whether one will be able to understand a particular religion; it also doesn't obligate the various religions to explains themselves to outsiders in a way those outsiders can understand. It doesn't obligate the state to force a religious community to accept a particular person. For all practical intents and purposes, "freedom of religion" is about such things as employers not being legally allowed to discriminate against (prospective) employees on religious grounds.

What is actually available to one in terms of "freedom of religion" is extremely limited; often, it's actually zero. And similarly with so many other things.

The multitude of options is illusory.

When traditions speak of “higher knowledge,” the term “higher” need not imply rank or authority - something that seems to push a lot of buttons! - but rather a difference in mode, scope, or reflexive awareness. — Wayfarer

Sure, but the socio-economic structure of religion is still hierarchical, and it is all about rank and authority. Even if the people involved are all loathe to openly admit it.

However it has to be acknowledged that Buddhist (and in general, Indian) philosophy has a soteriological dimension (aimed at liberation or ‘salvation’), which is mainly absent in Western philosophy. And this is one of the reasons that any mention of ‘higher knowledge’ produces such a lot of pushback. ‘Ah, you mean religious’ And we all know that religious authority is something to be disdained. Why, it’s dogmatic!

On the contrary. I think the pushback is the natural reaction to test someone's claims to authority. Especially religious people seem to think that they can go forth into the world, make claims to authority, and the world then owes them submissiveness. Just like that. "I am king and you owe me!" Of course at least some people are going to be skeptical about this.

It’s my view that for the most part the “meaning crisis” is a case of too much freedom. For some, that freedom is crippling. — Tom Storm

I think it's not about "too much freedom" or freedom being "crippling". It's that the institutions that we are expected to trust and rely on don't care about us -- and yet we're supposed to pretend that they do. It's this latter part that seems to be modern. That the institutions that we are expected to trust and rely on don't care about us is nothing new; what seems to be new is the expectation of the pretense that they do care. This is what adds the insult to the injury, and this is a source of a crisis of meaning.

Freedom becomes crippling when acting on it cripples one. For example, one has the "freedom" not to have health insurance. But what kind of freedom is that?

I found embodied cognitive science, and later phenomenology, to be very helpful here, since they deal both with questions of how one should live and what is the case. — Joshs

Actually, it seems it was/is your general hopeful/positive disposition that is the most helpful factor for you.
The cognitive science and phenomenology are just tools in your particular case, while for someone else with a similar general hopeful/positive disposition, other tools might be relevant. (And I do so hate to use "tools" in this context ...)

Still, there are many like Vervaeke who grew up relying on a rigid belief system and found themselves in existential crisis when they abandoned that faith and had nothing to replace it with. The craving to replace one totalizing purpose with another is one explanation for the attraction of cults, and Verveake’s project does have some cult-like characteristics.

It can also explain the particular shape/structure of one's existential crisis. That is, an existential crisis is not the same for everyone who describes themselves as having an "existential crisis". For example, an existential crisis will look different for someone with a Christian background, as opposed to someone with a Hindu background; and their respective solutions to those crises are going to be shaped differently as well. (For example, one can recognize whether a self-described atheist has a Christian or a Hindu background, even without mentioning anything about them having such a background.)

"Ultimately your brain is not static, it is adaptive.
But it only adapts when its predictions are challenged.
And those challenges cannot come from within your own preferences.
They must come from participation.
From otherness."[/quote]

But he fails to point out that the baseline for most human interactions is hostility, or in the best case scenario, indifference. The move to individualism (that he criticizes) is actually a defense against the indifference and hostility of others, especially when it comes to religious/spiritual others.

But you're not really engaging with main thing i'm wondering. — ProtagoranSocratist

I said it depends on the audience with whom in mind you're writing.
If you're writing a children's book on some philosophical topic, the standards and expectations are going to be different than if you're writing a doctoral thesis, and so on.
Do you expect us to work out the details for each of those possible categories?

Lotuses that get drowned out in filth on account of the filth having far more connections. — javra

Lotuses grow in the filth, and they kill everything else in the bodies of water where they grow. Ever seen how lotus leaves cover the whole surface, so that nothing else can grow? Ever seen the underside of a lotus leaf?

The sophistic BS part was a separate issue to me: pivoting on the issue of ego and its desires for fame, fortune, power, etc. by mimicking (but not emulating) what good faith philosophers do — javra

Actually, those are references to standard Buddhist doctrine.
See the Index at Access To Insight, under "desire", for example.

1) Lower-status people = unemployed, homeless, First Nations, gig workers — ask tough questions of their bosses, or of police, or other authorities, local government workers, welfare workers, etc.

Insolent = rude — e.g., “Hey, you fuckin' pig, why don’t you do some real work instead of bothering us? You're a fuckin' dog!” (Food delivery guy on a bicycle to policeman.)

There you go: they harass.
— baker

I’m not sure why you write “there you go" as if you believe that you are indirectly 'proving soemthing. Say what you mean. — Tom Storm

Like I've been saying all along: Speaking up, when one is the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, can have grave consequences for one. Like your food delivery guy above: he's very lucky if he didn't get arrested for saying what he said to a policeman.

care to discuss that? Or is that too hard? — Mikie

You just answered some of my above questions.

It's the basis for all social decisions we make. Why do we pass some laws and not others? Why do we build some buildings and not others? — Hanover

Because some rich and powerful people decided that way. Mostly because they wanted to be even more rich and powerful.

My point is that we decide whether to be religious

This is absurd! One cannot "decide" to be religious! This is the height of solipsistic, egotistical madness!
And not because of some issue of collectivism or whatever cheap Randian excuse you want to throw at me.

One cannot "choose" a religion. It would be like "choosing" one's grandparents and parents. It would be like "choosing" the country one was born in. It would be like "choosing" one's native language. It would be like "choosing" which company to work for. Or like "choosing" the weather.

One cannot choose such things because they 1. precede one, 2. contextualize one, 3. require the concurrent action of all parties involved, 4. are beyond one's control.

Choosing to live in a way that accepts a reduced significance for human value

My experience with religion has been that it is the most dehumanizing, demoralizing experience I've ever had.

Doing what is most consistent with scientific grounds is a choice and is not a requirement. That goes to my original statement. The value of religion is not rooted in the scientifically arrived at truth values of its claims.

I'm not coming from a position of valuing science over religion. To me, it makes no difference whether I go to church or whether I go to a science lecture. In both cases, I am supposed to be quiet, bow my head, give them money, and don't ask any real questions.

One thing I've consistently observed in religions, theistic and atheistic ones, and especially in the ones that aim to make adult converts, is that they operate by the motto, "Talk the talk and walk the walk", whereby the talk and the walk are usually two very different things.
— baker

I don't follow the relevance. There are some horrible religions, horrible governments, and horrible people.

I'm saying that I have observed in many religions that there is an unwritten, unspoken rule that the official religious tenets should not be taken all that seriously. I've seen too many times religious people ridiculing (and worse) other religious people from their same religion for taking religious tenets "too seriously". Like when the same religious people who preach abstinence from alcohol also ridicule those who actually abstain from alcohol and consider them "zealots".
And if anything, the whole point of religion seems to be precisely that: a smokescreen, dust thrown in the eyes of the opponent.

my position,
which is that the value of religion is based upon its outward manifestations.

I'm not disagreeing. It's just that religion is "good" in ways that make Machiavelli look like an amateur.

As in, does it lead to a happier more productive person and society.

While we're at it, for illustrative purposes, shall we discuss the Asian idea of "social harmony"? Or the Stepfordian ideal?

What this means is simply that if Joe Blow finds great meaning and value in his religion and he has a community and friends he has built around it, all to their mutual satisfaction and happiness, it would not be a valid basis to dismantle it due to the fact it's claims are false. That is, whether there is a god up high as Joe Blow preaches is wholly irrelevant to whether the religion is of value.

Don't forget that you, as a religious person, are helping to create the image of religion that other people have of religion. Being glib and absurdist like you're above really isn't helping your case. With what you're saying above, you're basically making a case for atheism!

Religion does delve obviously into origin stories, but those must be judged (again) on how well they provide for a meaningful life by their sanctification of humanity, not by their propositional truth value.

In that case, religion is no different from what some wannabe positive psychologist says on his blog.
Do you really want to argue this line of reasoning?

If you want to kill people in the name of God, then that God better be real.

And just because his books were banned doesn't mean anything. The RCC also opposed general literacy and reading the Bible for a long time because it thought that the ordinary people could not properly understand it without proper guidance.
— baker

His books were not generally banned due to concerns about limited literacy. They were officially and specifically banned for all readers because they were considered heretical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Also, the Catholic Church never banned the Bible for anyone. They banned certain translations they thought inaccurate.

Descartes wasn't banned because Catholics just didn't like books generally. They chose him and others to ban, but still let people read other works. — Hanover

Interesting reading skills ...

My view is that there are many instances where belief in God offers greater meaning — Hanover

Sure, there are such instances. The problem with belief in God is, though, that one cannot actually choose to believe in God.

God is, by definition, a being that contextualizes one. As such, one cannot unilaterally declare anything in relation to God, without this necessarily being also a denial of God (unilaterally -- ie. without waiting for God for his take on the matter). And since God doesn't seem to be all that interested to communicate with us directly, personally, we're left to this solipsistic, unilateral, one-way "relationship" that is no different from talking to walls.

How time flies!

My definition of tedious research is busywork, made necessary not because it is an intrinsic component of creative thought, but because it is an interruption of creative thinking — Joshs

Robert Greene was once asked how he defines creativity. It’s a word that gets thrown around. It gets mythologized and romanticized. “People have all sorts of illusions around the word that aren’t the reality,” Robert said. “The reality is that creativity is a function of the previous work you put in. So if you put a lot of hours into thinking and researching and reading, hour after hour—a very tedious process—creativity will come to you…It comes to you, but only after tedious hours of work and process.” I like this definition because it means creativity is not some mysterious form of magic. It’s not something some people simply have and some people simply don’t. It’s something rewarded to those who put the work in.

https://billyoppenheimer.com/august-14-2022/

The rich countries should be helping the poorer ones electrify responsibly with renewables, but the rich countries (e.g., America) can't even fund food assistance programs for their own people. — RogueAI

Such is capitalist paradise.

This level of naval-gazing approaches satire.

“Before we turn on the air conditioner, certain fundamental questions must be addressed— like whether we all really want to not be sweltering, and if we want to even go on living.”

Good thing you’re not in charge of anything. — Mikie

And you wonder why people aren't eager to combat the deterioration of climate!

This is supposedly a philosophy forum ... not Twitter ... ...

But I shrink from saying ‘objectively true’, at the same time. That’s part of the dilemma. — Wayfarer

Then, clearly, you've still got some work to do.

Do you have any openness to (radically?) changing your views? It certainly doesn't seem that way. — Janus

@Wayfarer has the attitude of an old swami, that's what the problem is, as far as a philosophy forum goes. It's not that people resent the idea of some "higher truth" per se. It's that those who claim to know the "higher truth" are a dime a dozen, but they refuse to acknowledge this, what to speak of upping their game.

Do you think that full reflection is possible for a person who is inside a paradigm?
— Astorre

The same processes that embed individuals within social paradigms shape the nature and direction of ‘reflection’. The split between the purely private and inner (reflection) and the socially constructed (paradigm) is artificial. — Joshs

I think @Astorre is asking about something else, something along the lines of,
"If a person is fully committed to a particular worldview (or paradigm), can they critically examine said worldview/paradigm?"

Namely, a critical examination of a paradigm would require stepping out of that paradigm; but such stepping out would be in conflict with one's committment to said paradigm.

There's the saying that the difference between a philosopher and a religious man is that a philosopher deals in expendable theories, while the religious man puts his life on the line for his ideas.

I think it's strange to think about questions like, "How do I know what I think I know? How do I know what is real?", and then turn around and go about one's business as if one hadn't thought about those things.

In the spirit of taking one's reflections seriously, and taking seriously the act of reflecting, it seems rather natural to also wonder about things such as a justification for one's existence.

Although I have seen professional philosophers dismiss particular themes as being simply a matter of "poor self-esteem" or some such "psychological problem" that doesn't warrant a philosophical exploration.

are you saying this in a "leave that poor guy alone" way or in a "He has a point" way? — Dogbert

The latter.
Not to make this personally about you, though.

Speaking for myself, being bullied and told I should die wouldn't convince me I don't exist. — Ciceronianus

Indeed, but it just might push you into looking for a justification for your existence.

Not to say that this is what is happening for the OP. There is something fair-weather-ish about so much of philosophy. As if someone could spend one's days trying to figure out things like "Oh my, I don't know what's real!", and then close one's notebook, and then go and have a beer as if everything was totally fine.

Part of the issue is that the audience is much vague as someone without a university position or who isn't a student. — ProtagoranSocratist

Then such is the predicament of the would-be philosopher.

By the time China makes a meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use (say half), we'll be well into uncharted territory, and they'll still be pouring GHG's into the air. — RogueAI

Why blame China?

Why buy cheap Chinese stuff?

Stop buying cheap Chinese stuff, and China will have no reason to burn so much coal anymore, or even none at all, for that matter.

It's not the Chinese who need to change; it's the rest of the world, esp. Westerners, who are eager to look wealthier than they are and so they buy cheap Chinese stuff.

These and further related questions tend to be taboo when it comes to discussing climate change deterioration and how to counteract it. Climate activists are often displeased with people's aparent indolence, or they criticize people for not trusting science. It seems that for many climate activists, it should be taken for granted that climate change deterioration is something that should be combatted, not merely accepted as yet another fact of life over which we have no control.

I think that for successfully taking action against climate deterioration, the above questions, and then some, would need to be openly discussed.

Writing about philosophy: what are the basic standards and expectations?[/quote]
Who is your intended audience?

A habilitation committee at a university?
The editor of Philosophy Now?
The editor of Reader's Digest?
People who post a lot on Twitter?
People at an online philosophy forum?
Your family at a dinner table?
Who?

For what reason are you trying to present your philosophical thoughts to some particular audience?


If you skip these questions, you're implying some universalizing, generalizing, absolutizing theme to your argument that might actually run counter to the argument you're explicitly making.

Oh, the US is the biggest oil and gas producer? Let's look at coal instead. Why do we still have to waste time on this nonsense. We have to phase out all the fossil fuels, and the sooner we do it the less disruptive and catastrophic it will be.

And adaptation is what we also have to do anyway, and the slower we are at stopping making it worse by stopping burning fossil fuels, the more stringent our adaptation will have to be. And none of this is remotely controversial. — unenlightened

How many people actually want mankind to survive?
How many people actually want all the currently living people to die of natural causes?
Is mere survival even a universally desirable goal? Does everyone want it?
How many people are even willing to survive even if that meant a significant lowering of their quality of life?


Efforts to combat climate deterioration are doomed as long as people in general would rather die than merely survive.

There's something extraordinarily compromised about a view that seeks to demonstrate "existence". — Banno

It seems like a rather normal reaction of someone under strain.

Have you never been bullied? Have you never been told that you should do the world a favor and die?
What do you think are the metaphysical implications of having been bullied, or otherwise experiencing duress?

Describing Descartes as a shill for the Catholic Church isn't historically correct either.

He was at best guarded so as to not offend the Church — Hanover

That's awfully generous, and it's the general consensus among Western philosophers, yes.

But read his prefaces and introductions to his works. He wasn't a "shill", he was a Catholic, defending the Catholic faith. Stop looking at him as a philosopher first and as a Catholic as a distant second. It's very common to read Descartes as if he was a "seeker, just like we are". Instead, look at him as a Catholic first. In a patronizing manner, he sought to devise arguments that were supposed to convince non-Catholics.
Yes, he presents his case in a general manner -- taking for granted, just like Pascal, that there is only one true, right religion.


And just because his books were banned doesn't mean anything. The RCC also opposed general literacy and reading the Bible for a long time because it thought that the ordinary people could not properly understand it without proper guidance.

You can't acknowledge an exception and say "always." The best you can say is "mostly , " but then you'll have to start counting. Maybe we can say "sometimes." But a rabbi certainly believes he speaks absolute truth, so I don't see your distinction. I'll agree Jews and Christians prostelisze differently, but so do Baptists and modern Catholics. Jews do reach out to unaffiliated Jews, but only some (compare Chabad to Litvak). — Hanover

What I said is also in response to another thing you said:

The atheistic belief that belief is the primary reason for religion and not behavior leads you guys down interesting little paths. — Hanover

As if atheists invented the "rationalistic" approach to religion. No, it's from how theists preach!

But a rabbi certainly believes he speaks absolute truth, so I don't see your distinction.

The distinction refers to how Christianity and Islam are religions that aim to make adult converts, while Judaism does not.

When a Christian preaches to a non-Christian, it is with the aim to convert the other person; and the Christian makes claims that the other person is expected to accept as true.
(Also, with the implicit, "Believe as I say, do as I say, not as I do.)

Regardless, it misses my point. I described how religion is to be objectively judged for its value. That is, even if it fails a correspondence theory of truth, if it advances a positive lifestyle, then it can have positive value.

"Objectively judged"? What is that?
A "positive lifestyle"? What is that? It really depends on whom you ask. The various religions do not agree on what exactly a "positive lifestyle" is. Nor on what makes for "objective judgment".

You might say it fails in that regard as well, which also would miss my point, and it would be agreeing with me. It'd be agreeing that the way religion is judged is by use,

not upon its metaphysical correspondence.

What is "use"?

One thing I've consistently observed in religions, theistic and atheistic ones, and especially in the ones that aim to make adult converts, is that they operate by the motto, "Talk the talk and walk the walk", whereby the talk and the walk are usually two very different things. What is more, practicing such doubleness appears to be extremely evolutionarily advantageous. Notice that I'm not calling it duplicity; because it doesn't seem to be mere duplicity, but a conscious, deliberate saying one thing and doing another, while there is apparently some higher aim to doing so, a type of metaphysical street smarts.

Existence is a brute fact and does not require "justification". — 180 Proof

Except when life gets hard and one wonders why keep on going.

Does that mean that philosophy is a fool's enterprise? No, its an ideal that every human being struggles with. We all have a bit of ego, and we all fail at thinking at times. The point is to get back up. Yes, the pressures of the world and yourself may have won today, but there's always the next day. Never stop thinking and never stop questioning even basic assumptions and outlooks. That is what pushes us forward. That is the purpose of philosophy. — Philosophim

People who merely think a lot, to the point of thinking too much, tend to end up in institutions with white padded cells.

While I sympathize with you when it comes to noticing how limited the opportunities for open discussion are --


philosophy comes down to knowing the right time, the right place, and the right people with whom to bring up a particular topic (whether the topic is specifically "philosophical" or not).

You may very well come from an enlightened family where such questions are common. In many families such questions are off limits, yelled at, and discouraged. — Philosophim

Sometimes, the only appropriate place for a particular person to ask about the things that concern them is the privacy of their diary.

It's naive to think that one could talk about just anything with just anyone in just any situation. Even professional philosophers are not keen to discuss just anything with just anyone in just any situation.

Notice how in traditional culture, but also in many situations in modern culture, asking questions is the domain of the person who holds the higher status.
— baker

I’ve not noticed that. Certainly, in the cultures I know here, people of all status commonly ask difficult questions and are sometimes insolent while doing so. — Tom Storm

Ask questions of whom?
And yes, they are insolent: because being of lower status, one isn't supposed to ask questions, at all.

In Australian culture low status workers habitually question and sometimes harass the management and ruling classes.

There you go: they harass.

Of course one may very well be cognitively and physically able to ask a question. But whether it will be considered appropriate to do so, in any particular instance, is quite another matter.

It's an absolute disgrace, to say the least, that Rene Descartes has come to be known as "the father of modern philosophy"!

He and his followers are responsible for the quasi-rationalistic approach to questions of faith and God. This man who made a point of inventing arguments through which atheists and Protestants were supposed to be convinced that the RCC is the only true church and religion. And somehow, the history of philosophy ate it all up, this Trojan horse.

The best argument the atheist can mount against theism is claiming it’s irrational, which is true. — ucarr

Not at all. There are better arguments. For example, as summarized in the question,

"How is it, that God, in his infinite goodness and wisdom, granted some people the privilege to believe in God by making them be born and raised into a theistic religion, but withdrew this privilege from others?"

The best argument I can think of against theism is that God clearly cares about some people, but doesn't care about others. And I'm not talking about allowing babies to die from hunger and such. I'm talking about the extreme privilege of being born and raised into a religion; the privilege of having internalized fundamental religious beliefs before one is old enough to understand what they are about. The privilege of never having to choose one's religion.

Theism is to be judged as a form of life, not as a proposition with a true value. — Hanover

Yet when theism is preached, it is always preached as a proposition with a truth value.


As a Jew, you don't relate to that, because Jews normally don't preach. But Christians and Muslims do preach. They make claims that they expect (demand!) that the people they are preaching to will accept as true.

They've done those experiments where the LLMs had access to emails stating that the LLM would be shut down, and then LLMs devised various survival strategies, including wanting to kill the engineer who would actually physically pull the plug (by trapping him in an elevator).
Based on this, some people concluded that the LLM has a sense of self, that it is somehow autonomous and such.

This is wrong; because if the LLM was trained on ordinary news texts, then this is also where it could learn about self-preservation.