Oh absolutely. But here I find these struggles are presented as segregated from ours. We can't understand theirs, they can't understand ours. The point I was making was that since we seem to all be in the same boat (and they hardly seem to have it all worked out), a more parsimonious approach (and dare I say possibly even a better one for all) would be to assume, for starters, that we're not so incommensurable after all. That, if the Christian is struggling with the concept of hell, Lewis might actually be able to help - just in the same way as your (sometimes quite pointed) critiques of my positions have helped me. It's what we do. Put our positions into the crucible of public debate to have the edges taken off, the loose ends picked at. We do this by sharing a language. — Isaac

No. Do that, and you cut yourself off from religiosity.

If we (the secular) aren't 'getting' what the Christians are saying, then we need to try harder. All of us.

Why?? They aren't willing to do the same for us!

Simply saying that the Christians issues are not within our understanding, by fiat, seems a bit of a cop out.

Or it's simply a case of "not my circus, not my monkeys".

Lewis has raised a concern about what Christian doctrine says. His argument (as I read it) is basically "Isn't is a moral danger to allow people to worship a torturer whose punishments are out of proportion to the crime?". That's a legitimate concern on it's face. There's lots of evil in the world to account for. Much of it is religiously motivated or carried out by the religious (or those raised in a religion). So pointing out a potential cause seems to be well within the wheel-house of normal conversation.
/..../
Do I need to stand in your shoes to fully understand why you believe the things you believe? Almost certainly, yes. Do I need to stand in your shoes to even critique the things you believe? I hope not, that would rather render the whole forum (not to mention the whole of consensus-building politics) pointless.

This naively neglects the reality of daily life, which is all about power hierarchies, and having one's career, and more, on the line.

The one thing that religious/spiritual people understand very well, but ivory tower dwellers not so much, is the earnestness of life, the reality of the struggle for survival.

Unless we're actually going to believe religious claims to divine access, it seems far more parsimonious to believe that the mess of contradictions, inconsistencies and post hoc rationalisations we perceive in Christianity are, in fact a mess of contradictions, inconsistencies and post hoc rationalisations. — Isaac

Not if we take the Catechism of the RCC as an example. They've worked for centuries to make it internally consistent.

(Although, ironically, the Catholic doctrine is probably the most lenient as far as eternal damnation goes, given the many exceptions that are listed in its Catechism.)

It just seems really odd that a group of people who - let's be clear - do take part in the world of discourse, do say things to the secular, do expect to have their beliefs acted upon in our shared world... are given a sort of diplomatic immunity as if merely ambassadors from some other world where their beliefs have only impact on them and not us.

Christians, and religious/spiritual people in general believe that they are in this world, but not _of_ this world, so this explains their aloof attitude.

The religious are somehow thereby immunised from making the same mistakes of inconsistency, incoherency as are the bread and butter of the discussion we have here. — Isaac

It's not like they care about us, so ...

Forgive me, but this is just a stupid comparison, and needs to be called out. We are talking about a God, according to some Christians, obviously not all, who sends people to eternal damnation for not believing or accepting certain beliefs. We are also talking about a God, who /.../ knowing full well that many would reject these beliefs, given their free will. So, God would have known /.../ at the very least, would result in, or at least there would be a good chance, that that person would go to hell. — Sam26

Except for the portions on "creating humans", the above is just like the things human lawmakers know: they know that some people will not abide by the laws and will be punished.

If such a God existed, I would do all that I could to oppose that being.

But could you oppose it? The being that created you? You cannot draw a breath without this being approving of it, and you think you could oppose it?

Furthermore, eternal punishment or damnation, is excessive by definition, even if you don't think of it as torture.

"Excessive" is a matter of degree and opinion. Some countries have capital punishment, some don't. I live in a country where up until recently, the longest possible prison sentence regardless of the crime was 20 years. When recently a man here was sentenced to 30 years in prison, a prominent lawyer here remarked that the country has set on a course of barbarism. On the other hand, even some first world countries have capital punishment and lifelong imprisonment.

Most people go through their lives without committing the most egregious of sins, yet because their not within the fold of Christian beliefs, they are damned, forever (according to many Christians, Protestant and Catholic). This is not just, and should be rejected as part of any Christian belief, and many Christians do reject it.

Why would it not be just? Can you explain?
Is capital punishment ever just?

A while back, a poster was instantly banned for declaring to be a misogynist. From the discussion that ensued among the moderators, it seemed that other "phobias" and isms could be bannable offences as well.

In any case the point was that religious faith does not consist in some set of beliefs so much as it does in a feeling. — Janus

I agree, but I contend that that "feeling" is the feeling of certainty about the Christian doctrines. And that this feeling is due to having been born and raised into the religion, ie. having internalized it from an early age, before the physiological ability to think criticially has developed. The effect of this early internalization is then that "feeling", the "mystical experience", the sense of the "noumenous".

It's a feeling, an experience that is impossible to recreate at will for an adult person.
Except perhaps to some extent for adults who are going through an existential crisis and who in the process of their existential quest turn to religion/spirituality.

(The frequent call to "become like little children" is, in effect, a reference to just this, an infantilization of the adult.)

One bit I've been thinking about is this: imagine teaching someone how to pray. You tell someone they can ask God's forgiveness. "How do I do that?" First you must have a contrite heart. "How do I do that?" Open your heart to His grace. "How do I do that?" I've run out of words here, though an experienced pastor may have more. At some point you will have to give up describing the experience of prayer as you might a technique and suggest your pupil try it and see what experience they have. I think this is true as well of, say, woodworking or meditation or rock climbing. A lot can be put into categorical propositions, maybe eventually everything, I don't know, but every learner will have the experience of the teacher's words not making sense right up until they have a particular experience and then everything is clear. "This is what he meant!" — Srap Tasmaner

That's why it's so important to start early in life, so that the person internalizes the right propositions at the right time, so that later on, those propositions appear self-evident to them, they can take them for granted.

This way, the difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians can take some propositions for granted that non-Christians can't.

(Often I see that neither Christians nor non-Christians are aware of this. So Christians believe we have "hardened our hearts" or a "stiff-necked", and non-Christians believe Christians are believing things "without sufficient evidence".)

What happens to them in the next life? — EnPassant

They rejoice in heaven.

The observation here is quite specific: hell is immoral. The simple answer is that assuming god is good, then there is no hell, and various popular forms of christianity and other religions are simply wrong. — Banno

That's like saying that the police and the justice system are immoral, and that if they were good, there would be no arrests, no judicial processes, and no prisons.

Most people are on the conventional level of morality per Kohlberg's theory of moral development:

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Christians tend to be this way as well, except that they believe the true law and authority comes from God.

Christians don't think that God is evil; they don't feel addressed by the type of criticism your OP sets out.

The law is the law and it must be obeyed, or else, "there are consequences".

Again, yes to this and what follows. Belief in hell has implications in terms of explaining the behaviour of the believer. Perhaps there is some potential to understand the cruel behaviour of so many who call themselves christian in understanding the cruelty inherent in their belief. How much of their behaviour can be explained as resulting from fear of damnation?

For my own part, it puzzles me that a religion supposedly founded on love of one's fellows can result in the Australian Christian Lobby, in the insanity of Texas abortion law, and the horrors of Canada's residential schools. Lewis may have identified the common thread. — Banno

All this can be explained with Kohlberg's theory of moral development.

The salient point isn't "people who don't do as God says deserve to burn in hell forever", it's "people who transgress the law should be punished, and we must not question the justness of the law".

The latter is a very common stance, and can be found among the religious and the non-religious alike.

The essence of the doctrine of The Fall is disobedience. And disobedience is its own punishment. — EnPassant

That's like saying that drugs are bad because one disobeyed the order not to take them.
And not perhaps because they are toxic substances that mess up one's body.

But can't God show us how to live wisely so we won't turn our lives into hell? This is what religion is meant to do.

The way religions expect women to readily risk health and life is hell.

But people don't always listen. They want to live by their own lights even if that leads to hell. They will drink even if they risk ending up in the gutter. They will commit crimes even if that risks ending up in jail. God is the light by which we should live and if we turn away from it there is only darkness. Some are determined to go their own way. "My way or no way" - self will. No matter what the danger and no matter how many warnings "I will not serve". So be it.

This is not generally true. A rich and powerful person can kill, rape, and pillage, and it has no bad consequences for them. If, in contrast, a poor person kills, rapes, and pillages, this tends to bring them a lot of trouble.
Rich people can afford drugs that have few negative side effects and they can afford doctors that can fix those side effects. Poor people can't afford that.

He does this after he evokes ED, though. He pretends, and after pretending concludes he was correct from the beginning.
— Ciceronianus

That's because he wrote the Meditations as a series of ready-to-use arguments that Catholics could use to convert other people to Catholicism. He says as much in the preface, it's why the Church allowed the publishing of the book. — baker

Holy Mother Church has so much to answer for, I'm afraid. — Ciceronianus

Not the Church, but philosophers. Why did they ignore Descartes' explanations as to what he wished to achieve with his texts, and instead took him as "one of their own", ie. a secular philosopher seeking the truth?

Whether someone is a good pianist or not (apart from the sheer manual dexterity and fluency is a matter of opinion. I see no reason, and you have not offered any, to think that judgements as to whether someone is enlightened are not akin to aesthetic judgements, that is they are not matters amenable to precise determination, like judging one's knowledge of physics — Janus

From what I've seen, professional musicians believe that musical proficiency is amenable to precise determination.
Similar with the other arts. How else do you think they can write whole tomes of art criticism?

That's a very negative reading of Armstrong's few words on compassion. I've tried a few times to re-read it wearing my cap of cynicism and still can't see what you see in those words. That said, Armstrong may well practice a form of idiot compassion in her life, but this isn't clear from those few sentences. — Tom Storm

Let's see what she says:

Compassion has been advocated by all the great faiths because it has been found to be the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment.

No, it hasn't been advocated as such, certaintly not by "all the great faiths".
Mahayana emphasizes it, but not as "the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment".

It dethrones the ego from the center of our lives and puts others there, breaking down the carapace of selfishness

That's idiot compassion.

And it gives us ecstasy, broadening our perspectives and giving us a larger, enhanced vision.

This describes zoning out.

As a very early Buddhist poem puts it: 'May our loving thoughts fill the whole world; above, below, across — without limit; a boundless goodwill toward the whole world, unrestricted, free of hatred and enmity.'

She should read the whole poem.

We are liberated from personal likes and dislikes that limit our vision, and are able to go beyond ourselves."

New Age talk.


There's a lot more I could say ...

And seeing that we are in agreement, I am sure you will also agree with my analysis, below. — Apollodorus

All I see is that you have way too much time on your hands, and that you are unable on unwilling to engage in honest communication with me.

What am I to Dharmapala or what is Dharmapala to me? Nothing. Or any of the dozen people you've brought up so far. So why bring them up?

Yes, we already know you're well-read. Other virtues we yet have to see from you.

I think Baker enjoys being a contrarian just for the sake of it. I can't think of any other explanation for the absurd and cynical generalizations she comes up with. — Janus

Oh, for crying out loud. I want to know the truth about "spirituality". So far, the most plausible conclusion is that "spirituality" is a form of sublimation, specifically, of sublimating the Darwinian struggle for survival into terms that seem more palatable.

Near as I can tell, DL and Banno think maybe they can, you know, refute Christianity. With an argument. I mean ... — Srap Tasmaner

Like I said earlier:
I think what Lewis is indirectly getting at is the unreflected, unprocessed, unnamed concern that one is living in a dangerous universe and that ultimately, one can't do anything about it.

Many people, religious or not, operate on the assumption that they should be free to live life as they see fit and that other people should not stop them in doing so, much less endanger them. They also operate on the assumption that having a moral code of their own should never be a liability or something that would come at a cost in terms of personal wellbeing and safety.

We can reconstruct that they have these assumptions from the way they respond to challenges to their personal wellbeing and safety.

Maslow.'s criterion of happiness is "self-actualization" "being all you can be". It's akin to Aristotle's eudamonia and arete; not dependent on having a lot of money, material possessions or what others think of you. — Janus

But you can't get to self-actualization unless the previous stages/needs have been met, and meeting those (and the relative ease of meeting those) is a matter of socio-economic status.

What I can't do is just condemn 1/4 of the species (or whatever it is) and leave it there. That's a dangerous mindset. — frank

Why? Could you elaborate?

That could be partly true but I don't think you need to understand a life to understand where it is objectionable. — Tom Storm

The problem is that it's objectionable per your standards (well, and those of your cronies, if you have them). Your standards are based on nothing but your gut feelings.

Someone who believes their standards are based on more than just their own gut feelings can object much more powerfully than you; they can make their objection matter, while you can't.

I don't know what solution you're proposing, — Srap Tasmaner

I don't have a solution, much to my dismay.

and I'm not convinced it's relevant to this discussion.

The OP says:

So what is one to make of the moral character of folk who hold someone who tortures folk unjustly in the highest esteem?

If you made the acquaintance of someone who thought highly of a person who tortured dogs as a hobby, would you befriend them? Ought you associate with them? — Banno

But why should I care? — Srap Tasmaner

Do you feel at peace living with people knowing that you cannot count on even the least common decency from them?

There are 2 kinds of atheists, those who don't believe in God and those who believe there is no God. — SpaceDweller

Sure. But I learned the hard way that to theists, this distinction doesn't matter. To them, lack of belief is the same as disbelief.

Well, if you have no issue with the practical problems that their distrust for you may cause for you (anything from career setbacks to damaging your property to killing your pets), then I don't really know what to say.

Do you not fear their revenge for offending them and their God with your atheism?

But why should I care? — Srap Tasmaner

Because they hold it against you. They may not burn you at the stakes, but they do believe you are a lesser being, less worthy of respect, less worthy of trust. It shows in how they treat you. And this can be bad for you.

As an example, I already described what things looked like for me back at school, and now with my Catholic neighbors.
In a work environment, I know Christians can become less than professional and even act in ways that are illegal on account of you not being one of them. For example, if something goes wrong at work, they could be more likely to blame you and to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

An of course in ordinary interpersonal relationships. Like having Christian relatives who don't eat what you cook because they don't trust you because you're a "heathen", who make promises to you and then casually don't keep them.

They have a fundamental distrust of you that negatively affects the interactions you have with them. It's a tedious way of interacting, and they blame you.

Christians are specifically enjoined not to judge the state of another's soul.

And yet that has never stopped them from doing so.

It seems to bother Lewis that they believe he will be judged, even if not by them. It bothers him that they "support" this judgy asshole in the sky

I think what Lewis is getting at is his/the unreflected, unprocessed, unnamed concern that he is living in a dangerous universe and that ultimately, he can't do anything about it.

Christians don’t believe that you gather information and then make a decision about how you’d like to spend eternity; they believe you either open your heart to His grace or you deliberately shut Him out.
/.../
Christians believe you are “fully informed” right now. What does Lewis mean? By “fully informed” he seems to mean, when he sees the afterlife with his own eyes, and finally knows what’s what. Such knowledge is irrelevant to Christians. This whole paradigm is wrong. No sensible evidence is needed because God is happy to speak to us directly, creator-to-soul, and does so all the time. — Srap Tasmaner

What you're describing holds for those who were born and raised into Christianity, and then less or more stayed in it.

It doesn't hold for prospective adult converts to Christianity.

This is most evident in the Catholic RCIA program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_Christian_Initiation_of_Adults

The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), or Ordo Initiationis Christianae Adultorum, is a process developed by the Catholic Church for its catechumenate for prospective converts to the Catholic faith above the age of infant baptism. Candidates are gradually introduced to aspects of Catholic beliefs and practices. The basic process applies to adults and children who have reached catechetical age. [1]

/.../
For those who wish to join, an RCIA process - it is a period of reflection, prayer, instruction, discernment, and formation. There is no set timetable, and those who join the process are encouraged to go at their own pace and to take as much time as they need.

US bishops have said that the process "should extend for at least one year for formation, instruction, and probation" for those who have had no previous experience with living a Christian life.[5] However, "nothing ... can be settled a priori. The time spent in the catechumenate should be long enough—several years if necessary—for the conversion and faith of the catechumens to become strong."[6] For those who have some experience leading a Christian life, the process should be much shorter, "according to the individual case."[7]

Those who enter the process are expected to begin attending Mass on a Sunday, participate in regular faith formation activities, and to become increasingly involved in the activities of their local parish.

It's entirely different to approach Christianity as an adult as opposed to having been born and raised into it.

Prospective adult converts to Catholicism thus have to learn the Catholic doctrine, study the Bible, and other church literature. They have to approach the matter deliberately, consciously. For them, there is no question of merely "feeling things in your heart". And they are tested for their knowledge of doctrine.

The Catholics who were born and raised generally have relatively little knowledge of doctrine. The local Catholic priest told me that many can't even locate a passage in the Bible, ie. they don't know what the name and the numbers mean.

For such Catholics, it would probably be demeaning, to say the least, to have to pass the RCIA program. They would probably also see no point in it. I think it's because they fail to appreciate what it was to be born and raised into Catholicism.


In other Christian sects, there are also restrictions as to whether a prospective adult convert may get baptized into a certain curch and on what timeline.
So in general, Christianity is a lot more intellectual, deliberate for prospective adult converts than it is for those born and raised into it.

But my lack of understanding of someone’s faith is no objection to it. — Srap Tasmaner

Oh no, religious/spiritual people will give you no such credit. To them, your lack of belief is the same as disbelief. If you're not with them, they say you're against them. They don't care about your reasons.

Typical Christian: Always present yourself as better than others.

So you agree it's not to any concrete end. — frank

We still somehow have to live in this world with the religious/spiritual.
This is why such themes as brought up in the OP matter.
We can't just crawl into a dark corner and die, even though this is probably what the religious/spiritual expect us to do.

But the criticism you make is unfair. Whoever erects an altar does so with the intention of burning at the stake the one who does not bow down to his god. That is not the exclusive heritage of Christianity. — Primperan

Indeed. Threats of damnation are common, so common.

Simply that you appear to hold that what a Christian is, is what people who call themselves Christians say it is, period. — tim wood

Not quite so, I said they should fight it out amongst themselves. This way, only one definition of "Christian" would be left.

And I disagree. What a Christian is, is more-or-less well-defined; and by those established understandings anyone may judge, and sometimes ought to judge, whether such claims are legitimate. By more-or-less I mean well-defined at the core, though allowing for some wiggle-room at the edges.

Dictionary definitions of "Christian" (and yes, there are many such definitions) are so general that they don't help when trying to determine whether Joe Smith is a Christian or not.

And what is of some interest is that your approach does not merely deny knowledge, which of course implies knowledge, but denies the possibility of knowledge.

So you know God, first hand?

In failing to affirm that being a Christian just might have something to do with a Christ,

Really, I "failed to admit" that?

and by supposing the issue joined on who or what he is - or was: his existence/being in question, you adroitly side-step the question and significance of the belief that is the creed of Christians, "We beleve."

Then educate me: What is the significance of this creed?

Although from what I've seen, Christians don't merely believe, no, they know, they are sure. So sure they are willing to kill in the name of that surety.

And in presenting yourself in this way you most resemble a man in a dark corner muttering to himself and fighting with shadows, no one to pay any attention to. And while in Homeric terms this not exactly heroic, it is certainly Odyssian.

Well, at least you compare me to a man.

I think you have a perverse notion of happiness. Anyone who equates socioeconomic status with happiness is a slave to conditions; and that cannot be what happiness consists in. — Janus

Take this up with Maslow and his followers.

A brilliant case of whataboutism you make there.

Shows what Buddhism does to brainwashed (or braindead) Westerners. — Apollodorus

What a truly, deeply, spiritually spiritual comment.

I think compassion is something you either understand or don't. A little like having theory of mind - not sure it can be taught. — Tom Storm

What Armstrong is describing there is closer to what is termed "idiot compassion" (look it up, there are several understandings of the term) or pathological altruism.

People desperate to appear to be "good persons", desperate to appear "compassionate", "not selfish", and such.

They not only fail to practice what they preach; what eventually becomes evident is that they want _other_ people to practice what they themselves preach. It's similar to how morality is so often intended to mean "this is how other people should behave", while the proponent of said morality deems themselves exempt from what he wants others to do.

This is a gross generalization. People are diverse, and it seems absurd to me to suggest that one's spiritual aspirations are necessarily dependent on one's belief in rebirth. — Janus

The scope of the projects one undertakes is connected to the time and resources one believes or hopes are or will be available. You're not going to start building a skyscraper if you only have a 100 dollars, and you're not going to start a project that you estimate could take a 100 years to complete (at least not as long as you see yourself as the person solely or mainly responsible for its completion).

But you're right, people are diverse, and some indeed start on projects for which they don't have the time and the resources to complete ...

You have no warrant for such a generalization since the number of spiritual aspirants you could possibly know well would still be a tiny percentage of the total.

It's not just about statistical analysis of empirical observations, it's also about considering the possible permutations.

On the Buddhist understanding of rebirth, from a purely egotistical viewpoint how could the conditions a future life enjoys or suffers, since it is not me, possibly matter to me?

But for all practical intents and purposes, it is you who gets reborn.

If I have already overcome the egoic orientation to a degree that would allow it to matter, then the belief would be irrelevant, because if all I was concerned with was how my actions might affect the conditions that future beings find themselves in, then I could reasonably be more concerned with my actions and their effects on people in this present everyday life.

By all means, go ahead then.

All we know is that they thought they were doing it; no guarantee that they were correct in thinking that.

I guess we can't burn them at the stakes then, at least not with a clear conscience ...

Yes, but whether or not someone understands the workings of the LHC is itself completely determinable;

Only by people who have the requisite education about how the LHC works. It's safe to say that most people on this planet do not have said requisite education.

I, for example, couldn't tell whether someone understands the workings of the LHC or not. I watched a couple of documentaries about it, but I forgot in the meantime, and highschool physics and chemistry are far too far back for me to remember.

whereas whether or not someone is enlightened is not. If we think of enlightenment as a matter of a certain lived disposition then it would be determinable in terms of their behavior, just as the greatness of a pianist can be manifest in her playing. (and even this much is not precisely determinable, as the understanding of the workings of the LHC would be).

If we take enlightenment to involve the possession of some special, propositional knowledge then it is impossible to determine if someone has it.That's why I say it is like an art, not like a science.

It takes a physicist to know a physicist; it takes a good pianist to know a good pianist; it takes an enlightened person to know an enligthened person. Enlightenment is nothing special, in this sense.

And just here is where you set yourself out to stumble over your own self. The Christian creed is believe. Thus in their wisdom not troubled by who or what. And you, having presupposed what it must be - about a who or a what - obstruct yourself from the possibility of even thinking about it correctly. This in a sense straw-manning your own self. But perhaps it keeps you safe in being manifestly concerned with and battling nothings - what danger could such a person be? — tim wood

Doing advanced math is easier than talking to you.

What on earth are you talking about??

That being a Christian is all about believing, that cognitive-emotive activity the main point of which is a certain feel-good feeling in one's heart?

But perhaps it keeps you safe in being manifestly concerned with and battling nothings - what danger could such a person be?

Which person? The believer?

Do you want to argue that beliefs have no implications for actions?

She makes a consistent case from the role of compassion in attaining enlightenment - not sure this has come up all that often so far. In her autobiography The Spiral Staircase she writes:

Compassion has been advocated by all the great faiths because it has been found to be the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment. It dethrones the ego from the center of our lives and puts others there, breaking down the carapace of selfishness that holds us back from an experience of the sacred. And it gives us ecstasy, broadening our perspectives and giving us a larger, enhanced vision. As a very early Buddhist poem puts it: 'May our loving thoughts fill the whole world; above, below, across — without limit; a boundless goodwill toward the whole world, unrestricted, free of hatred and enmity.' We are liberated from personal likes and dislikes that limit our vision, and are able to go beyond ourselves."
— Karen Armstrong — Tom Storm

How does anyone actually stomach words like these? Or is it that they believe _other_ people should be like that, ie. that _other_ people should have compassion, _other_ people should overcome their egos, etc.?

So you believe those observations indicate a problem but can't explain what the problem(s) are. — praxis

It would be a breach of the TOS to do so.

I haven't seen any explanation as to how their could be determinable inter-subjective confirmation re religious experience, or any other kind of subjective experience and judgement (aesthetics). — Janus

And yet people have been doing it for millennia.

In regard to everyday observations of the world it is easy to check if everybody is observing the same thing.

It's not about whether everybody is observing the same thing.
It's that we can mostly take for granted that everyone has the same capacity for observation as far as everyday things go.

But as far as less everyday things are concerned (such as the workings of the LHC), not everyone has the same capacity for observation.

The salient difference isn't in the things that are being observed, but in the different levels of capacity for observation that different people have.

In order to meaningfully observe the LHC and understand how it works, one has to have the according education. Without such education, the LHC does't make sense (or makes sense only indirectly/vicariously, via the faith that one has that scientists are doing meaningful things and not magic).

It's similar in other fields of human knowledge.

and I think the judgement that secular Buddhism is not "really" Buddhism is an example of the 'no true Scotsman" fallacy. — Janus

If no kind of Buddhism may be classed as "true Buddhism", then there is no true Buddhism.

Are you suggesting that any of them are a problem? If so, why? — praxis

I suppose people banging their heads against walls are also not a problem ... sort of ...

Other than that, modern rebirth skeptics tend to be a drag to be around. They are authoritarian people, to say the least. But you're right, we can always leave them to heaven and to those thorns that in their bosoms lodge to prick and sting them.

A Christian is a more-or-less well defined thing characterized mainly by a belief in Christ, and certain things about him. And no need at all to be one to understand, use, or appreciate the term. — tim wood

So who or what is Christ? The Son of God? One who brought the sword, not peace? One who taught to turn the other cheek, but when the time came for him to do so, he didn't? One who bemoaned his fate on the cross? A magician, able to turn water into wine and such? A necessary intermediate between us and God? An ancient itinerary preacher? An allegory? ???

That is, words either mean something, or they themselves mean nothing at all.

Like I said.

After all, if one person, or two or more persons, claim that to be a Christina is to have and enjoy a croissant in the morning, and nothing more, does that make them Christians?

Oh, those who call themselves Christians should put their money where their mouth is and fight it out amongst themselves. It shouldn't be too hard, since they believe they have the most powerful entity in the universe exclusively on their side.

We outsiders should not allow ourselves to be dragged into this fight any longer.

The culmination of the Way of Righteousness is renunciation. The righteous must renounce all attachment to earthly life in order to attain eternal life, just as Christ laid down his own life in order to conquer Death. — Apollodorus

I guess that's what good Christian women do, they "renounce all attachment to earthly life in order to attain eternal life" when they TOLO for their boyfriends and husbands. I guess that routinely risking health and life with hormonal contraceptives, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions all makes sense and is made worthwhile by the prospect of attaining eternal life.

This shows that Buddhism is not necessarily “superior” to Western systems. When Westerners uncritically turn to Eastern systems, they often do so out of ignorance of their own tradition. And acting out of ignorance does not seem to be a good start. Ignorance can cause us to fall into all kinds of traps.

This is aimed at me, right. Heh. Whatever. I've actually given Christianity at least three involved (and fairly expensive) attempts over the years. My reason for not becoming a Christian is because the prospect of becoming a "good Christian woman" or having to look up to "good Christian women" has been too repugnant.

If that makes me inferior and unspiritual, so be it. I've been accused of inferiority my whole life, you can't suprise me.

You've lost me again, as you're wont to do.

This being the case, perhaps you don't understand Buddhism, after all? — Apollodorus

*sigh*

I don't understand Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, modern Western Buddhism, various local/national varieties of Buddhism. I never claimed that I understood them. I also wish to have nothing to do with them.
It's you who keeps propping them up as "The Buddhism". Suit yourself.

The irony is that there are Mahayanis and Vajrayanis who eat guys like you for breakfast.

The idea that “Dharmic” systems are in any way “superior” in this (or any other) respect seems unfounded to say the least.

The “Dharmic foundation” didn’t work in Gandhi’s case. And if it didn’t work for Gandhi, I don’t see why others would stand a better chance. — Apollodorus

What a brainfart.


Do you know what was Gandhi's starting point? When he was at his father's deathbed, he wanted to have sex, and then had sex with his wife while his father was dying in the other room. This troubled him deeply, and he sought to overcome it.

I think people either are made for spiritual life or they are not. If they aren’t, then no amount of suppression is going to work.

Just the kind of thing a Hindu would say.

The truth of the matter is that for a long time India’s female population has been declining
/.../

You'll have to do a lot better than that to convince me that you actually care about women.