Hey @Noble Dust Is Dawkins my Ultimate Authority?

That's just his genes talking. Rumor has it they tend to be selfish.

Some dogs are more playful than others.

All dogs are playful?

Then someone figures out a new farming technique that further boosts productivity, and humans are able to store knowledge and teach future generations about this improved technique. It's an inevitable consequence of our ability to learn and teach. — Judaka

I’m in the middle of a book which theorizes that hunter gatherer’s had to be forced into agriculture because it was a much less desirable lifestyle. People were basically forced because armies were needed. For the masses, it’s only been relatively recently that it’s all been worth it. But now the masses feel, or rather complain about, the negative effects of calorie rich foods and foods they’re not well adapted to such as grains, legumes, and nightshades. Plus all the other toxins we’re exposed to. Most Americans are overweight and on some kind of medication. Not to mention our general sense of well-being.

That’s progress?

Progress as a general tendency is an abstraction, and all abstractions cloud our perception of real things. That's my angle, vague as it might be. — Jamal

Generally, my idea of progress would be degrowth/sustainability and a shift in values towards well-being over materialism. Not a popular view, even with myself if I’m honest.

To deal with this misunderstanding once and for all, my point is not that Pinker outright claims inevitable betterment over time, but rather that his thinking, and the idea of progress that underlies it and is common in our culture, tends towards that or depends on it unknowingly. — Jamal

I guess that I can only speak for myself but I’m not optimistic. Apparently, not even my ultimate authority (Pinker?) can convince me to believe in inevitable betterment over time.

You forgot to mention that the purpose, meaning, and value within it are shared.
— praxis

No I didn't, I mentioned that. — Noble Dust

The point that I was trying to make is that a religious community and traditionalism in general is constraining, both in openness to new ideas and in moral development. That’s not to say that progressivism is better than conservatism, it’s just pointing out the difference. An independent can defy a group and the leader of a group if what they’re doing is judged to be immoral.

I don't know what your ultimate authority is. My guess is if you feel that you don't have one, you're just not aware of what it is.

Well, maybe you can help me figure out who my ultimate authority is. I may get a clue if you would share who your ultimate authority is.

Just read what I've written with an open mind, applying the principle of charity, and resist the temptation to be pedantic or to leap to the defence of a thinker you admire, just because I appear to be attacking him. — Jamal

I don’t particularly admire Pinker and wasn’t jumping to his defense. I just don’t remember his argument for progress being elevated to capital P Progress or claiming inevitable betterment over time.

Ad homs can appeal to good character as well as bad.

In any event, you seem to be endorsing bias against religion.

In the memories of many readers—and in the experience of those in less fortunate parts of the world—war, scarcity, disease, ignorance, and lethal menace are a natural part of existence. We know that countries can slide back into these primitive conditions, and so we ignore the achievements of the Enlightenment at our peril. — Steven Pinker

This isn’t claiming “inevitable betterment over time”. If you’ve somehow shown that it is making that claim in other posts I’ve missed it.

An ad hominem is a kind of explanation for the inconsistency I guess.

In the OP? I don’t see the claim.

I agree that a monk may be susceptible to recruitment into military service due to the conditions that you mention. Fundamentally though, a monk is dedicated to renunciation.

the gap between progress and Progress (between real advances and the myth of inevitable betterment over time). — Jamal

I don’t remember, does Pinker claim inevitable betterment over time? I seem to recall warnings about anti-enlightenment (I think that’s the term he uses) movements, as I mentioned earlier.

In what way is that a biased statement? — Vera Mont

My assessment is primarily based on his explanation that the statement is “based largely upon personal experience” and the assumption that that experience was negative in terms of harmfulness.

The disciplines of monasticism and militarism are very similar in both psychology and practice. — Vera Mont

:chin: I fail to see the similarity between monk and soldier.

I generally consider you one of the reasoned voices on this type of subject. — T Clark

Curious that I find that surprising. Maybe it’s because he stated that “religions are experts in causing harm” and historically you seem to look down on that sort of biased statement towards religion.

I'm not going to go back and try to figure out what depth you're disappointed with. If you have anything specific in mind let me know, or not.

I'm perfectly willing to go into more depth but I can't tell exactly where you want to go.

A Muslim has faith in their religious authorities
— praxis

This is probably kind of close to blasphemy from a Muslim point of view. — Jamal

I'd be surprised if it weren't.

What they have faith in is the entire narrative of their belief system, with all it's wrinkles and curiosities, in the same way you have faith in whatever belief system you hold. — Noble Dust

All the wrinkles and curiosities of the Muslim narrative are centered around an authority figure, an ultimate authority, no less. If there's an ultimate authority in my worldview who or what is it? I suppose you might say something like science.

But you are bound by faith in whatever you believe in. Whether that constitutes "thinking for yourself" is open to debate at best, and whether "thinking for yourself" liberates you from being "constrained in moral development" (what does that mean?) is also up for debate. What exactly do you mean by thinking for yourself? — Noble Dust

I think that everyone is bound, at least to some extent, by their conditioning and ideologies and that this is inescapable. Maybe that's all that you're trying to say?

As for religion, it's as though you're only willing to acknowledge the positive aspects, to have your cake and eat it too, as the saying goes. You say that it gives the lives of believers a sense of purpose, meaning, and value. You forgot to mention that the purpose, meaning, and value within it are shared. Indeed, being part of something greater than yourself is part of why it can be so meaningful. The downside is obviously a loss of autonomy. For an example I will go back to the dark ages, back when religious pluralism was in full bloom. :snicker:

Proclamation of the First Crusade (1095)

The Turks, a race of Persians, who have penetrated within the boundaries of Romania even to the Mediterranean to that point which they call the Arm of the Saint George, in occupying more and more of the lands of the Christians, have overcome them, have overthrown churches, and have laid waste God's kingdom. If you permit this supinely for very long, God's faithful ones will be still further subjected....

I speak to those present, I send word to those not here; moreover, Christ commands it. Remission of sins will be granted for those going thither, if they end a shackled life either on land or in crossing the sea, or in struggling against the heathen. I, being vested with that gift from God, grant to those who go.

O what a shame, if a people, so despised, degenerate, and enslaved by demons would thus overcome a people endowed with the trust of almighty God, and shining in the name of Christ! O how many evils will be imputed to you by the Lord Himself, if you do no help those who, like you, profess Christianity!

Let those who are accustomed to wage private wars wastefully even against Believers, go forth against the Infidels in a battle worthy to be undertaken now and to be finished in victory. Now, let those, who until recently existed as plunderers, be soldiers in Christ; now, let those, who formerly contended against brothers and relations, rightly fight barbarians; now, let those, who recently were hired for a few pieces of silver, win their eternal reward. — Pope Urban II

Christ commands it, he informs. Many evils will be imputed to those who don't help by the Lord Himself, he warns. Eternal rewards will be given to those who participate, he promises.

That's a bit much, isn't it? Far fewer people living today would be persuaded by such authority because we see things differently.

If my ultimate authority is science or whatever, what happens if I were to defy its decrees? Would I be declared a heretic and ostracized by the scientific community and lose the sense of purpose, meaning, and value that I share with them? :fear:

I think the way you describe social and cultural institutions and practices is shallow. — T Clark

I don’t think much depth is needed to point out progress, at least where religion is concerned.

The separation of church and state for instance. Good progress, yes?

Religion is, in a sense, simply an organized narrative around which groups of people orient their lives, beliefs and values. You are no different than a muslim in this way. That's why I think the concept of "usefulness" in regards to "religion" (you're actually using it in regards to a set of beliefs) is misleading. Religion is not the opiate of the masses; rather, belief is what keeps people going, religious or secular. — Noble Dust

A Muslim has faith in their religious authorities.

I suppose that you could say that I have tentative faith in people and things but nothing like religious faith. You said it yourself that religious faith isn’t needed to orient life, beliefs and values.

Like many people today I’m not bound by faith in religious authority and can think for myself and not be constrained in moral development. I would not willingly go on jihad or crusade, speaking of the Middle Ages and progress, merely because a religious leader constructed some narrative that rationalized it.

I think "useful" is the wrong way to think about it. — Noble Dust

It's the wrong way for believers or followers to think about it, certainly, because if they do it will tend to be less useful. When people realize that they're being manipulated by a false narrative they tend to be less cooperative with those that try to use it.

Otherwise, there's value in tradition, sure, though things do change and not changing with circumstances can be maladaptive and harmful.

People are brought together by communally held beliefs (communism, for instance) because they give life meaning, from which value is derived. This isn't unique to religion.

Which only underscores the superfluousness of religion.

Religion has always been handy for uniting people with common values and purpose in mass. That capacity is particularly useful in war. It was useful during the middle ages and the Crusades, for instance. I highly doubt the Pope could start a similar crusade today. That's progress, baby.

As a philosopher how do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory notions of being given existence but only for a limited time? Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it? — invicta

Not at all, because in a sense we are always dying or never existed, and in the same way even God is always dying or has never existed. Everything changes, and if it doesn’t change then it is not alive. If God doesn’t change then Nietzsche was right about him.

Not sure how it covers the right to be free while infected with a, shall we say concerning, virus.

One could argue that religious pluralism has de-progressed, but ironically this isn't even something the progress narrative generally considers, because it begins with the hubristic assumption that religion itself is in the same camp as war, famine, etc; something to be cast off and left behind. — Noble Dust

If the enlightenment freed people from the constraints of religion then wouldn’t they also have the capacity to think independently about the progress narrative (pseudo religion)?

Agree? — Art48

Yes and no. Yes that the existence of atheists can be used to strengthen religious identity by highlighting their otherness, but otherness can just as easily be applied to hieratics (those who question the Good Word).

This fits with what I was saying recently about meritocracy. Whatever its… merits (and I question those), the idea functions as ideology to obscure existing inequality or even to justify it by implying you got to the top on merit, and I’m still poor because I’m lazy and talentless (though the latter is less often stated openly). — Jamal

It can be seen as progressive in the sense that as civilization developed at some point (I think China was first) power was given based on merit rather than kinship, which may have resulted power exercised more competently.

It’s been years since I read the book but the takeaway that lingers is that, because of headline news and our habit of focusing on the negative, I may not have realized progress was occurring, and to see an argument that it is occurring is hopeful and perhaps motivating. Also motivating is the threat of anti-enlightenment movements.

It isn’t me who is denying you your fundamental right to defend yourself. — NOS4A2

No, it’s the govament. Speaking of which, they just forced Americans to be prisoners in their own homes for over a year, wear masks etc, and all the 393 million guns in the nation did nothing to stop it. Australia’s Covid response was similar in strictness. What needs to happen before the guns come out? Death camps?

Are you an Auster fan too?

I’ve exhausted my courtesy allotment, in other words. Fine, be that way. :lol:

I discovered in the 20s that they were much more intellectually sophisticated than I had given them credit for. — T Clark

Perhaps prohibition resulted in clearer heads.

I don’t know how to answer that because the problems or grievances you mention won’t be solved any time soon. In fact I think they’re likely to only deepen. I can’t decipher what you’re trying to say about wokeness. That it only distracts or leads to complacency? Why not just say what you mean?

Exactly. And he might well gain a fair bit of support from it. Because the white working class do have a legitimate grievance if they're referred to as 'privileged' by folk with significantly more opportunity than they could even dream of. — Isaac

I’m no political analyst but one of DeSantis’ tactics seems to be redefining ‘elite’ to mean anyone, anyone with a pulse, who merely upholds the tyrannical woke progressive pseudo religious ideology in some way.

For the rest, I don’t see how either of your choices could prevent a DeSantis from gaining more power, if I’m honest. Trump and DeSantis don’t appeal to facts or reason. For politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who just want power and wealth it’s not in their interests to actually tackle the problems of the people.

When I look up “open borders” just now to reassure myself that I have a clue to its current meaning the results are what I assumed, unrestricted access, like going from one state to another. I don’t think that any American politicians support that level of access, but I could be wrong. Politics in America grow increasingly nutty by the day.

BUT contrarily I am opposed to open borders. — BC

I think you missed the point. I seriously doubt you believe someone like Trump when they say that the border is currently open and this fear inspires you to act (vote or donate) in a particular way.

If you say so.

I suspect that people with a high level of personal confidence, self-efficacy, agency, and so on are less likely to seek social shelter in conservative groups. They are more likely to be comfortable with change and risk taking. Some people seem risk-averse early in life, and some are more likely to seek risk. — BC

Your suspicions don't entirely correspond with my experience. Though I'm on the independent side I've always lacked self-confidence and as much as I'd like to shelter in conservative circles there are aspects of it that I can't abide due to the aforementioned independent nature. Also, I'm risk-averse. I don't like to gamble, for instance, and in sports I've always erred on the side of caution.

I very much like new experiences though, pleasant ones of course, and I think that I'm open-minded, so I think it has more to do with openness than riskiness. I think this is why, for example, the threat of 'open borders' is so motivating for conservatives. So much disinformation surrounds the issue that it's hard to determine what a sensible policy is anymore.

It was just a matter of time before the Great Chain was unleashed. Should we want to be chained up?