The purpose of the allegations is obviously distraction.

I’m notably no closer to understanding this foundation from which solutions to humanity’s problems might be found.

Don’t you believe that it would be good if I did understand it?

Is it that only an elite class of people are capable of understand it?

Also, you say that solutions might be found from this foundation. Aren’t humanity’s problems important enough to present a foundation that you have more confidence in?

Please consider an alternative foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved. A foundation that is not based on philosophy, religion, politics or science. A foundation based on a fundamental understanding of systems, a definition of a system from first principles. A definition that provides for a classifications of systems that provides a theory of evolution without any tautologies and which solve the demarcation problem. An understanding that clearly shows that the emergence of wealth preceded the evolution of modern Homo sapiens. — Pieter R van Wyk

You claim to offer a foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved and then proceed to describe this foundation in an obfuscating manner.

Snake oil salesmen have always been part and parcel of humanity's problems.

The only real value that religion has is the potential to make the imperfect perfect and imperfect and neither imperfect nor perfect.

Doesn’t this handover more executive power to any administration and is that what you really want?

Damn, I liked her a lot.

You want Orwellian, this poster is being shared on social media by The White House and Homeland security.

Man, the organizers and all their acolytes in the press tried really hard to get people to notice the No Kings protest, and everyone has already forgotten about it. It’s performative and cathartic stunts like these that have rendered protesting largely ineffectual. What a shame. — NOS4A2

You haven't forgotten about it and it seems to have had an impact. :up:

I went to the one in my county and it was by far the biggest protest that I've ever seen at the government center here.

:100:

So do you think a general conclusion is possible for religionists?

You’re fast, I corrected that within a minute.

Just to note a basic division in testimony, non-theistic religions tend to report experiences of emptiness and such, while theistic religions tend to report experiences like the unification with God or whatever. Perhaps a general conclusion is not possible.

Are you at all familiar with Christian theology? Or the Reformation polemics? I'm not sure where your starting point is. — Leontiskos

I have no doubt that it's extremely complicated.

That hope and love are intertwined in faith indicates that its function has to do with human bonding rather than salvation. Why should salvation require faith?

When I think of faith, I don’t necessarily think of God or religion. — Fire Ologist

Neither do I, but clearly religion is the quintessential exemplar and that makes it an excellent subject to focus on.

The point being love. — Fire Ologist

What do you think that implies?

But praxis, “a nuclear family that enforces patriarchy, heteronormativity, or other power dynamics” is, to me, completely off the topic of what is faith. — Fire Ologist

That's off topic but not moms and dads loving their kids?

I would agree that there can be a substantial amount of faith in progressivism.

Incidentally, regarding intentional communities, I was curious about what you thought about Twin Oaks in The Myopia of Liberalism thread, if you have anything to say about it there.

when I think of faith, I think of moms and dad living their kids. — Fire Ologist

Interestingly, I imagine that a contemporary Western religionists tends to envision a nuclear family that enforces patriarchy, heteronormativity, or other power dynamics.

My response: ... — Leontiskos

I'll assume that you disagree.

I would interpret it this way: people are not interested in entire posts of AI-generated content. The only words of your own were, "All AI generated, btw."

AI will be the end of us. — Leontiskos

Such flagrant AI bigotry. What is the world coming to. :fear:

Anyway, my argument is basically that faith is unnecessary for genuine spiritual pursuits; it is religion that demands faith—not for the sake of salvation, but because religion is primarily concerned with forging strong, unified social bonds. Faith is necessary in religion because it is action that proves allegiance. Faith serves to filter out non-committed individuals and strengthen in-group loyalty. Faith in supernatural beliefs, especially when they’re costly or hard to fake, signals deep commitment to the group. And faith-based communities that required costly religious commitments (e.g., dietary restrictions, celibacy) have been show to be robust and long lived.

This is all based on a diverse group of thinkers, namely:

David Émile Durkheim - A French sociologist who formally established the academic discipline of sociology and is commonly cited as one of the principal architects of modern social science, along with both Karl Marx and Max Weber.

William James - An American philosopher and psychologist. The first educator to offer a psychology course in the United States, he is considered to be one of the leading thinkers of the late 19th century, one of the most influential philosophers and is often dubbed the "father of American psychology.

Peter Ludwig Berger - An Austrian-born American sociologist and Protestant theologian. Berger became known for his work in the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of religion, study of modernization, and contributions to sociological theory.

Scott Atran - An American-French cultural anthropologist who is Emeritus Director of Research in Anthropology at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique in Paris, Research Professor at the University of Michigan, and cofounder of ARTIS International and of the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict at Oxford University.

Richard Sosis - A James Barnett Professor of Humanistic Anthropology at the University of Connecticut. His work has focused on the evolution of religion and cooperation, with particular interests in ritual, magic, religious reproductive decision-making, the dynamics of religious systems, and related topics such as meaning systems and the anthropology of sport.

Please forgive the appeal to authority.

So now that AI can no longer be used as an excuse to ignore my point, do you agree with it? This is where I was going before, incidentally, when I repeatedly asked you about the value of faith.

And what do you think of this? Will you be off to join an exclusive religious community - or are you already a member?

Do you think this an admirable way to live? — Banno

I was wondering if the religionists would agree.

How should I interpret silence?

But will you happily judge a faith sufficient to risk one’s life to save another as good? — Fire Ologist

Based on faith? A third woman has died under Texas’ abortion ban as doctors reach for riskier miscarriage treatments

Nobody has brought up William James The Will to Believe. It's rather a modern classic in this context. — Wayfarer

According to James, religious faith can occur when:

The belief is psychologically possible.
The choice cannot be avoided.
The consequences matter deeply.
Evidence is incomplete.
And faith could open the door to real experience of the divine.

Much if not all of that is dependent on or highly influenced by society, which suggests that it’s the social aspect that makes faith necessary.

Agree. Although I would cautiously add, that it may only be known first-person, but it's not a matter of personal prediliction. — Wayfarer

I don’t know, the term ‘samadhi junkie’ suggests that practitioners may develop a strong personal predilection for the experience.

It seems to me that secularists and religionists are equally capable of seeing purpose, meaning, and beauty, as well as order and truth.

incidentally, about this dogma that 'faith is belief without evidence'. The believer will say that the world itself evidences divine providence. There may not be evidence in the sense of double-blind experimental data across sample populations of X thousand persons. But the testimony of sages, the proper interpretation of religious texts, and the varieties of religious experience all constitute evidence, although of course all of that may equally be disregarded. The will not to believe is just as strong as the will to believe. — Wayfarer

I would say that the world itself evidences the Buddhist concept of emptiness, and that the so-called 'realization of emptiness' is a deeply personal experience—one that is profoundly difficult to convey to others. Not sure where divine providence may play a role though.

Why do they choose to suffer in that way? And if it's a choice, can't they simply choose not to suffer when they get bored with it?

- Let's say you have a book that contains information on an ancient people. It contains a list of rulers dating back 1000 years. We can confirm the list dating back 500 years, but the evidence starts to become less reliable after that. Does the record in the book count for anything, or would we consider the claims in the books to be baseless beyond 500 years? — BitconnectCarlos

There’s a variety of methods for dating ancient documents and they’re reported to be quite accurate. Personally I would consider the content of the document a one piece of evidence.

-Let's say you were up with Moses on Mount Sinai. What would need to transpire for you to become a believer? — BitconnectCarlos

It’s said that only Moses was allowed on the mountain so just being there with him would be unconvincing.

People can become stuck in a hellish frame of mind, but it's not punishment. It's a self imposed prison. — frank

I doubt people choose to imprison themselves in a hellish frame of mind.

Divine judgment implies a conscious, willful decision by a deity. Perhaps you fear that Buddhism is wrong and theistic religions are true?

I do fear divine judgement. Not so much the others. — Wayfarer

As a Buddhist? That's cause & effect and not divine judgement, isn't it?

The deeper dynamic of that is that secular philosophy is antagostic to the possibility of the transcendent because it is fearful that it might be real after all (compare Thomas Nagel's 'fear of religion'). Better to leave the whole question sealed. — Wayfarer

A lot of if is designed to inspire fear, I'm afraid.

On the flip side, believers have a lot to fear as well, such as:

• Fear of Doubt and Unbelief
• Fear of Divine Judgment
• Fear of the "Other" or the Secular World
• Fear of Nihilism
• Fear of Social or Familial Consequences

Wait, what? I thought tariffs were paid by abusive countries. :joke:

"All that I have written seems like straw"
— St. Thomas Aquinas

In this light I don’t understand your and Fire’s current complaints about irrationality, or rather, non-rationality. Many spiritual seekers go to great pains to transcend the rational. Does the good and the true converge in rationality?

I see. That was an impulsive comment and I regret making it. Your post caught me off guard—in a funny way—and the wine didn’t help. Sorry. :pray:

Okay, great. My point was that even the most tolerant do not tolerate everything. When I say that Christianity values unity in plurality, I am not saying that Christian tolerance is without limit. — Leontiskos

Still missing the point but nevermind if you don’t want to speak more directly or whatever.

A good thread for you: The Myopia of Liberalism — Leontiskos

Unity in the plurality of purposes?

What I meant was that religious influence is used for a variety of purpose, many of which are good of course, but many are self-serving or worse. I think it should be used for what it claims to offer, and nothing besides. Why waste time and effort on anything besides salvation if salvation is worthwhile?

Anyway, I’ve read most of the thread you’ve recommended and skimmed the rest of it. I’ve also read Why Liberalism Failed, as I mentioned. I’m still curious why it’s good for me.

Ah, got it — you're asking about the computational or energy cost of extra words like “please” when talking to me, not socially.

The short answer: it's negligible.

To put it in perspective:

• Modern language models like me process words in chunks called tokens. “Please” is just one token.
• Processing a single extra token takes a tiny fraction of a second and a tiny fraction of energy, typically on the order of microjoules to millijoules depending on the hardware.
• The biggest energy use comes from generating the response itself, not minor variations in input.

So, whether you say:

• “Tell me a joke.”
• or “Please tell me a joke.”

…makes almost no difference in energy use.

If you’re interested in total energy use, though — data centers running AI models do consume a lot of energy overall, but removing polite words isn’t going to meaningfully reduce that. The biggest savings would come from reducing unnecessary requests, optimizing model efficiency, or using smaller models when possible.

I've always worn sandals a lot and the last pair I got have a bottle opener on the bottom. I didn't want it, it just happened to be on the cheap pair I chose. Funny thing is that it's come in handy on occasion but is kind of gross to use.

I know of no secular intentional communities outside the history of rapidly collapsing communes or ethnic colonies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

How about something like Twin Oaks? Not a cult!

Blog post evaluating the successes and failures of Twin Oaks.

Yeah, but did you care he died, like were you at all invested in him as a character, or was it just pretty prose? — Hanover

Not really, no. I like the way Tom describes his experience, that the story's enchantment lies in how it's told.