Suppose that if a dog cannot tell the difference between a cat and tiger, and when he saw a tiger, if the dog chased the tiger barking thinking it was a cat, then he would be eaten fast by the tiger, and no longer exist. But the matter of fact is that, even a dog would perceive the tiger, and know the imminent danger, and run away as fast as he could hiding for his own safety.

For human beings, if you drive a car when you are not perceiving the road ahead of you, believing that it exists even if you are not perceiving it, and keep on racing away into a river, then that would be a disaster. When you don't perceive the road ahead of you, you simply say to yourself, you no longer have reason to believe there is a road ahead of you, and get out of the car, and take a taxi home. Wouldn't it be a more rational thing to do? — Corvus

So you are interested in questions about perception and reality in case the road or a building vanishes? Or in case animals in the jungle suddenly fail to recognise each other and get eaten? How would you demonstrate that something like this has ever happened or will happen? I think that question might be more significant than whether reality is 'really real'.

There are endless things we can't be certain about, but, as I said, I wonder what is the point of speculating? How do we know that the world wasn't created 10 minutes ago, with all of us holding implanted memories? How do we know we're not living in a simulation? Is solipsism true? You can think your way in any direction, tie yourself in knots of doubt and speculation. Why do it though, when that old quotidian seems to just keep rolling along?

There must be a dozens of threads on similar questions about realism and perception. Setting aside the plausibility of the claim. The salient question I have on this is, why does it matter? If the world is only here when you are getting on with things and perceiving it, isn't this the important part? Like idealism, the notion is of no practical consequence as we go about our lives.

So if I am unconscious, the world disappears? Does this mean that if I am unconscious and my girlfriend is conscious, it still exists? Or is the world she sees a different world to the one I see?

Or is it only the case that the world vanishes if no one at all is looking?

Or is this arguing from solipsism?

I would like to see the logical and epistemic arguments laid out for the reason for believing in the existence of the world. — Corvus

If you are typing this and asking others for opinions, aren't you committed to the existence of the world?

Rocky and rolly.

It's not who said it. It's where the seed fell. The question is: what kind of soil are you? — frank

I'm the kind of soil that likes to know if the seeds are for plants worth growing.

It's from Psalms - Psalm 37:11 (NIV) states:

"But the meek will inherit the land
and enjoy peace and prosperity."

I imagine the literature appropriated and adapted this, like it did with many other items.

It wasn't Jesus. It was some other guy named Jesus. — frank

It wasn't Jesus. It may have been no guy at all. Or guys. Or someone called Frankus.

:up:

I think myths are generally appropriations and syncretism is how many religions develop.

I have a soft spot for progressive Christianity but from my reading there's no reason to believe that any of the New Testament stories actually took place. The Gospels are anonymous copies of translations of copies of translations, produced decades after the events described. We have no independent evidence of a Jesus, although no doubt the region 2000 years ago was swarming with self-styled messiahs and sons of god. As are many places today. There may well have been a figure or two who inspired the legends. It doesn't much matter.

..looks to be an idea borrowed from Islam, with the Prophets "preannouncing the message of" Mohamed. — Banno

Yep. Christianity is an intriguing myth made up of many appropriations. From the virgin birth story (borrowed from Ancient Egypt, Ra - the son of a virgin) to turning water into wine (a familiar trick of the Greek god Dionysus.) Adonis, like Jesus, was eaten in the form of bread. Osiris, like Jesus, was called the 'good shepherd'. And on it goes. I guess for some Christians, one way to deal with the discomfort this lack of authenticity creates (and to manage the fact that other spiritual traditions may hold wisdom), is to find a way to argue that those other traditions are prefiguring Christianity in some way.

It's not unlike the approach of presuppositionalist Christians who take on humanists by arguing that reason can't disprove god since the very conditions of reason require a foundation for logic and intelligibility - therefore Mr God.

for an Aussie this is not always easy to follow.

Thanks.

How likely do you think it is that Newsom could get the nomination? Would this work for the Dems? Commentators seem to think there is no chance it will happen.

My parents and family were caught up with the Nazi terror in Europe. There's little doubt that community and shared values were strong appeals of the movement and it worked for certain community members for some years. Which is why I referenced the 1930's. I'll leave interpretations of the Third Reich's sustainability or its viability outside of a war economy to the historians. My comparison wasn't intended as a totalizing account of Hitler and co. :wink:

Having grown up in the Christian tradition and having spend time with those who found their way out of religion, by far the most common concern people have on leaving the church is losing their community. Losing god seems less of a problem. Perhaps it is because their life, relationships and friendships, along with many of their leisure and even work activities are predicated on belonging to a community of certainty and shared values. Once this goes, along with the presuppositions you have in common with those around you, you may end up disorientated, lost. For a time, anyway.

Yes and no. All groups help promote common metrics of well being. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's all I was saying. Wellbeing is generally predicated on shared values and a supportive community. Naturally if you throw in a belief in an afterlife and a shared moral system, it's hard to see how that wouldn't promote additional cooperative contentment amongst true believers. Not so good for dissenters or certain identities and subcultures (if we are in Saudi Arabia or parts of the Bible Belt or Africa, for instance) and of course it says nothing about the truth of those beliefs. As an atheist I suspect that the world would be a better place if everyone was a Muslim like Irshad Manji or a Christian like Nadia Bolz-Weber. But again this doesn't attest to the truth of their beliefs. And they are often seen as heretical within their own faith traditions.

Critics of Trump & co. often become exactly like those they criticise. Don't you see the danger in that? — baker

I don't see how that cliche applies to this example. And what does this have to do with our discussion?

I'm actually expecting you to empathise with the Trumpistas. — baker

You have no knowledge of what I think of people who vote for Trump. For one thing I don't call them 'Trumpistas' since I don't think of them as a monolithic body, but rather a diverse group of people.

I think you here as a critic of Trump (as well as many others critics of Trump) are being too simplistic in interpreting the words, deeds, and intentions of the Trumpistas. And being so simplistic about them doesn't help in changing them of winning against them. — baker

Sorry are we talking about Trump or people who vote for Turmp. We seem to be swerving all over the road. Where have I interpreted deeds and intentions of Trump voters? Where is this even coming from?

That's what the bad faith in which you tend to approach communication makes you see. — baker

Nice.

It is, because it means you're not open to discussion of this topic. And it's predictable that it probably won't go well. — baker

What a sneering and insinuating response. Thanks. How is my putative favourable judgment of people who leave a faith (which you have not demonstrated) connected to the argument about who is a real member of that faith?

How can someone believe in God in any intelligible manner unless they have at least some knowledge of theistic religious doctrine??
If they don't have such knowledge, but still claim to "believe in God", then such a "belief in God" is likely wishful thinking, idiosyncratic. It's no surprise then if such a person "leaves the religion". — baker

People also belong to religions to be part of a community and because they are socialised in the aesthetics and values of that religion. Of course they have 'some' knowledge, but the question remains - where does 'some' knowledge become sufficient for you to decide they are true Christians or true Muslims since this seems to be your concern?

I repeat my question - How do we determine if someone is a real Christian or not?
It's mostly irrelevant, until someone claims to be a representative of a religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.

It's like with any other claim of proficiency in something. If, for example, someone claims to "speak French", and then it turns out that they know only a few phrases in French, it's only natural to be skeptical about whatever claims they make about French. — baker

It's doubtful you can compare the claims of someone who speaks a language (which is an empirical claim) with someone who is a member of a religion (which might include much that is non-verbal, experiential, intuitive).

Really, Tom, really, this is what you see in my comment? — baker

What I see is someone who indulges in regular put downs of others, who is persistently cynical about people's motivations, then somewhat hypocritically likes to take a critical stance towards members for their perceived adverse perspectives.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. — baker

Why the Nietzsche? The only person I seem to be bickering with is you. Are you the monster? Can you really be concerned I will become as cynical as you?

Your point was an attempt to shoehorn me into a category. I am not suggesting all Trump voters are stupid (they might be, but I don't know that and I doubt it to be the case), I was commenting on the specific interviews. The connection between having a strong position yet lacking any substantive knowledge about that position, which is what this thread has been exploring.

Now, if you want to construct an entirely seperate, speculative narrative about behind the scenes at media interviews and suggest that in some way journalism misrepresented the Trump people, I'm not interested, since you cannot demonstrate this to be the case and you seem to be asserting it entirely for rhetorical effect.

Pragmatism?

:up:

The hard problem of subjective consciousness — Joshs

Thanks. I hadn't heard it put quite like that.

How many stiff rigid robots have you communicated with?
What examples of advanced AI systems have you interacted with?
I absolutely agree with Tom Storm here. Have you ever tried to act as if you were emotionless? — universeness

Exactly. :up:

Most also believe in a dualism between neutral physical stuff and subjective valuation. — Joshs

What are you thinking of here?

You clearly have a favorable bias for those who "leave religion". — baker

If true, is that relevant?

The focus is on people who claim to have been (devoted) members of some religion (which they specifically name), who named themselves with the name for the members of said religion, who say that they have "left" said religion, and who exhibit a poor knowledge of said religion's doctrine. — baker

Are you saying that people are only real Christians or Muslims if they have a extensive knowledge of the religion's doctrine? I would think then that only a tiny percentage of believers qualify as 'real'.

If a person says they have "left Christianity", but it turns out they have a poor knowledge of Christianity, then what has such a person actually left? Half-baked ideas, misremembered slogans, false equivocations, hasty generalizations, superficial socializing, ... and not necessarily "Christianity". — baker

Then they have left a half-baked version of Christianity. So what? We are not the purity police. There are believers who hold better and worse, theorized and untheorized versions of any belief system.

Generally people leave religions because they don't believe in god. Knowledge of the religion may not be a factor.

Will you also argue, by extension, that one can't be a true atheist unless one has extensively studied the arguments for and against god? Can one believe in democracy unless someone has studied the history of democracy and has a working knowledge of political science and alternative governments?

I repeat my question - How do we determine if someone is a real Christian or not?

To embrace the bolded explanation would seem to require discounting such narratives in place of a sort of psychoanalytical explanation about what is really going on. Aside from not being a fan of such explanations, it also seems sort of condescending. It's the atheistic equivalent of the theists' explanation that: "people who don't believe in God do so because they are unable overcome their own ego's demand that they be in control and the standard of their own goodness." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I can't help it if you think it is condescending. It's not how I intend it since it goes both ways - the atheist and the theist are equals in preference land. Perhaps the use of the term 'magic man' made it feel more polemical. I guess I could have just said god/creator/ground of being.

And as I have said a few times - this is not intended as a totalizing account of all people's beliefs, it's an intuition I hold. And I'm learning more about my views as I write here.

It's the atheistic equivalent of the theists' explanation that: "people who don't believe in God do so because they are unable overcome their own ego's demand that they be in control and the standard of their own goodness." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think it is an equivalent to my point. That said - I don't hate this argument against atheism. I would certainly explore it with a theist if it was offered up. There are many reasons why people are theists and atheists - even if I think preferences and sense making are formative factors. This is all speculative so where's the harm?

Words mean things. If you're using them, then, presumably, you mean something by them. — baker

That's too abstract. Stick to the actual point. How do you determine who is a real Christian, exactly?

Forget Charles Lutwidge Dodgson :wink: You may wish to limit other people's beliefs systems based on stringent or absolutist definitions of a particular religion, but I don't think you and I get to decide who is a real Muslim or a real Christian.

Trump's supporters or not, they are still people. Yet the way you speak about them is dehumanizing.[/quote]

Spare me the holier-than-thou bullshit, Baker.

And you take their statements at face value??
Or are you just playing games? — baker

Are you just playing games or are you really as abrasive as your response seems?

I think the people they interviewed were clueless and just following a demagogue who had the right enemies - intellectuals, liberals, do gooders, Marxists, unAmericans, politicians - the usual shit.

Have you considered the possibility that they actually want what they are supporting and voting for? — baker

Yes. And on the evidence of their bereft replies, they want to support hatred and conspiracy.

Underneath that - failures of American education, industry and employment opportunities and the abandonment of the working class by the Democrats - sure. All that is also true and I named that earlier.

In the drug counselling world there are many who disagree with AA and its model. They don’t care for the old term alcoholism and generally this term is not used in clinical settings unless they are AA run. SMART Recovery was set up as an alternative to AA and from what I have seen has better results. The disease model of addiction is gradually fading. People focus more on what triggers them to use alcohol or to gamble. Addiction need not involve substances. Plenty of material on line about all this.

I always imagined that people have two sets of books in life. There’s what they claim and what they really do. What was Simon Blackburn’s quote - everyone is a realist when they walk out the door.

But I think I life well lived ofc is not as simple as doing as much as you can in the time you have. — Benj96

Agree.

At the end of the day, age aside, one's own reflections on their life as it draws to a close is the most important measure, as it is the only one that matters for them. Subjective. We merely need to avoid living in a state of regret whatever we do, or don't. — Benj96

Agree.

The common atheist position is far more reasonable than this. The claim is generally that the teachings of religions are unlikely to be true (i.e., that they are likely false). And it makes perfect sense to advocate that things that are likely to be false are not taught to students.

The common agnostic position makes more sense too. It is that it is impossible to determine the truth or falsity of key religious beliefs, in which case it wouldn't make any sense to teach them as if they were true. Or we could say that, if side Y wants to teach X, we can allow that Y does not have good evidence to support X, and thus that we shouldn't teach it, without having to suppose that X is false. But this is generally the position labeled "agnostic," which the above definition folds into the lable "atheist." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I generally ignore the polemicists like Dawkins who is a type of fundamentalist.

Like many atheists, I generally call myself an agnostic atheist. This common description in freethinking circles says, essentially: 'I don't know if there is a god or not, but I lack belief in one. Atheism and agnosticism are doing different things. Agnosticism goes to knowledge, atheism goes to belief.

I don't think it is reasonable to say you know there is no god since this is a positive claim one can't demonstrate. I would prefer to go with the inferences and argue that there is no sufficient reason to accept the claim.

I have heard most of the theistic arguments - from Aquinas five ways, to the personal experiences of my local Evangelical. I spent many of my younger years in circles with theosophists and people from various religions and groups dedicated to higher awareness. I've read many books about god, from Paul Tillich to David Bentlay Hart. I have encountered nothing that makes me think there are good reasons to accept the claim.

Beliefs are in some ways quite distinct from desires — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not arguing form desire, I'm arguing for preference. Possibly aesthetic preference. For some people the world makes more sense and is more beautiful if they have magic man in it. For others, there is no need for this. Any arguments tend to come later, when one is exploring or experimenting with one's preferences. I linked theism to sexual preference because I think it compares somewhat - we can't help who we are attracted to. This functions at a deeper level than a belief. I don't need to 'believe' I am attracted to certain people - I am just wired this way - it's how I navigate the world. Ditto my preference for theism. Anyway, I don't need you to agree with me, so we can move on. Thanks for the chat. :wink:

But I do deny what you are saying about politics I think american politics is like that but everywhere else politics is a boring Rational affair. — Massimo

Not at all. I'm not American. Think of politics and the increasing hysterical Right in England, Poland, Turkey, Hungary, Germany... And Australia just failed to grant constitutional recognition for its First Nations people based on a right wing emotional appeal to white bigotry and fear.

I don't deny that Electronic entertainment is being used as escapism — Massimo

Romantic escapism. Everything is furiously overstated and stylised.

Also what do you mean when you say the cult of the body beautiful — Massimo

The overwhelming preoccupation culture has had with gym bodies, weight loss, supermodels, plastic surgery, botox, food fetishes - we are obsessed with romantic and idealised views of how people are meant to look. Then there's the ridiculous pouting and choreographed bombast of Instagram where people romanticise their lives, possessions and choices by posing, etc, all designed to create heightened feelings of emotionality in others - envy, admiration, acclaim, desire, jealousy, etc.

And I disagree about this being an age of Romanticism I think this is still an era of Anti Emotions in no part thanks to Electronics and other dehumanizing machine's. — Massimo

Really? Think about how much of our technology is used to show off fairy-tale lifestyles, dream vacations, musical reveries and the cult of the body beautiful. The aesthetics of Marvel movies are pure romanticism and soft-core Fascism. The popular culture of the present era is drenched in emotionality - from ubiquitous reality TV to histrionic pop music and self-absorbed Instagram and TikTok. Politics is descending into Fascism all around the world, appelas to a romsold to voters on the strength of extravagant emotional appeals, with reason nowhere to be found. What is the great preoccupation our current age - apart from hysterical visions of doom and paranoia? It's probably the cute cat video. :wink:

There are those who try to live like robots without Emotions — Massimo

I'm not sure I have met someone like that before. Who are you thinking of? How do you know what others are feeling if you are only watching from the outside?

But still I would love to hear the criticisms of emotionalism even though I probably already know what they are. I think that acting on Emotions is what emotionalism is. — Massimo

I would have thought that most people make choices based on their emotions. I also would have thought that a focus on emotion is a hallmark of our current era. And even those who privilege reason are likely to do so because reason appeals emotionally.

There was a period called Romanticism (18th and 19th century) which privileged emotion over reason - amongst other things. I often think we are living in a new era of romanticism. Certainly in the West.

How useful this is depends upon what emotions you give in to and what you do about them. Personally I avoid people who find it hard to regulate their emotion, they are often histrionic and narcissistic, as if their experience is the only one which matters.

I think you have missed that to conclude that things can't be a fact without a tangible grounding then plenty of things that we consider facts have to be subjective, also that the field of metaphysics would be useless to talk about because all of its findings would be considered subjective. — Lexa

Ok. Plenty of things people take as facts are speculative. Metaphysics is speculative, and in contemporary discourse is generally ignored, even if it does underpin physicalist science as much as it underpins idealism.

A moral fact is an objective truth about morality. To qualify it needs to belong to a coherent whole - an objective realm of moral realism. This does not compare to the status of math which can be demonstrated by logical axioms and calculation. How do you demonstrate that morality has logical axioms like math?

Also you did not answer the question about mathematics. If math was discovered instead of invented what, grounds numbers and mathematics? Because while math has a lot of ground-able applications, there are plenty of mathematical facts that are entirely abstract. — Lexa

I don't have expertise to know if math is discovered or invented. But I can only repeat that a mathematical truth is something which can be demonstrated to work - it is based on the logical axioms which appear universally true (identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle). Morality has no equivalence to this. Can you show one in action?

I'm sorry I should have been more precise, I mean why do the arguments for moral nihilism conclude that there are no moral truths? Because the best arguments for moral nihilism don't seem to point to no moral truths. — Lexa

I just answered that.

Moral nihilism says there are no moral truths - morality lacks inherent meaning. This must also mean there are no moral facts. I'm not sure how one would arrive at a moral fact (an objective truth about right and wrong) if there is nothing to ground morality in. — Tom Storm

What have I missed?

For example, mathematics is a human construction with inherent facts. — Lexa

Hmm. Many people think we discovered math and didn't invent it. I personally don't have expertise to make an argument either way.

I was wondering why people think that moral nihilism means that moral facts can't exist. — Lexa

Moral nihilism says there are no moral truths - morality lacks inherent meaning. This must also mean there are no moral facts. I'm not sure how one would arrive at a moral fact (an objective truth about right and wrong) if there is nothing to ground morality in.

Nevertheless, there are good reasons for us to adopt assertive positions on morality even if we are moral nihilists. Morality supports us to organize human behavior and can minimize suffering and maximize flourishing. So if we accept that this presupposition (to minimize suffering) is selected pragmatically, we can build objective morality subject to this goal. The rest will be an inevitable series of arguments and disagreements.

Philosophy is not for everyone. I never privileged it in my life. The only meaning of life we can have is the one we build for ourselves - even theists rely on a subjective interpretation of what they think god wants. I’ve generally found that doing something for someone else is better at providing meaning than most other activities.

IDK, that is the dictionary definition of the word "atheist." It doesn't mean you have to claim that God is metaphysically or logically impossible, but it's generally a claim about some level of certainty that God doesn't exist. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I know very few atheists who would argue this. But some might. Atheism can take various forms - hard to soft.

Here's what American Atheists say. I have no connection to this group and I am not American.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

I've heard plenty of people tell stories about leaving (or less often, joining) a faith after being exposed to arguments via books and videos. I do not know of a single person who ever claimed to have picked up a book and been convinced to turn straight or gay midway through their life because of it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Have some perspective. :wink: I didn't say it was identical, I said it was a bit like sexual preferences. And yes, I find this satisfactory. But I never said that's all there is to belief.

I disagree with this entirely. If this was the case, and if you don't agree with the idea of "medical treatments to cure homosexuality," etc., wouldn't this imply that it is equally unwise to bother trying to change someone's beliefs? — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I said, I'm not saying it's an exact match. I would not agree with medical treatments to cure religion either. But on the other hand, many people do start heterosexual, marry and have children with a partner, only to realize after a few years that they were following this conventional path because of expectations and socialization. On encountering the world, on further learning, they might 'come out' and change preferences. People's experiences with religion can be similar. They were never really comfortable with it, but had not yet encountered alternatives or learned that it was ok not to believe. Taboos against atheism and homosexuality have been powerful and still are in some countries. Education about both is important.

I find that mere dictionary definitions (such as yours, Count, (e.g.) focused on "the existence of god" instead of the status of one's god-belief (i.e. theism)) are colloquial shorthands which more often confuse rather than clarify the concept at issue, especially in philosophy,. — 180 Proof

:up: Well put.

This brain rot is virulent in Britain, Germany, Hungary, Turkey & Poland too. :eyes: — 180 Proof

:up: Good point. I was saying just this at a meeting today.