True enough in the main, but that doesn’t mean that no political approach is better than any other, or that actual conspiracies never happen.

@skado Oh yes, some political ideologies are inherently superior to others. And conspiracies do occur. Witness Donald Trump's fake elector scheme!

@Flyingsaucesir

Exactly!

And likewise, some religious perspectives are more authentic than others.

.

@skado That's also true. For instance, I would place Buddhism above any of the Abrahamic belief systems.

@Flyingsaucesir
I always found Buddhism and Taoism much more accessible than the Christianity I was raised in. It has been only in recent years that I have learned of a metaphorical interpretation of Christianity which resembles the eastern religions to a remarkable degree.

@skado The sects that embrace literal interpretations are certainly toxic.

@Flyingsaucesir
Some of them certainly are.

@skado Which ones are not?

@Flyingsaucesir
Depends on what you mean by sect. The Westboro Baptist Church, in my mind, exemplifies toxicity. But if sect means any religious denomination, like Baptists at large, they don’t seem quite so monolithically toxic. There are no religious denominations that I think of as inherently toxic. Likewise, there are no religious denominations entirely free of toxic individuals and toxic communities.

@skado I think the definition of toxic is important too. For me, any rejection of science in favor of religious dogma is toxic. So I suppose, by that standard, ANY sect that goes in for literal interpretations of scripture is toxic.

@Flyingsaucesir
If toxic means believing something that isn’t true, then we’re all caught toxic at one time or another. And if everybody’s toxic, then toxic looses all useful meaning.

I would rather define toxicity by what people do than by what they think.

One of the most fascinating aspects of mythology is that it can provide its evolutionary function, whether taken literally or figuratively.

And both literalists and figuratists can use it selectively to justify either evil or good.
Most atheists can make no use of it at all.

The scientist can find the greatest value in it.

What meets the definition of toxicity for me is when anyone tries to portray an entire class of people as defective or malevolent based on the behavior of a few conspicuous individuals, who may not even be typical of the group, but even if they were, no large group is entirely homogeneous.

@skado I am thinking about this less on an individual level and more on a systemic level. Any creed that rejects science is bound to result in large numbers of people failing to appreciate the gravity of climate change, failing to make adjustments in their own behavior to lower their carbon footprints, and failure to support policies designed to solve the problem. (I'm choosing to use climate change here as my example because it really does pose an existential threat to human civilization, and possibly the very survival of our species. But there are other issues that also can only be addressed intelligently by taking science into account. For instance the controversy around abortion should be considered in the context of biological evolution; not doing so leads to all kinds of harmful policies, and even polarization of communities.) A person could check all the other boxes to appear moral and upright in their behavior, but falling down on climate change has real consequences. Arguably, we are in a more precarious situation today because we have not taken appropriate action, and this torpor was only possible because people who are already disposed to dismiss science are easily swayed by the false propaganda put out by the fossil fuel industry. We shall soon see tens of thousands of people dying from heat in a weekend --- a pretty severe consequence of a belief-driven behavior that may appear benign at first glance.

@Flyingsaucesir
What creed rejects science?

@skado Any sect that interprets literally an ancient scripture that contradicts science is engaging in de facto rejection of science. Evangelical Christianity is an example that comes to mind.

@Flyingsaucesir
Do you know of any specific sect that has a written creed that specifically states that their ancient scripture is to be taken only literally?

@skado I am not privy to their internal memoranda, but we hear their preachers, see their "museums," lament their members in school board meetings,...

@Flyingsaucesir

…and then assume they are representative of all of “religion”?

@skado Hmmm. Was it not clear that I was referring only to sects that reject science?

@Flyingsaucesir
I guess it wasn’t. I’m not sure I know of any sects that reject science. What would be your ballpark guess as to what percentage of religious sects reject science as a matter of policy?

@skado As a matter of policy? Probably none. They seem to think the propaganda they present in their "museums" and other teachings constitute science, or is consistent with science.

@Flyingsaucesir
I’m trying to understand who these “they” are. I never attended a church that had a museum (that I knew of). Which religious sects have such museums?

@skado

Evangelical Christians.

There are Creation Museums here and there, scattered around the country. There's one in Santee, California, some 30 miles from where I live.

@Flyingsaucesir
OK, you mean like Ken Ham in Kentucky? I’m not sure evangelical is an actual sect, if sect means denomination. I’m thinking it is a kind of vague, self-identification of some Christians across many denominations, but no actual governing body or official doctrine.

I don’t doubt there are some denominations which consider themselves evangelical, and those folks often claim a literal belief, but I don’t think it is even literal belief, in itself, that is so toxic. I guess because I have known so many people who were literal believers but who were not at all toxic people. I tend to think toxicity comes from ignorance and hatefulness, whether found among believers or non-believers.

Science is the best tool we have for describing the natural world, but describing the natural world isn’t the only job that needs to be done.

@skado As I explained previously, the kind of toxicity I refer to is manifested more at a systemic level. Individuals who embrace beliefs that conflict with science may be perfectly pleasant, moral, and upright. But the influence of those beliefs on policy and politics may be quite damaging, and un-American. I think that is what we are seeing with the backlash against gay rights, the epidemic of censorship, banning books, draconian anti-abortion laws, assaults on voting rights, anti-woke rhetoric....the whole panoply of right-wing culture war nonsense. And of course they feel justified in refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because homosexuality is a sin, right? And this sense of justification extends to their calling to stay in power at all costs... including shredding the Constitution.

@Flyingsaucesir
All of those people ride in cars. Maybe it’s the cars’ fault?

@Flyingsaucesir
All humans embrace beliefs that conflict with science. Even scientists embrace beliefs that conflict with science. It doesn’t make them all Republican. The “systemic” influence you are talking about isn’t codified in any religious creed that I am aware of. You acknowledged that. I think it’s the combination of ignorance, xenophobia, tribalism, and the Republican tendency to take advantage of those traits, because, hey, they gotta get voters however they can, and it sure ain’t gonna be by honestly working for the people.

It didn’t originate in church doctrine. It was engineered deliberately and solely for the purpose of gaining votes when everything else had failed.

@skado You can't expect individual people to solve the transportation problem on their own. First, there isn't enough lithium to make the whole fleet battery EVs. Hydrogen fuel cells will probably be a big part of the solution in the future, but do you see a lot of hydrogen-powered cars today? No. Second, the price of EVs is still out of range for most people. 3rd, many changes in urban planning and sustained investments in infrastructure must be made over a long period of time. We should have started sooner, but the fossil fuel industry launched a disinformation campaign that puzzled the will to act. And let's be frank: most people still don't see flying as the horrible carbon emitter that it is. We're still behind the 8 ball in terms of basic education, thanks to the fossil fuel industry, its think tanks, lobbyists, and bought politicians.

@skado I never said science is the only source of wisdom or the holder of all answers. But in this technological world where humans have the ability to change the planet (for the worse), we cannot afford to ignore what science has to tell us. Religious instruction that conflicts with science does not only teach harmless myths; it also teaches a habit of mind where the indoctrinated feel free to believe whatever they want to believe, with or without evidence to back it up. I think that's why 85% of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump in 2016, and 80% repeated the mistake in 2020, even after seeing the chaos and wreckage left in the wake of only 4 years of a Trump administration. And it helps explain why so many have drunk the conspiracy theory kool-aide, swallowing a whole pack of lies that would otherwise never get off the ground for lack of evidence. And where has all this flabby thinking brought us? To the brink of civil war! I call that toxic.

@Flyingsaucesir
What’s going on is plenty toxic alright. You and I just blame it on different things.

The only people who can be satisfied with superstitious explanations are people who have not yet developed any skill at critical thinking, and may, in fact, simply not have the capacity for it.

I don’t know if you found time to watch the video yet, but it explains where those non-critical thinkers got all their wacky right-wing politics, and it wasn’t from their religion.

Churches didn’t invent flabby thinking. Humans had that long before they had churches.

The problem with blaming the wrong culprit is not so much the unfairness to the falsely accused as it is the fact that the real culprit is still free to do damage.

The tragic irony here is this: the real culprit, in my humble worthless opinion, is evolutionary mismatch, and our main, if not only, defense up until this time has been religion, and we’re now throwing that baby out with the bathwater.

Our evolutionary success for three hundred thousand years has never depended on flawless, stellar rationality or stringently objective worldviews. It has depended on our capacity for social cooperation in the game of matching our evolved traits to a changing environment . And for 99+% of that time, we achieved that cooperation by way of a shared mythos.

What is currently breaking us down the middle is not politics or religion. It is our ancient biology encountering an environment it was not evolved to fit.

In my personal view, the individual who has some facility with critical thinking has a great advantage over those individuals who don’t. But our existential problems aren’t individual problems - they are group problems. And you can’t force the entire human population to become rational actors if they are not so inclined or so endowed.

Our survival depends, as it has for as long as we have been human, on our ability to identify with and cooperate with our fellow humans.
That is the religious function in a nutshell. Science doesn’t offer it. But if we can find a way to foster greater rationality in this ape species meanwhile, all the better.

@Flyingsaucesir

Not sure what this transportation comment relates to.

@skado You wrote, "All of those people ride in cars. Maybe it’s the cars’ fault?" That's why the paragraph on transportation.

@skado I never said religion is the sole culprit in our current predicament. It's a contributing factor. I do like your analysis from an evolutionary biology standpoint. What is it EO Wilson said? "...the problem with humanity is that we have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology."

@Flyingsaucesir
Wilson nailed it!

Those dead people were wise for their time, but we know more now.

Depersonifying the master in heaven does not remove its power. We will always be slaves to the laws of physics.

Call it God, call it nature - doesn’t change a thing. The universe writes the laws, and we obey them.

@skado The word "God" has a greater connotation in the minds of believers and even non-believers than the words "physics" or "nature". It matters what we "call" things, it prevents a lot of confusion. Most people would not think of "physics" or "nature" as a sentient being "writing" laws or purposefully acting out it's will. I doubt the "Laws of Physics" wrote the Ten Commandments and gave them to Moses.

@nogod4me
True enough, but there was a time when most people believed the earth was flat, so… I don’t look to the majority for my understanding. I take my understanding from science and history. It appears to me that my definition is closest to authentic. Albert Einstein agreed. And Spinoza before him. It has a long history.

That south park episode was amazing. there is another episode where Cartman identifies as a woman so he can use the girls bathroom which is much nicer, but, since the girls didn't want him in their bathroom, he ended up getting his own private bathroom. of course, he loses that exclusivity later on in the episode.

I usually define art as. "The use of technical skills to express ideas." Technical skills, can of course include almost anything including language skills. But the benefit of that definition, is that it makes it plain that there can be both good, poor and bad art, depending not merely upon the technical skills alone, but also upon the quality of the ideas expressed.

One good point about this idea, is that it outflanks the, "Art is anything I say it is." argument. Since it leaves you free to say. OK, but is it good art ? Does it for example express good and useful ideas, or are they merely trivial or even bad ? Which brings the idea of objective truth back into the argument, and you are no longer in the world of pure relativism.

@Fernapple That's a pretty good definition. Where does a splatter painting fit in that definition? Personally, I don't consider that art, don't think it's technically difficult, and can't imagine what idea it could be expressing. I mean...

[nypost.com]

@ChestRockfield Quite, by that definition it would perhaps be poor art, and for example the Nazi swastika, though perhaps great design, would be bad art.

Though I do have another definition of art, which I also find useful, which is simply that there is no such thing as art. Art is one of the pseudo-gods, which is meaningless, and should not be believed in by any truly sceptical atheist, but which some people, even those who are atheist enough to reject the idea of personal literal gods, still cling to. That of course is because the idea of pseudo-gods, art, tradition, spirituality are flattering to the narcissist in many people, who want to believe that there are special truths only available to special people, ( themselves of course ) making them special. All religion including art, in many ways being a synonym for narcissism, since the narcissist needs to be special. (You are loved by a god, you are not going to die, your emotions are not animal instincts like every other creatures, but spirituality , etc. )

10:00 - 10:50

@skado I think your synopsis of that passage is pretty misleading. The circumstance is a theoretical where there is a law dictating a certain quotient of deludedness that everyone has to have, and in that scenario we're taking specifically about finding a way to avoid radical Islam from taking hold. But in no way is that recommending Christianity.

Trump suggested both hydroxychloroquine and injecting disinfectant into the body as possible treatments for covid. Of the two, the FDA-approved drug is no where near as dangerous as injecting disinfectants into your body, but I do not recommend doing either of those things.

For sake of discussion, let’s call the ‘entirety of reality’ by the English, scientific name, “universe.”

If we voice that same abstract concept in Afrikaans it is “heelal”, or “geheel” to signify entirety.

In the language of Western mythology, it’s called “God”.

The word says nothing, inherently, about the nature of that entirety/universe/God - it only indicates that’s what you’re talking about.

It’s not a different reality, just a different language. Reality is always reality, regardless of our perceptions, misperceptions, or characterizations. It’s not about belief - it’s about whether one is multilingual.

Just as Homo sapiens are not born with a language but with a capacity for language (which our first cousins, the chimps and bonobos don’t possess) we are also born with a capacity for religion - if not as a singular trait, at least in aggregate.

So, indeed, if that instinct isn’t trained in a socially acceptable way, it will just fill up with whatever debris happens to be blowing down the street.

Pantheism is no more a substitution than is Afrikaans or Russian or Japanese. Phantasms can be added or deleted in any language.

@skado

Yes, agreed about ability and proclivity.

More broadly, we are born with a capacity to learn.

"Any old nonsense" was an excellent introductory caution to the clip.

While reality, everything and the universe are a tad less controversial, pantheism is, according to some lexicons, a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

Do you think that god is part of the universe, other than as a part of mythic imagination?

@Polemicist
No, I don’t think God is part of the universe. I just think God is another name for universe.

@skado This is another of those 'I like my words to mean something situations. Seems as though there is practically zero usage of 'god' to mean 'universe'. Anyone who would use it in that manner would either have to explain that's what they mean, which would make that usage pointless, or not, which seems disingenuous or intentionally deceiving. Maybe a certain type of person would use that as a built in back door to escape from when questioned, claiming, "No, I only meant 'universe' when I said 'god', I don't actually believe in a creator."

@ChestRockfield
I don’t find that I “have to” explain anything, but if anyone is interested, it’s an “opportunity“ to point out something that so many haven’t noticed - that the universe actually did create this planet and every living creature on it, including you and me.

There is nothing to “escape”. No back door is needed.

I like for my words to not only mean something, I like for them to align with factual reality. After studying the subject for seven years, it appears to me that the original and most authentic meaning of the word “God” is universe. If you believe God is a man in the sky, you’re the one who has some explaining to do.

That’s a good direction.

Calling Dawkins an idiot is rich coming from you.

Which street is that then ?.He says that he believes that when a man decides that he is now a woman he is delusional.and you think that is homophobia ?

@Moravian i think it is none of his business, or mine, or yours either. Period,

@AnneWimsey Yes I agree. People can call themselves whatever they want. In fact the Scottish parliament is ahead of the game in passing a trans gender bill giving that approval in law until it was vetoed by Westminster.
My worry is that there are a few pervs out there who will dress as women to gain access to womens toilets, changing rooms etc. Men changing their gender to female and competing in female sports is also a no no.

@Moravian I say we do away with the labels altogether, they don't seem to have any meaning anymore, anyway, and install all private bathrooms! Why the fuck is a group bathroom something we submitted to in the first place? Gross. Then eliminate all sports scholarships, hell, all scholarships, by fixing the tax code so college can be free.