Is this worth pondering as another worry on our plate? A year or so ago astronomers were saying “Don’t worry (much) about Betelgeuse going supernova any time soon," despite the earlier nerves set off by the Great Dimming Episode. Now? A new paper says “Never mind that nevermind!”
This is from the conclusion: “We conclude that Betelgeuse should currently be in a late phase (or near the end) of the core carbon burning. After carbon is exhausted in the core, a core-collapse leading to a supernova explosion is expected in a few tens years.”
Yipe, do bear in mind there are many sage astronomers who disagree. Anyway, we’re told that 150 pc seems a reasonably safe distance. It’d need to be within 50pc (160 light years) to have appreciable effects, except maybe to astronauts. Uh, one hopes. Still here’s an interesting question! Ron Paludan on my FB feed asked “Do we know of any other stars with probable exoplanets that would be closer to Betelgeuse?”
Good one! I’d give it high priority! In fact I am making this an open call for anyone out there to check which known exoplanets might be closest to Betelgeuse! It should be easy to start by eliminating any that aren’t in the upper half of Orion!
If we do find a life world in the danger zone, then it suddenly becomes among our top reasons to forge ahead to interstellar flight! What better job for our g-g-grandkids than as protectors!
== Closer to home ==
A new 'quasi-moon' discovered near Earth has been traveling in tandem with our planet since 100 BCE.
Congratulations ESA/Europe for launching the JUICE mission to study Jupiter's moons and maybe confirm oceans under the ice!
Do the moons of Uranus hold water? A re-analysis of 1980s Voyager data has led NASA scientists to conclude that four of Uranus’ largest moons—Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, and Oberon—probably contain water oceans below their icy crusts. These oceans are likely dozens of kilometers deep and probably fairly salty in being sandwiched between the upper ice and inner rock core, heated by radioactive decay. This raises to double digits the number of likely ‘ice-roofed oceans’ in the Solar system. Implying that such worlds might be the principal sites of liquid water all across the universe...
...rendering talk of ‘goldilocks zones’ to specialized speculations of only Earth-style ‘open oceans’ exposed to the sky. That’s still an important distinction… it seems unlikely we’ll find tech-using peers under any of those ice roofs. But simpler life is another matter. It is likely everywhere.
The NASA/JPL mission to the metal asteroid Psyche appears to be back on! Set for launch in October of 2023.
NASA’s Juno spacecraft has spotted short bursts that make up lightning bolts on Jupiter, showing that Jovian lightning works in much the same way as it does on Earth.
A Webb telescope image of Uranus shows the planet’s rings in detail and its unique inclination. Unlike Earth, which spins on an axis of 23.4 degrees, Uranus rotates at an angle of almost 90 degrees, NASA says. This extreme tilt makes Uranus the only planet to rotate almost completely on its side. Images also of storm clouds and a polar ice cap!
This particular cave “…is located near the moon’s South Pole, an area rich in water ice and other valuable resources that could be used for life support, fuel, and construction materials.” Um, what ‘other’ resources? The only ‘lunar resources’ with any near term validity are those potential ice fields. But sure. we’ve funded robotic cave explorer designs at NASA’s Innovative & Advanced Concepts program - (NIAC). See other potentially useful pit caves.
“During its relatively short time monitoring the interior of Mars, NASA’s InSight seismographic lander detected hundreds of marsquakes, giving us detailed information about the Martian interior. From this, scientists were able to compile the first detailed map of the guts of Mars, and learn more about the state of Mars' interior activity. In 2021, InSight logged two tremendous events on the opposite side of the planet: a giant marsquake bigger than anything the lander had detected, and a meteorite impact that rattled Mars.” Result: Mars's center is a liquid iron alloy, with surprisingly large amounts of sulfur and oxygen mixed in.
Fascinating and gorgeous new images of details of the Sun’s surface, especially around sunspots.
A space probe operated by the United Arab Emirates has taken the most detailed photos yet of the Martian moon Deimos. Flying within 62 miles of the little moon, the probe, called Hope, got the closest to Deimos of any spacecraft since NASA’s Viking 2 mission in 1977.” Alas, ultraviolet and infrared readings indicate Deimos is more similar in composition to Mars’ surface than to a carbon-rich space rock. Too bad. Had they been carbonaceous with volatiles beneath the surface, they might have become important ISRU filling stations for Mars missions.
== Oy… why is it always aliens? ==
Among the many cult misconceptions spread by Hollywood is that - of course - ‘aliens have already picked up our radio and TV.”
In fact, Jim Benford and others showed that even when Earth was at its ‘noisiest’ in the 1980s, our tech emissions faded into background unless you aimed a dish at us the size of Connecticut. Now a research team has updated this result for today’s proliferation ofd cell phone radio. Folks at Mauritius U in Africa, and Manchester U, and SETI in California “…conclude that any nearby civilization located within 10 light years of Earth and equipped with a receiving system comparable to ours would not detect the Earth’s mobile tower leakage.” The article cites me in several places.
As for the damned UFO mania? Well, this time I'll limit my response. Though Again and again I repeat:
I've studied 'the alien' for 60 years from astrophysics to SETI to sci fi. I've got an 'open mind' to notions of other being! Alas, I do NOT see any evidence for (nor want) contact with silvery teaser jerks violating every physical law while acting exactly (exactly!) like nasty forest elves feared by our ancestors. Today a MILLION times as many active cameras as the 50s catch ever-fuzzier 'images', mostly explicable easily - though for those 'tictacs' -- those that haven't already been easily explained by Mick West -- see my 'cat-laser' theory that does not require loony-sadistic superduper silverguys breaking every physical law.
(And my theory - in my posting: What's Really up with UAPs/UFOs? - offers a very, very easy and straightforward experimental test.)
The cult yammerers never tabulate that. Tens... of... thousands of our best people! (I know a lot of our 'best people' who feel snubbed, 'cause THEY were never invited to study no UFOs!)
Learn to recognize when you are in a cult.
-------------
Oh... finally... someone tell Zach Weinersmith that there’s more to his story about Svetlana Savitskaya than he might have worked out with the beautiful brunette here.
177 comments:
Dr Brin in the main post:
Oh... finally... someone tell Zach Weinersmith that there’s more to his story about Svetlana Savitskaya than he might have worked out with the beautiful brunette here.
What, you're gonna leave that just hanging there?
Larry, follow the link embedded in that sentence.
My sister warned me to not waste 3 hours watching OPPENHEIMER. She said it was a terrible, pretentious, chaotic mess. I wonder if she saw BARBIE too.
Recalling the Trump discussion from the last thread, I recommend reading Commander in Cheat, which looks at Trump's record of fabricating golf scores and bullying kids playing golf.
This interview's pretty good, but the book is better:
https://www.vox.com/2019/5/10/18524172/donald-trump-commander-in-cheat-rick-reilly
It occurs to me that there could be quite a *lot* of water on (or rather *in* the Moon. Here on Earth, caves can only exist within a mile or two of the surface, but under Lunar gravity they could exist six to twelve miles down. And on an airless world any water out of direct sunlight would freeze. So quite a bit couold have collected there.
scidata,
I just watched Oppenheimer today. Your sister is wrong.
My wife watched it with me and issued a couple of gasps. Her later comment was "Arrogance!" to which I just had to nod. It's a necessary trait in those trying to figure out how things actually work. Some of us alloy it... but it's still there.
There were a couple of errors here and there, but not enough of them to disturb me.
Your sister was right about it being long, though. They might have cut a few things without changing the primary story, but it wouldn't have saved them a lot of time.
Re: OPPENHEIMER
The word 'pretentious' is the crux of the matter, the entire point of both the film and its subject. The fellow human being who worked out neutron stars, black holes, and atomic fission, all before tackling the really big issues. And did it all not by cloistered genius, but by human intercourse. One almost has to call it pretentious to avoid being overwhelmed by envy and wonder.
Going back to why we have five fingers...
While I'm not 100% convinced by this argument, a biomimicry course I did suggested it has something to do with efficient packing of structures which allows them space to grow. This favours divisions by the 'golden ratio', or Fibonacci sequence.
Thus, the arm has one bone in the upper, two in the forearm, three in the wrist, and five finger extensions. I'm unaware of any eightfold structures in the fingers.
Tim H:
Larry, follow the link embedded in that sentence.
I did, but I thought the point was that there was more to the story.
Tony Fisk:
This favours divisions by the 'golden ratio',
The golden ratio is pretty darned close to the ratio of the kilometer to the mile.
"How much longer can I go on being an atheist?"
Mikestone if you are right and there is a LOT of water, I won’t oppose mining it for lots of uses. If there are mere megatons, it should be left for lunar cities later, and get our water from asteroids.
What needs to be smashed is the vapid lie-cult fetish about other ‘lunar resources.’
Tony re Fibonacci. Cute.
The are takeaway message of the current UFO brouhaha is that human beings are (on average) inveterate fabulists & liars, so we should probably accept it when our resident award-winning fabulist & alien expert insists that UFOs and aliens are works of fiction, as long as we account for an infinitely regressive Liar's Paradox.
A falsehood remains false and a lie remains a lie, despite the presence or absence of an overwhelming consensus.
Best
Back when it was still socially acceptable to tell Polish jokes, there was this one:
X: "Do you speak Polish?"
Y: "No."
X: "How does it feel to be dumber than a P----k?"
I sympathize with Y above when I admit that I can't tell from locumranch's continual digs at Dr Brin over UFOs which side of the controversy he is advocating for. Is he trying to say that aliens have visited earth, no matter how much consensus is against that conclusion, or that aliens have not visited earth, no matter how much consensus is against that conclusion?
Caves on the moon with frozen water in them
Caves here on earth are made by the limestone - a sedimentary rock made of seashells - being dissolved by water with CO2 dissolved in it
I just don't see those conditions ever having been present on the moon
And I'm back in NZ so back to responding at funny times
The Fibonacci thing comes from the way things grow in (logarithmic) spirals, esp. plants. Easiest way to see it is to take something like a pineapple or sunflower, observe how its components are arranged, count the number of spirals in the structure and, presto: a Fibonacci number!
... except I found that casuarina seed case spirals are six-fold. Damn! Maybe I can't count?
(Of course, biomimicry continues to be a rich source of inspiration. Being a relatively new discipline, there's still an element of woo to it.)
"How much longer can I go on being an atheist?"
For as long as you recall that coinkidenks occur at about the frequency as an accurate stopped watch.
LH relax. It is the very. concept of facually tested 3D reality that terrifies him in sepia flatland.
Duncan,
Lava tubes are a kind of cave, and may well exist on Luna, but you point is accurate - it's hard to imagine a lava tube network of any extent or depth.
Pappenheimer
Tony Fisk:
"How much longer can I go on being an atheist?"
For as long as you recall that coinkidenks occur at about the frequency as an accurate stopped watch.
The quote is from the protagonist/narrator of Kurt Vonnegut's Hocus Pocus. He says that every time something vaguely coincidental or unlikely occurs. The character sort of means it, at least as a question. I use it a little more skeptically and ironically.
Tony Fisk:
... except I found that casuarina seed case spirals are six-fold. Damn! Maybe I can't count?
Three on each side, maybe?
Tony Fisk: efficient packing of structures
I like your wording. Richard Dawkins talked about this in the context of embryo ontology. Of course nature keeps efficiencies it stumbles upon. Our analytical minds see the power of that. Unfortunately, our pattern-seeking minds quickly take over, and we go marching into woo-woo land under the romanticist banner. Eventually even exclaiming that 'Mathematics is the language of God!'.
iIrc, several species of cicadas hatch out every so many years, but the number of years is always a prime. That's not the Almighty, either, and cicadas probably don't grasp number theory very well. There's a good reason, though.
Pappenheimer
the number of years is always a prime
Humm
1,2 3 - 5, - 7, are all primes
I would need good evidence that 4 years and 6 years do not happen
"There are seven species — four with 13-year life cycles and three with 17-year cycles. The three 17-year species are generally northern in distribution, while the 13-year species are generally southern and midwestern."
Here's a link at uconn:
https://cicadas.uconn.edu/#:~:text=There%20are%20seven%20species%20%E2%80%94%20four,are%20generally%20southern%20and%20midwestern.
(this refers to periodic cicadas - annual cicadas, a different set of species, have a 2-5 year cycle)
So those cicadas who spend over a decade underground only come out at 13 or 17 year intervals. Not 12, 14, 15, 16 or 18.
Pappenheimer
From that article
However, plenty of cicadas emerge off-cycle. These cicadas, known as “stragglers,” can sometimes reach significant densities. Stragglers seem most common ±1 or ±4 years surrounding the emergence of their brood.
Sounds to me as if the 13 and 17 year intervals are just approximations
Here in Chicago, we've had cicada infestations pretty reliably in 1973, 1990, 2007, and we're due for one in 2024. Can't speak to before I was born.
All stragglers/exceptions duly noted, one can't deny a certain predictable..."cicadian" rhythm.
The prime periods are to minimise the occasions the populations get mixed.
(Although, wouldn't it be more effective to stagger the breeding cycles by 6 years or so?)
Still, they've presumably been doing this for longer than 13x17= 221 years.
Caves here on earth are made by the limestone - a sedimentary rock made of seashells - being dissolved by water with CO2 dissolved in it
You're forgetting about lava tubes.
https://www.nps.gov/havo/learn/nature/lava-tubes.htm
The rhetorical question, "But how do cicadas know to count to 17?" is as irrelevant as "How does a fetus know to count to nine months?" It's not something they do on purpose. It's the duration of their reproductive lifecycle.
Larry Hart said...
""Evolution doesn't plan. If a random characteristic doesn't hurt us, it sticks around."
That doesn't explain why a characteristic shows up in so many independent species."
Well, it could. species aren't independent. All life on Earth is related. Features that evolved a long time ago can persist and be conserved across a huge number of later species. Since they are the star of this topic, might as well use vertebrates as an example. All vertebrates share a large number of traits, most famously a spine and 4 limbs, but much more.
5 digits per limb is a feature that evolved in tetrapods a long time ago. As best we can tell approximately 350 mya. Before then there were species with more digits, and no doubt fewer as well. Since then 5 digits is the inherited norm though modifications of that inherited norm have occurred many times in many different species. In other words, in nearly all extant tetrapods that have other than 5 digits, they have the same mechanisms for producing 5 digits that all the 5 digit tetrapods have, except for one little tweak, like a slight difference in signaling gene expression in the autopods during development.
But, why 5 digits? We don't know. It could simply be chance. There does seem to be a constraint against higher numbers of digits, but exactly how high is too high? There is no accepted explanation.
DEVELOPMENT AND EVOLUTION OF DIGIT NUMBER has a good explanation. For example . . .
"Transition to a pentadactyl ground state is first observed in the limb of Pederpes fossils of the Carboniferous period, about 350 Ma [56]. It is still not known exactly when or even how many times digit number was reduced to five."
Oh... finally... someone tell Zach Weinersmith that there’s more to his story about Svetlana Savitskaya than he might have worked out with the beautiful brunette here.
After reading the link, all I can say is...someone get John Oliver (of Last Week Tonight) on the case!! :)
Mr. Oliver was able to locate an anthropomorphized-rat-love painting, and that was well-nigh impossible. If he could do that, he is probably the only one on Earth who could find that cosmic art work.
Thing about Saviskaya is that the USSR was 1st to orbit a woman (Valentina Tereskova). But when they saw we were sending Sally Ride up on a shuttle, they head smacked. 'The Americans will have the first ACCOMPANIED woman in space... meaning they'll be firsr at something else. Sex.'
Of course that's actually wrong. US astronauts are above-all professionals. I doubt for several reasons that any hanky was pankied with Sally. Or likely any of the following women astronauts... till that time when a married couple went up together, I forget who. THEN the bawdy humor went everywhere, and nothing to complain about. Perfectly legit on every level!
So put my two paragraphs together. In the USSR, you do what the state tells you to do.
Dr Brin:
'The Americans will have the first ACCOMPANIED woman in space... meaning they'll be firsr at something else. Sex.'
Isn't zero-gravity sex the whole point of space travel?
Ooh look: spam.
Say 'sex' and they will come...so to speak.
I love the "bite-sized" thing. Riiiight. That's us, all over!
From the old filksong "Home on Lagrange":
Home, home on Lagrange
Where the space debris always collects
We have, so it seems, two of man's greatest dreams,
Solar power and zero-G s-x*
*not that I mind using the word, but I think Tony's on to something. Does blogging the s-word 3 times summon a Nigerian prince?
Pappenheimer
I don’t think I know how to do bite-sized.
I seem to recall two important things about the Cicada lifecycle.
1. They are gone for so long that the species that rely on them as a food supply die back.
2. When they DO emerge, they do so in such large numbers that the remaining predators are all stuffed long before they've eaten them all.
To get this to work, they have to 'agree' on when to emerge. This 'agreement' isn't perfect for the same reason we don't all use the same reproduction strategy. However, if too many early stragglers show up, predators will be in larger numbers when the main population emerges leading to smaller generations making the whole behavior mildly maladaptive.
———
I always took the five-finger design as 'just' being the winner among tetrapods. It's flexible allowing for all five in light-weight species or the appearance of fewer (shrink the bones) in heavier ones.
———
Mathematics IS the language of God. Just ask Hobbes' ghost.
He argued we were supposed to use the method demonstrated by Euclid to derive truths about humanity. A Priori Truths.
It would be fun in Hobbes' ghost appeared as a pocket A.I. in any sequel to FOUNDATION'S TRIUMPH. It could expound on a very early, primitive form of psychohistory.
If it started with fishes’ paired appendages, then perhaps at one time there were three pairs—but the extra digit got in the way of activity. Or was broken too much.
Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_ZHsk0-eF0
"Yes, there is mathematics in art, in music, in just about everything. And as the Greeks had guessed, the rules are always the same."
It always struck me as being a little weird. People invent mathematics to be a rigid, consistent formal system and then sing Hallelujah! when parts of it line up with Nature... and set aside the parts that don't... yet.
It kinda has to work that way unless Nature is truly chaotic.
------
I'm not a big fan of the whole concept of 'a priori truth'. A consistent formal system has structure much like chess games do with pawn layouts. What is MUCH more interesting is that we've found structures that are useful to us, but trial-and-error will do that. Reliably it seems.
Alfred, of your two cicada theories #2 is correct. the early stragglers are weeded out because they are eaten before laying eggs. No group selection needed.
That makes sense. They don’t put up a fight against being eaten.
As I understood it long ago, the reason for cicada prime cycles is to make it harder for predator species to time their own population surges to coincide with the cicadas'. (Note that I am not ascribing intent to predator or prey - this would be natural selection working on/for the cicadas)
Pappenheimer
Cicadas 'predators' include everyone. Squirrels, birds, there are no particular ones.
Cicadas 'predators' include everyone. Squirrels, birds, there are no particular ones.
Don't forget preying mantises. I once watched on devour a cicada with relish.
If it were solely to avoid predators, then any longish period would do for a 'binge breed' cycle.
The prime cycles are to allow two populations to binge breed with minimal risk of overlap: 13 and 17 year cycles only merge every 221 years.
... except that can't be the whole thing. Non-prime cycles with no common factors (eg 14 and 15 years) don't prematurely merge either.
Mmm. 8)
Cicada relish.
You know it's ready to spread when it quits screeching at you.
Tony Fisk:
... except that can't be the whole thing. Non-prime cycles with no common factors (eg 14 and 15 years) don't prematurely merge either.
Whereas 2 and 3 year cycles would overlap quite often, despite being primes.
I hope this doesn't jinx anything, but it looks like the Ohio vote on whether to increase the requirement to pass a ballot initiative from 50%+1 to 60%+1 is getting crushed, at least in the early returns.
"No" is the good vote, strangely represented on this map by red.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/08/ohio-issue-1-special-electionresults-voters-decide-tuesday-on-august-8-ballot-issue/70487461007/
I am amused that the Ohio 'No' vote won, by > 60%.
I'm not so much amused as heartened, though the 60% is funny.
The OH GQP is deeply gerrymandered, astoundingly corrupt and more than somewhat neo-Know-Nothing - they're the folks who gave screen time to the idjit who tried to prove the Covid vaccine had made her magnetic.
And yes, almost all my kin are there, and most of them are Republicans. Country club Republicans, which may actually be worse.
Every little bit of pushback helps.
Pappenheimer
P.S. Cicada relish...I'll save that for my first fried scorpion, Guerrero style (Southern Mexico). First fried, then sautéed on a griddle.
Pappenheimer
Dr. Brin,
I heard an interview with one of the authors of this study, and thought you might find it interesting.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37379261/
PSB
Pappenheimer,
I think that if you generalized about different types of Repugnants in terms of the old D&D alignment taxonomy, Country Club Republicans would mostly fall into Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, while your Urban Hick Republicans would be more Chaotic Evil. Evangeliban probably mostly Neutral Evil.
On the subject of the Evangeliban, I heard an interview with a Baptist minister last night who said that he and many of his fellow clergy have had the experience of preaching from the Sermon on the Mount, only to have their congregants ask them things like, "Where did you get those liberal talking points?" When they explain that they were quoting Jesus, they get mad and say those things don't apply today.
I found the interview on the radio station's website.
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192663920/southern-baptist-convention-donald-trump-christianity
Bon appetÃt
PSB
I always disliked the law vs chaos good vs evil nonsense. A far more significant factor thar D&D plays up to is (Brin's broken record) feudalism. Hierarchy. and related - nature vs nurture... which DD comes down hard upon with your first character roll up
PSB, interesting interview from someone who stood by his morals and got shafted for them.
Ghandi is supposed to have said, "If it weren't for Christians, I'd be a Christian."
Actually a misleading quote - he also said he didn't think any religion, even his own, had a lock on the truth. He was iirc reacting to racial segregation and not being allowed in an English congregation in India. One more reason for promoting him to the secular sainthood.
Pappenheimer
P.S. Re: The D&D moral spectrum, I'd have to disqualify the US Green Party from being Druidic True Neutral. Even if a lot of the rank and file are arborophilic TN(G), it looks like the funding comes with the purpose of splitting environmentalists away from the Democratic Party, and the leadership is suspect.
Dr. Brin,
I stopped playing D&D when I was 14, but the alignment thing is familiar enough to people it can be fun to play with (and the alignment thing is about individual tendencies/motivations - I'm not sure if your vinyl would work in the context of an RPG). Agreed about the nature/nurture thing. Even today most people don't get that the answer to the question: Is it nature or is it nurture? is YES. "Nature" is too politically useful, and has been for a long time.
Have you checked out the article?
PSB
Pappenheimer,
I once saw the door to a Hindu temple that was divided into eight panels, and on each a religious scene was painted. The interesting thing, though, was that each scene came from a different religion (Shiva dancing the Creation, A crucifixion scene, Buddha under the Boddhi Tree, you get the idea). Ghandi may have been expressing the Hindu notion that all religions contain some truth.
I don't know anything about the Greens, except the old saying that Green means Get Republicans Elected Every November.
PSB
The best GM I played under taught me to go easy on interpreting character stats. Later versions of the game got WAY too picky about stat checks for every little thing you do turning it from a roleplaying game to a dice rolling game. Ugh.
I treated the law/chaos divide as my opportunity to display whether my character saw value in hierarchies. WHICH hierarchies they adopted or dissed was a separate issue, so a lawful character might have a profound dislike of a certain hierarchy but otherwise be warm to the idea. That can make them a challenge to play in games where the disliked hierarchy is dominant, but not impossible. It's like preferring a different King to the one you have.
My most favorite character I built is quite lawful, but not a fan of any hierarchy they ever encountered. Their loyalty is to something that is essentially a Platonic Ideal.
PSB:
I heard an interview with a Baptist minister last night who said that he and many of his fellow clergy have had the experience of preaching from the Sermon on the Mount, only to have their congregants ask them things like, "Where did you get those liberal talking points?"
So the monster that they helped create has turned on them, huh? We're at the moment in Cabaret with the line, "Do you still think you can control them?"
When they explain that they were quoting Jesus, they get mad and say those things don't apply today.
A few years back, I tongue-in-cheek suggested selling T-Shirts that read "I'd rather follow Trump than Jesus!!!" I might have known that real life far surpasses satire these days.
Pappenheimer:
Ghandi is supposed to have said, "If it weren't for Christians, I'd be a Christian."
I might have to steal that one.
PSB & LH: The southern evangelical churches coming to this was set in motion long ago, when their preachers figured out that self-censorship in which scriptures they quoted in sermons led to fewer painful and sometimes lethal visits from enforcers from the local "Important" people. In truth, God & Mammon have always had an uncomfortable coexistence in the hearts of believers, it's just a bit more obvious with the Southern variety.
Tim H:
God & Mammon have always had an uncomfortable coexistence in the hearts of believers, it's just a bit more obvious with the Southern variety.
The thing is, when they explicitly shift their loyalty from Jesus Christ to Donald Trump, they relieve me of any deference I might have given people acting on their "sincerely-held religious beliefs." When they are doing what they actually think Jesus would do in a situation, they deserve at least some benefit of the doubt. As apostates who by their own words renounce their Lord in favor of an anti-Christ figure, they render themselves irrelevant in any moral sense.
How long before the Trump cultists declare:
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
They can argue that Trump is helping to bring about the Apocalypse—leading to a New Heaven and New Earth.
AB: If so, have they thought long about where that puts them?
Alan Brooks:
They can argue that Trump is helping to bring about the Apocalypse—leading to a New Heaven and New Earth.
I understand thinking that someone like Trump might be a useful tool in God's hands, but the allegiance there is still to God. That's not what they're saying. They've essentially pledged fealty to Trump instead of Christ. They are no longer Christians. What they are is Christianists--adherents of a belief that the country belongs to nominal Christians and not to anyone else. That not only makes them un-Christian, but un-American.
For a while the meme was that Trump was a latter day Cyrus, a righteous pagan sent to deliver the faithful.
"AB: If so, have they thought long about where that puts them?"
Ones I've met are completely assured that they are among the elect and that all the folks they dislike will burn AN that a heavenly reward will be gloating. But the worst are those who say "I pray daily for the Lord to forbear from the terrible things in Revelation,,, though of course it is locked in stone." Have it both ways, much?
The best rebuttal I found was Jonah (also Hezekiah, Isaiah and other places) where it's made totally explicit that HE CAN AND DOES CHANGE HIS MIND. And hence - even if Revelation really was a heavenly rant-snit (it wasn't anything but a Patmosian raving), He clearly changed his mind, took a deep breath and an aspirin and canceled that whole sadistic grotesque scenario.
Their being un-American, in being exclusivists, is only problematic for them while they are on Earth; in the Hereafter, it is all superseded. They don’t actually Believe in Heaven—or they wouldn’t hold on to life so dearly. But they want to Believe, so they figure they’ve got a toe in the door: as wanting to Believe is leaving the door open as to the possibility of Paradise.
“Christ is married to Backsliders”,
the split-minded who head towards Jesus one step forward, one step back.
—
Only thing works is debating on scriptural terms their own de novo-ism. Last time I talked to them, told them they have altered the meaning of Joy. In scripture, Joy is rejoicing in the Lord—not Sunday brunch at IHOP.
Christian Joy is robed and sandaled townsfolk raising a house together. Or slashing the infidel army with swords.
Dr Brin:
For a while the meme was that Trump was a latter day Cyrus, a righteous pagan sent to deliver the faithful.
Yes, that's what I was thinking of when I mentioned that they regarded him as a useful tool (or soldier), no matter how bad a Christian he is personally.
BUT...Christians aren't supposed to worship Cyrus in place of Jesus.
They can claim to worship a Trump only politically. Like, 666 is merely 111 away from 777—the number of the Lord!
They’ve got it covered from 3000 yrs of arguing hermeneutics.
Alan Brooks:
They can claim to worship a Trump only politically.
I don't think so. This is something different. They are literally renouncing Christ because they like Trump better. If Jesus were alive today, these hypo-Christians would be the ones demanding His crucifixion.
LITERALLY renouncing Christ? Don’t know for sure if they are.
At any rate they definitely want to inherit the Earth, literally. Through wealth and offspring, their genes might triumph and they can say such will be a new heaven and Earth—on Earth as it is in Heaven.
The meek (God-fearing) will inherit the Earth, thus having descendants to take care of them when they are aged also means that when they die their descendants will meekly inherit the Earth.
Regarding theology, two items. I published a PLAY "The Escape" in the genre of "smartass confronts the devil." If any of you know any folks in theater.
Also there's also this TED style talk I gave at a Singularity conference, concerning how to converse - with understanding, erudition and empathy, but also decisively, with your neighbors who use the Bible as a shield against modernity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryoqtB6H5nw.
All that works with them is guilt:
if you don’t use guilt, they won’t even hear you. Sayeth unto them:
“the first Commandment is the heart of the other nine. By your love of money, possessions and your harlots, you have strayed from the one True God—and are as sheep in the meadow with no Master to guide you.
All trees that do not bear good fruit must be chopped down and thrown into the fire—for the flotsam and the jetsam shall be washed away in the cleansing.”
You’ve got to guilt-trip them or else you go nowhere fast, and they will fill you with their guilt—putting you on the defensive.
Empathy vs shaming.
There is a third way. Plain old science, but on a personal level. When deep time and natural selection are considered together, even briefly, a cranial detonation occurs (I've seen it happen and I've experienced it myself). Fins (whether on bass, cars, or rockets), everyday machinery, and even amateur astronomy are winners in fly-over country. And remember, flipping one is a net gain of two (at least).
if you don’t use guilt, they won’t even hear you.
Uhm. No. They don't accept guilt trips from someone outside their horizon of inclusion either.
The only way I've found to reach them aligns better with Matthew 5:16.
Alan Brooks:
LITERALLY renouncing Christ? Don’t know for sure if they are.
I guess I have a different interpretation from you as to what this means:
When they explain that they were quoting Jesus, they get mad and say those things don't apply today.
Larry,
I don't see that as a denouncement. It COULD be, but the more likely interpretation is that they think that particular lesson doesn't apply today. The story in the Sermon on the Mount is in the smallest sense a description of what Christians were supposed to do in a community hostile to their message. Modern US Christians think they own the place... so N/A.
In the bigger sense The Sermon means a lot more. One of the most faithful guys I know thinks it is THE key message regarding how one is supposed to live a faithful life. He spent some time with me (an atheist) trying to get it across and is one of the only such people to succeed in reaching me. Of course I interpreted the same story in a secular sense, but I could see how difficult it was for people to grasp.
This wouldn't be the first time Christians needed counsel from their own theologians in the meaning of their own cultural wisdom. It won't be the last time those of us from outside understand the meaning better than they do.
@Alan Brooks
Not sure if guilt is the key that turns that particular lock.
The headlong rush towards Trump is the result of 40 years of cynical propaganda beamed into small-town minds. Each day, parading in front of them some new outrage perpetrated by people they already don't like and/or fear (ie city folks, non-whites, LGBT), and then warning that the heathens are on the march and their entire way of life is threatened by blah blah blah, check out the speeches of DeSantis if you want more.
Fear is the button that is pushed. Guilt factors into the decision-making, such as it is, but the fear of being subsumed in a brown tide of sexual permissiveness (and it always seems to boil down to sex with these freaks) is what drives such hysterical rantings from the Christian right.
Alfred Differ:
The story in the Sermon on the Mount is in the smallest sense a description of what Christians were supposed to do in a community hostile to their message. Modern US Christians think they own the place... so N/A.
Modern American white evangelical Christians also think that they are the most discriminated-against cohort of Americans ever. And that the culture of the country and of the western world is dominated by the woke, secular elite. So by their own rationalizations for why they are forced to cheat in order to win against Satan, "a community hostile to their message" is very much applicable.
L H, I have no issue with them practicing their religion, my problem is when they want to make that decision for those who don't share their beliefs. Paraphrasing from an old candy commercial, "You got religion in my government!" implies the inevitability of "You got government into my religion!", two great things that should have nothing to do with each other.
Tim H:
I have no issue with them practicing their religion, my problem is when they want to make that decision for those who don't share their beliefs
That aligns with my own position, although I would put it as, "...my problem is when they consider their religion to give them rightful ownership of the country, while denying it to others."
There are polemics that do some good. Like defying them to compare good-man Jimmy Carter who has taught Sunday school for EIGHTY YEARS to the MAGA prophet who is the most opposite-to-Jesus person anyone knows
But that is like demanding wagers. It strikes fear into em and they FLEE amid the smoking ruins of their machismo, and that helps if others (like wives) witness it.
But we need to remember this is a game of yards, even inches. No pass play will work. What will lead to confederate-traitor-collapse is luring out the residuum of 1 million reachable residually honorable Republicans. The Romneys et al should have done it (some may plan to). But damne them to hell if they don’t help.
Meanwhile we must lure back into light that one million – one at a time – till the monstrous excrusion finally suffers demographic collapse.
Prosperity gospel is a thing with the religious right: God clearly favours the virtuous rich, because he hath granted them wealth and wellbeing, and smitten the sinner with the Mark of poverty and disease. Which is just the old fascist trick of distracting with an 'other' scapegoat, who's poorer than them.
I don't know whether 'supply-side economics' is the chicken or the egg to this mindset.
Fortunately, not everyone agrees.
... this is a wonderful discussion for a posting about Space!
Meanwhile, on Mars, 'wet-dry' cracks in clay formations suggest an environment conducive to life (or its beginnings, at least).
If you don’t use guilt, they won’t listen- it is talking past them. Plus if you don’t beat them to the punch with guilt, they have you where they want you—they are wasting your time, not vice versa; then there’s no purpose in saying anything except how’s the weather.
They WILL pay attention if you use guilt. (Fear also, but fear can induce hysteria.)
***
When reading about ETs, I’m reminded of Hudson in ‘Aliens’:
“are we going on another bug hunt?”
In our solar system, we are looking for procaryotes.
...[with a ‘k’]
Nothing more sentient than amoebas.
Alfred,
Matthew 5:16 KJV - Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
- Except for the praise the Divine Narcissist bit at the end, this is the most basic tenet of Taoism. As an agnostic, I find that quite hilarious. As an anthropologist, I find it intriguing. What aspects of life in state-level societies would produce this kind of convergent evolution? I might speculate that when you have so many people in a society that anonymity because not only possible but inevitable, trying to coerce people into behaving the way you want them is exceedingly inefficient and meets with a whole lot of resistance. Teaching by example would be a relatively low-effort strategy that would be at least partially efficacious, though clearly not the 100% the masters ultimately want.
PSB
Tony,
Just a thought on prosperity gospel and supply-side economics: Social Darwinism was Herbert Spencer's attempt to rework Providentialism (basically the same idea as prosperity gospel) into something that appears "scientific" in keeping with the social transition from domination by the aristocracy to domination by the rising class of capitalists. Maybe supply-side econ is similar; an attempt to create an economic theory in keeping with the transition from a free market economy to one controlled by a relatively rigid caste of big-business capitalists.
PSB
Naturally they won’t accept guilt trips from outsiders—but they WILL pay attention.
They’re playing games when they say those things don’t apply anymore.
Tony Fisk:
Prosperity gospel is a thing with the religious right: God clearly favours the virtuous rich, because he hath granted them wealth and wellbeing, and smitten the sinner with the Mark of poverty and disease.
If that were a real and consistent belief, then they'd have to assume that their own poverty or misfortune is due to their disappointing God in some way. Yet, they never do. When they lose out to someone else, it becomes a gross injustice--a defiance of God's will--which society needs to redress.
Not to mention the whole notion that this finite life is not important, and the true reward comes in the infinite hereafter. That seems to be just for the rubes and suckers too.
I have no interest in a futile attempt at shaming them into consistency. It's enough for me to know that they are hypocrites not worth listening to. I don't have the means or wherewithal to take the fight to the autocrats and theocrats. I can only defeat them at the personal level--by never betraying Julia or loving Big Brother or granting that their claims to supremacy have any merit. If they have the means and the license to kill me for looking at them funny, then they might as well get it over with, because I'd rather not live in the same country with them. 'Course, the A plan is to vote them into irrelevance.
50 yrs of cynical propaganda—
since Tricky Dick.
@Larry If that were a real and consistent belief, then they'd have to assume that their own poverty or misfortune is due to their disappointing God in some way. Yet, they never do.
That's what having someone to look down from your lofty spot on the side of the pyramid is all about.
Not my experience at all. Only way I’ve ever been able to communicate with them is by Guilt, which to me is like Wagers to our host.
‘Course “it’s enough for me to know they are hypocrites not worth listening to”
is valid—but isn’t such edging away from them so that they dominate the narrative? Don’t they win that way?
Used to be intimidated by them, but my granddad was a pastor, so I know all the tricks. If you wished to communicate with them (not that there’s any reason you should) you’d have to jump right in and turn the tables.
Alan,
I am familiar with the language of guilt. Live in our communities among them and one can't possibly avoid it. Thing is, I'm not a believer and that becomes pretty obvious unless I lie. I'm not ordained and can be easily dismissed on that count too. If I try to use the language of guilt with them it ALWAYS sounds like a corruption of their faith and they get pissed off. I actually harden their opinions and those of their relatives who are looking on.
The point with wagers is to get them to flee IN FRONT of their possibly less crazy relatives. Doing so is a breach of a manly virtue they hold dear and Aunt Bessy knows it.
If I try to use guilt against them, Aunt Bessy is most likely going to be swayed AGAINST my argument because it will come off as an attack on her faith too.
Attacking a man's courage is one thing. Attacking his faith is quite another.
Not to attack their faith, it’s not their hearts I worry about, it’s their brains.
Their misunderstanding of elementary points of scripture.
My experience is very different from your’s. They don’t like what I say to them, but they respect it as a challenge and pay attention. No it doesn’t change the way they think, but it does put me on an equal footing with them. Which is a start.
Running away from them doesn’t succeed: “live among them and you can’t avoid it.”
So rather than avoid it—which is avoiding them—I turned round and went directly into their minds. And then the dialogue and atmosphere improved.
Like a Vulcan mind-meld.
I find attacking their courage to daunt them. They lack the guts ANY of the men of the Greatest Generation would have shown, to either pony up wager stakes or STFU
Alan,
Well... we do both agree that turning away from them isn't a solution. I also agree they misunderstand elementary points of scripture, but my lack of belief comes across clearly and limits my options for using that weakness.
There IS another courage angle I like using besides/alongside wagers. I don't hide my atheism anymore. IF they bring up points of faith, I'll point to what I think are their errors of faith. I've never convinced anyone, but I have caused people to flee. I've yet to find out if that moves Aunt Bessy, but I do find it moderately enjoyable as non-lethal battle.
David,
pony up wager stakes
Probably the last legal form of dueling allowed to us. 8)
When you get going on this with others, I hear the theme song to "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" going through my head.
@Alan (and Alfred, if you're feeling wicked) if you think guilt is the primary attack surface, you might try original sin:
How dost thou know that thou art naked? What? You listened to some guy with an apple (possibly using Facebook), and you didn't think to ask how *they* knew?
Also: What was this 'helper meet' God had to create for Adam after none of the other animals were found to be suitable?
I do not engage, so I've no idea how these would go down. My Father-in Law used to delight in putting hapless young proselytisers to the question with his biblical knowledge. Family legend also has it that peering round the door and proclaiming "I'm from Australia" is an excellent deterrent.
When you get going on this with others, I hear the theme song to "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" going through my head.
I could imagine the sinister hum of a light sabre. Given his opinion on such matters, David probably just gets a pistol out and shoots first.
I wonder if all the 'wager' talk attracts such 'slots' spam. It's not just cameras everywhere, it's also bots that analyze, tally, and permanently store every. word. we. type. The Hollywood strike is more about A.I. than low wages, which is a bit encouraging in a way. The Enlightenment is not powered by bread alone.
A few things...
Alfred Differ:
I am familiar with the language of guilt. Live in our communities among them and one can't possibly avoid it.
I used to think that Jewish mothers were the fount from which all guilt sprang. Then I dated Catholic girls.
Well... we do both agree that turning away from them isn't a solution.
Solution to what?
* * *
Tony Fisk:
I do not engage, so I've no idea how these would go down. My Father-in Law used to delight in putting hapless young proselytisers to the question with his biblical knowledge.
If I were that intimate with scripture, I could probably pull that off. Comedian John Fugelsang is great at that--whipping out Bible verses to demonstrate how un-Christian the Christians he argues with are. I simply don't have all of the chapters and verses at hand to do so, nor does it seem like a worthwhile use of brain cells. For me, engaging in theological arguments with evangelicals would be like mud-wrestling with a pig, and for the proverbial reason.
I will debate with Christian Nationalists over what kind of country the United States is, but once they start with the Biblical justifications, we're just talking past each other.
re: spam
what's weird about that one is that it's Malay spam. 'Terbaik' means 'the best' but I don't recognize 'gacor'.
Pappenheimer
Larry Hart: Jewish mothers ... Catholic girls
Strict Presbyterians wrote the book on guilt, complete with prologue, appendices, and detailed thesaurus. The movie A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT is basically a frame-by-frame biography of the family I grew up in. Yup, I was the second son (though slightly less handsome than Brad Pitt).
@Pappenheimer I think that one might have been attracted by the 'n' word (the 'art'-ful one).
Larry Hart said...
"For me, engaging in theological arguments with evangelicals would be like mud-wrestling with a pig, and for the proverbial reason."
I tend to agree. Once upon a time I did spend quite a bit of time and effort discussing theological arguments with believers. To that end I put in the time to read quite a bit of the arguments of those theologians that were most often held up to be the best by believers.
Holy shit, was that tedious. It really jaded me. That people, many of them seemingly pretty sharp and well spoken, could take these arguments seriously was a real eye-opener. WLC's modernized Kalam Cosmological Argument? Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument? Childishly simplistic drivel that requires massive bias or delusion to prevent laughing at. Strip away the grandiose filler-prose and translate the "terms of art" to common words and the writings of the best theologians are reduced to amazingly simplistic arguments that no one would take seriously in any other context.
That made me realize that it isn't about the arguments, the facts or the evidence. It's about prior ideological commitments that are instilled starting from birth and then reinforced throughout life by subcultures saturated with mechanisms to do so. Note how this is rather precisely analogous to the MAGA crowd these days. Actually, it's the norm for all of us. But, degrees and differences in content matter. In reality that's all there is.
I don't know how to successfully argue against strong ideological commitment. I've seen evidence that people can be convinced to change their minds. It happens a lot. But one argument with me isn't going to do it. It seems to be something that takes time and includes many factors. In the moment a person is unlikely to change their mind, to say the least. Bystanders, planting seeds, etc.
One thing I've no doubt of. Two, actually. Accommodation isn't effective and ridicule certainly can be effective.
Darrell - I agree with you on many points.
Deciphering QANON is no different than trying to decipher and interpret the Book of Revelation and The Book of Daniel to predict the future End Time.
Denying global warming and being an anti-vaxxer is no different than denying evolution or even being a flat earther.
What you see today is no different than the Scopes Monkey Trial or the Late Great Planet Earth.
The same mental gymnastics are required.
However...
The existence or non-existence of God can neither be proven or disproven. God is a concept which is by definition beyond human understanding. Their can only be evidence for (the apparent fine tuning of the universal constants to allow for the development of intelligent life) or against (the a horrid cruelty of the natural world supposedly created by a loving God).
In fact, the only theory that fits available evidence is that God exists and He is cruel - but nobody wants to accept that.
But I digress.
There are also equally bad consequences of belief (fanaticism, oppressions of women, ignorance and suppression of knowledge, witch burnings, inquisitions, jihads and crusades, etc.) and non-belief (mass murder of class enemies and racial "inferiors", moral relativism, existential nihilism, etc.)
At the end of the day, there is no answer.
Only reason I talk to them is from having a pastor grandfather.
‘Tricky as priest’, because many of the congregation want to be tricked. The myths to them are much preferable to the realities of death and taxes, sickness and cluelessness.
“childish drivel”
They expect one to possess the heart of a child combined with an adult mind. But the reverse is the norm. They set the bar impossibly high to weed out the flock.
I tell them how if one were to live in a manner similar to the Amish, say, one could be pious, yet they want the cake and be able to eat it, too. They convince themselves prosperity Christianity is not modernity Christianity—however they naturally don’t want to endure the sacrifices entailed in existing in a primitive biblical-type setting.
—
Though they like weakness in a person, breaking someone down until they see the Light, they have no respect for weakness. Thus you have to speak softly to them but carry a big stick.
More on Trumpism than religion--have you heard some of the alternative facts that those people believe? That President Biden has been caught taking bribes, or that Fani Willis had an affair with a gang leader?
There is no talking to those who live in an alternate universe. Eventually, either they or I will be forced to "bump up against solid reality, often on a battlefield." I'm willing to bet that it won't be me doing the bumping.
Without further comment...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/execution-stoning-christian-nationalism-1234797127/
THE PODCAST SETUP at first appears familiar: a pair of white dudes, mic’d up at a table, wrestling out loud with big ideas. But the conversation between the two men veers, without guardrails, into a dystopian vision of a Christian nationalist America, in which the laws of the Old Testament have been substituted for the constitution and the community is responsible for executions, including for people who cheat on their spouses.
Those executions, the men propose, should be done by stoning, the public act of hurling rocks at a condemned person until they are bludgeoned to death.
...
Foes of Christian nationalism are frequently derided as hysterical when they compare the movement to the Taliban, or the fictional Gilead of The Handmaid’s Tale. But as this podcast illuminates, there are factions of Christian nationalists who don’t just want to take America back to its supposed Christian origins. They seek to jettison our constitutional system of checks and balances in favor of a government based on biblical law, including reviving punishments that clash violently with modern notions of human rights.
...
DP said...
"The existence or non-existence of God can neither be proven or disproven. God is a concept which is by definition beyond human understanding. Their can only be evidence for (the apparent fine tuning of the universal constants to allow for the development of intelligent life) or against (the a horrid cruelty of the natural world supposedly created by a loving God)."
Yes, I'm very familiar with that argument. I disagree. While it's a true statement that you can't prove or disprove the existence of something that I just made up, because there is no evidence to support either claim, it really is not applicable to the reality of nearly all the gods invented by humans. I'd go further, when we are talking about reality "prove" and "disprove" simply isn't the way it works, unless those words are meant in a colloquial sense. For real matters we are stuck with weighing evidence and probabilities to arrive at answers that are provisional, to one degree or another. And actually, though it does take time, we've found some ways to do that which correspond very well with reality. Scripture and theological aren't among those ways. We also know very well that making up stuff and believing it without testing the claim by the methods we've learned work, doesn't yield results that correspond well with reality.
The evidence for any god, with one exception, is so poor that there is no good reason anyone should accept that it exists. The one exception is a deistic kind of god, and that gets no one anything. It certainly doesn't lend support to any of the gods humans have invented. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but it most certainly is evidence of absence when evidence should have been found if the claim were true. In the same way that the claim "the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning" is well enough supported to be called "true" the claim that god 'X' exists is "false."
"There are also equally bad consequences of belief (fanaticism, oppressions of women, ignorance and suppression of knowledge, witch burnings, inquisitions, jihads and crusades, etc.) and non-belief (mass murder of class enemies and racial "inferiors", moral relativism, existential nihilism, etc.)"
I disagree. Believing in a god and the claims of a religion is to believe in things that are not true. And not just any things. Religious belief is an ideology that is foundational to a persons worldview and their image of who and what they are. As such it influences their behavior and actions. Not believing in a god and the claims of a religion does not result in that. Steven Weinberg's famous, or infamous depending on your view, quote says it pretty succinctly. It is not a subtle difference.
When discussing the question of whether God exists, it's instructive to note what exactly is being proposed. More often than not, when someone insists that God exists, what they're really insisting is that an afterlife which rewards or punishes based upon a particular set of rules exists.
I don't generally argue one way or another over the existence of God. I do tend to argue over what His existence (or lack thereof) implies for us.
Discussions almost always start with something other than whether God exists. They almost always start with something else. But believers almost always retreat back to that claim. When you've run them out of gaps all they've got left is, "I have faith."
Darrell E:
all they've got left is, "I have faith."
And it's not just faith in God itself. It's faith in the faith. That is, they have faith that their faith is what matters.
My paraphrase for their belief system looks like a cut-and-paste error, but it is not:
"I have to believe that I have to believe in Jesus in order to get into Heaven in order to get into Heaven."
Larry,
Solution to what?
Pure tolerance leads to a segregated world where separate really isn't equal.
What I want at minimum is that next step up from tolerance where we choose to coexist... and then work out our differences and what they imply to make for a relatively nice, peaceful world.
We are actually pretty good at doing this. It starts with a combination of engagement with an understanding that we are better off if we DON'T all think alike.
You guys are talking about the MAJORIY of crazy fundies. When I talk about outreach, I am talking about a very large minority of modern professed deep-christians who retain a core of decency. I have found that they respond very well to arguments over scripture and indeed are surprised and pleased and flattered when a person of intellect talks to them in the language they have long used to interpret the world. Just showing SOME knowledge and interest in the book they have actually read makes them feel you made an effort and respect them, a little.
Again, this is a minority, but a very large one. And most of them resent being called 'racist' cause they don't FEEL racist and have multi-racial heroes. Sure, loony, like Beck claiming to be MLK's heir. But we can start there. And AGAIN... peeling away just a million memsmerized goppers will devastate them at the polls.
I am not talking about getting sucked into a 'preach-off' tossing obscure biblical arcana back and forth. "Let's keep it basic. Like were we made for greater things than just screeching terrified praise at a weak-ego flattery junkie? (See my video.)" Or "If He can change his mind and relent, why are you even paying any attention to sadistic Patmos ravings?"
Oh, another aspect. "I'll talk scripture with you if you'll let me show you the real science of climate change, ocean acidification, the speed of light, and the layers and layers of sedimentary ages exposed in the grand canyon, each with its own species and hence NOT from a single flood."
(The MAJORITY of insane-jealous sadistic/stoopid MAGAS deserve only to have their beloved macho torched, exposed as cowards for refusing to escrow stakes for clean wagers.)
Again, only a minority will do this with open minds and hearts. But when you find one, you start out with expressions of respect. And "I've read at least part of your book."
Sorry but "God of the Gaps" has nothing to do with it.
The real question isn't whether God exists or not, but if existence has inherent purpose - a reason for existing.
If the universe was deliberately created by a deity, it was created for a purpose and existence has a reason for existing. However, if the universe is a mere accident, then accident by definition are meaningless and without purpose.
Therefore atheism results in macro-nihilism on the cosmic scale. To which you respond that you can create your own personal meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe and thus avoid micro-nihilism at the personal scale. Let me explain to you why that is not logically possible.
There are several problems with do-it-yourself purpose/meaning. First it involves an act of to solipsism ("that self is the only object of real knowledge.", OED). To claim that you have created meaning in your own mind is akin to claiming that you believed that you floated around the room like a balloon, therefore that must have been a real experience.
The second problem lies in the evaluation of the do-it-yourself purpose and it existential in nature. As Sarte and Neitzche discovered to their dismay when "God is dead", nihilism is what you get in return. Their philosophies dwelled on this existentialist blind alley, trying to find an escape, such as Sarte's "duty" to make meaning in your life. But if all of existence is inherently meaningless, what possible compass can you use to guide yourself in the search for meaning and purpose? The following is a quote from the internet library of philosophy to illustrate this point:
"In the twentieth century, it's the atheistic existentialist movement, popularized in France in the 1940s and 50s, that is responsible for the currency of existential nihilism in the popular consciousness. Jean-Paul Sartre's (1905-1980) defining preposition for the movement, "existence precedes essence," rules out any ground or foundation for establishing an essential self or a human nature. When we abandon illusions, life is revealed as nothing; and for the existentialists, nothingness is the source of not only absolute freedom but also existential horror and emotional anguish. Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being "thrown" into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning. It's a situation that's nothing short of absurd. Writing from the enlightened perspective of the absurd, Albert Camus (1913-1960) observed that Sisyphus' plight, condemned to eternal, useless struggle, was a superb metaphor for human existence (The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942). The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness, and they expended great energy responding to the question of whether surviving it was possible. Their answer was a qualified "Yes," advocating a formula of passionate commitment and impassive stoicism. In retrospect, it was an anecdote tinged with desperation because in an absurd world there are absolutely no guidelines, and any course of action is problematic. Passionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless. Enter nihilism."
In other words, if the universe did not already have "meaning and purpose" , then individuals would have the impossible task of creating them ex nihilo.
Atheism results in total an abject nihilism on all levels.
And make no mistake, there are consequences to atheism - baggage you will have to carry.
From Tom Wolfe's brilliant essay, "Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died":
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/Wolfe-Sorry-But-Your-Soul-Just-Died.php
They start with the most famous statement in all of modern philosophy, Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum," "I think, therefore I am," which they regard as the essence of "dualism," the old–fashioned notion that the mind is something distinct from its mechanism, the brain and the body. (I will get to the second most famous statement in a moment.) This is also known as the "ghost in the machine" fallacy, the quaint belief that there is a ghostly "self" somewhere inside the brain that interprets and directs its operations. Neuroscientists involved in three–dimensional electroencephalography will tell you that there is not even any one place in the brain where consciousness or self–consciousness (Cogito ergo sum) is located. This is merely an illusion created by a medley of neurological systems acting in concert. The young generation takes this yet one step further. Since consciousness and thought are entirely physical products of your brain and nervous system—and since your brain arrived fully imprinted at birth—what makes you think you have free will? Where is it going to come from? What "ghost," what "mind," what "self," what "soul," what anything that will not be immediately grabbed by those scornful quotation marks, is going to bubble up your brain stem to give it to you? I have heard neuroscientists theorize that, given computers of sufficient power and sophistication, it would be possible to predict the course of any human being's life moment by moment, including the fact that the poor devil was about to shake his head over the very idea. I doubt that any Calvinist of the sixteenth century ever believed so completely in predestination as these, the hottest and most intensely rational young scientists in the United States at the end of the twentieth....
A hundred years ago those who worried about the death of God could console one another with the fact that they still had their own bright selves and their own inviolable souls for moral ballast and the marvels of modern science to chart the way. But what if, as seems likely, the greatest marvel of modern science turns out to be brain imaging? And what if, ten years from now, brain imaging has proved, beyond any doubt, that not only Edward O. Wilson but also the young generation are, in fact, correct?
Dr. Brin,
These are the people who worship Trump instead of Jesus.
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192663920/southern-baptist-convention-donald-trump-christianity#:~:text=According%20to%20Moore%2C%20Christianity%20is,for%20the%20religion%20he%20loves
It was the result of having multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — "turn the other cheek" — [and] to have someone come up after to say, "Where did you get those liberal talking points?" And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, "I'm literally quoting Jesus Christ," the response would not be, "I apologize." The response would be, "Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak." And when we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we're in a crisis.
There is nobody more unchristian that Trump's evangelical worshipers.
I always suspected that if the End Time ever happened and the ant-Christ would actually appear, that evangelicals would be the first ones to bow down and worship him.
https://time.com/5932014/donald-trump-christian-supporters/
@DP,
Quoting (though from memory) Dave Sim:
"It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with it. And I'll keep on not agreeing with it no matter how many times you repeat it."
(And I was being nicer in my word choice than Dave was)
* * *
They start with the most famous statement in all of modern philosophy, Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum," "I think, therefore I am," which they regard as the essence of "dualism," the old–fashioned notion that the mind is something distinct from its mechanism, the brain and the body.
That's not what the phrase means. Or at least I've never taken it that way.
"I think" isn't a necessary condition for existing, but it is a sufficient condition. It can also be substituted with an infinite number of other verbs. "I eat, therefore I am" is just as truthful. So is, "I vote for Biden, therefore I am." Because as long as "I" do anything, there must be an "I" who does it. "Thinking" is a preferable example only in the sense that you might counter that I am not really eating or voting or masturbating or whatever, because it might all be a dream or an illusion. It's harder to argue that I am not thinking, that I only think I'm thinking.
"I feel pain, therefore I am" also works, when the premise is true.
So is, "I'm being fooled by an illusion created by my brain chemistry, therefore I am." If there's really no "me", then who exactly is being fooled?
DP:
I always suspected that if the End Time ever happened and the ant-Christ would actually appear, that evangelicals would be the first ones to bow down and worship him.
Hey, who says I never agree with you? :)
And from yesterday (I think it was), this is what I meant when I said they literally renounce Christ.
But that is like demanding wagers. It strikes fear into em and they FLEE amid the smoking ruins of their machismo, and that helps if others (like wives) witness it. I find attacking their courage to daunt them. They lack the guts ANY of the men of the Greatest Generation would have shown, to either pony up wager stakes or STFU.
This is the type of ill-thought out & excessively confrontational plan for which Mike Tyson has zero respect, as it is a tactic which assumes that one's opponent is simultaneously(1) cowardly, (2) conflict-avoidant and (3) rule-obedient.
But what, pray tell, happens when one's opponent does not FLEE in a cowardly, conflict-avoidant or rule obedient fashion?
What if they stand their ground, respond in kind, escalate and tell their accuser to STFU in return ?
You've now precipitated the exact same situation that your proposed tactics were specifically designed to avoid, and it's your turn to grovel & flee like a dog or face a potentially deadly no-holds-barred confrontation without any rules at all.
Best
_________
The peaceable individual will retreat from confrontation until retreat is no longer an option, and then they will fight like a thousand demons. Or, they will die a peaceable death, leaving the future to the mostly belligerent.
I’m not referring to the majority of crazy fundies, DB, in fact have no trouble with Christians anymore—as their meaning has become apparent. BUT it is all non-starter.
They want a simpler, more authoritarian world, with the trimmings of high tech included. Where do you go from there?
So I probe (‘mind-meld’) into what the individual Christian wishes for, and the answer is eventually revealed as “peace of mind.” Problem, for them, is that in the 21st century there are more temptations for them to give into: which can interfere with their peace of mind.
Holy shit.
"If the universe was deliberately created by a deity, it was created for a purpose and existence has a reason for existing. "
The Great Sermon... the ONLY one delivered by God, ALWAYS, on demand, is what you get when you haul the Believer outside and look skyward:
"If You give me a clear and unambiguous sign right now, Oh Lord, explicitly telling me which doctrine to follow, in order to get the benefits promised, by you, from foregiveness of Original Sin to prosperity on Earth, then I will certainly be as impressed as when Folk in Galilee got wine and fish and loaves from Jesus. I ask you - in your omnipotence, to do that for us, now."
HE WILL answer with the Great Sermon... "Carry on and solve all riddles yourselves, AS IF I am not here at all."
Then turn to the fellow you dragged outside and say "Okay, your turn."
When he refuses, say: "Okay then I am going to obey, by trying my best to make a better world AS IF He doesn't exist.:
"But what, pray tell, happens when one's opponent does not FLEE in a cowardly, conflict-avoidant or rule obedient fashion?"
They always always flee, as you just did by screeching "STFU YOURSELF!!!!" Oh how clever. But that is screeching flight, desperately avoiding atepping up like a man and BETTING real stakes on the mad assertions spewed by your cult.
Easily testable ones, like ocean acidification. Or whether all naval officers are upset over arctic melting and sea level rise. Or whether grand juries across America indict ONE HUNDRED TIMES as many goppers because the jury members are all in a massive plot?
Or any of 40 other easily testable wagers that I offer. Screeching "STFU YOURSELF!!!!" is fleeing. Let's shorten it:
"But what, pray tell, happens when one's opponent does not FLEE...?"
It never, ever, ever happens. Because you are a cult of weenie cowards. The Greatest Generation would spit in your eyes.
As for fine-tuning: A look at the night sky shows that the universe is 99.99999+% dark cold irradiated vacuum, uninhabitable by any life. So I say that the universe is fine-tuned against life. 99.99999+% is pretty fine tuning. I call this the "Misanthropic Principle."
Ok, I can't just let this sit there...
DP:
If the universe was deliberately created by a deity, it was created for a purpose and existence has a reason for existing. However, if the universe is a mere accident, then accident by definition are meaningless and without purpose.
I'd disagree on both counts.
I've created plenty of half-finished drawings that ended up crumpled in a wastebasket. My daughter created a baking-soda volcano once for a school project. Why can it not be the case that our universe's creation is no more meaningful than those particular creations were?
OTOH, you're doing something kinda like anthropomorphizing when talking about whether the universe is an accident. What does that even mean? Compared to what? The universe is everything that is, was, and will be. By definition, it is sui generis. There is no other universe to compare its value to. Literally, it is what it is. And it is the same universe whether God created it or not.
Therefore atheism results in macro-nihilism on the cosmic scale.
You're making a big assumption that for our own lives to have meaning to us, the universe as a whole has to have some overarching, objective meaning. Why can't the universe simply be the set of raw materials which we put to use for our own purposes? And by "purposes", I mean whatever motivates us. Enjoying life's comforts. Making a loved one happy. Defending one's homeland against an invader. If those are things that feel meaningful to me, who are you to say they don't count?
To which you respond that you can create your own personal meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe and thus avoid micro-nihilism at the personal scale.
Condescend much?
Ok, I was going to drag this out much longer, but I'll just get to the point.
In other words, if the universe did not already have "meaning and purpose" , then individuals would have the impossible task of creating them ex nihilo.
Atheism results in total an abject nihilism on all levels
No, what you are describing is someone who has had faith in a particular source of meaning for so long that when that faith is shaken or removed, he is left adrift. To someone whose day-to-day motivations are not already dependent on there being an external purpose imbued by God, the hypothesis is simply irrelevant.
The fact that we atheists do not descend into nihilistic depression is proof enough that we are not constrained to be. Your walls of text are bumping up against solid reality.
As I assert in my theological monograph, there's just one answer to The Question of Pain and why bad things happen to good people. And it is hard for an ego-full guy to admit. But the only thing that lets Him off the hook is if His big project is NOT "me" or individual humans, at all. It is "us". THAT is what's gradually getting better. If 'us' is what matters... humanity or the Earth or something we are part-of...
...then perhaps - maybe - the countless, massive injustices are part of some macro positive outcome. I'd STILL have so many questions. FAR more questions than obeisance and groveling worship. But in theory, that explanation does offer an out.
Dr Brin:
But the only thing that lets Him off the hook is if His big project is NOT "me" or individual humans, at all. It is "us". THAT is what's gradually getting better. If 'us' is what matters... humanity or the Earth or something we are part-of..
I don't think that is in conflict with anything that's been discussed here recently.
Humanity as a whole might well have a purpose, even if my individual fate is irrelevant to that purpose. I'm not sure how that fits into DP's cosmology, but if I'm reading correctly, I should have the cojones to kill myself if my own life is without purpose for God, even if humanity the species does have one. Whereas my own view is the opposite--that I can enjoy the perks of being a live human irrespective of how significant or not I personally am to God's plan.
The last paragraph of ORIGIN OF SPECIES offers a fairly gentle childhood's end. No trumpets or marching soldiers or Great Cleansing. Just a sweet, lyrical, thoughtful stroll from fantasy to rationality. It's almost as if he was trying to avoid a quarrel with his better half :)
Alfred Differ:
Pure tolerance leads to a segregated world where separate really isn't equal.
Well, isn't that called sorting, or testing?
Some Democrats and Republicans self-segregate because of COVID. Democrats tend to want to take precautions, and some will refuse to mingle with the un-vaxed and un-masked. Some Republicans refuse to mingle with the vaxed because we're sloughing vaccine cooties onto them and infecting them with brain-controlling nanites.
As a result, Republicans are dying more from COVID than Democrats are. In a rational society, they would conclude from the experiment that our way is better--for them, I mean--than theirs is, and become more equal to us. OTOH, if owning the libs is more important to them than survival, I can't dictate to them how they should conduct their lives.
And I'm certainly not going to work for equality by adopting their methods.
Space does not have a color of its own. It is the medium through which we see color. It is transparent to color, for otherwise we would see nothing but that color, and be color-blind.
Likewise, existence does not have a meaning of its own. It is medium though which we experience meaning. Existence is transparent to meaning, for otherwise we would experience nothing but that meaning, and be meaning-blind.
Life is more like air than like space. Air has a slight tint of blue, due to Raleigh scattering; if you look through kilometers of air towards a distant mountain, then you'll see it tinted blue. Likewise, life has a little bit of meaning, experienced if you live long enough. That meaning, too, is blue.
DP,
Like Larry I a tempted to bite at the baited hook, but I don't think I'll bite as hard this time because we've been over this topic here. You are simply mistaken.
But if all of existence is inherently meaningless, what possible compass can you use to guide yourself in the search for meaning and purpose?
That is an excellent question. You shouldn't assume there is a consensus answer or even that those of us who lean toward Existentialism all agree with Sartre. Other parts of what he said make some sense to us, but there is always room to argue about conclusions.
———
Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being "thrown" into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning.
Not really. We aren't isolated. The universe does appear to be pretty alien, but it does respond to well-phrased questions. Most answers return translate as "poorly formed question", but a few come back as "No"… and that's enough.
For example, most "why" questions are poorly formed. They tend to assume purpose. In the kind of universe an Animist believes exists, that would be a good assumption. Even the rocks would have purpose. Change what you think what might be true or just consider other options and the assumption is revealed as having a dependency.
"Why does a duck fly?"
"Why do rocks fall to the ground when dropped out a second story window?"
———
The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness…
That's true enough, but they tended to be people who formerly had Faith or were taught they should. Modern Existentialists don't suffer the same level of anguish because Faith was never a core element of our identities.
———
I tend to agree with Sartre's position regarding a duty to make meaning, but with a caveat. It's my personal duty to act, but the meaning I create might not be personal. I'm usually happiest when creating an emergent meaning broadly applicable in my community.
Paradoctor,
99.99999+% is pretty fine tuning.
Heh. I'm sure I've said it here before, but one of my grad professors was nice enough to show us the Heat Death had already occurred. If we included the energy known to be distributed among the neutrinos zipping about the universe, we already existed in a cold, dead, thin fog of nothing. Of course the point of his lesson is that we don't APPEAR to be dead, so what really matters is energy gradients. That's why the first version of thermodynamics didn't need an exact definition for entropy. Who cares what the absolute amount is inside a volume!? What matters is where it is going.
I like "Misanthropic Principle" as a name for how little the Universe gives a damn about us. I'd rather it didn't. 8)
Oh… but space does have a color. It's down there in the microwave band. But yes… I get your point. I'm not sure I agree, but I don't disagree. Meaning emerges.
What I think bugs people about existentialism is our rejection of a priori meaning. In fact, we tend to reject pretty much anything being a priori true.
Larry,
Well, isn't that called sorting, or testing?
Sorta yes. Sorta no.
My concern comes from a sorting that lasts long enough that people erect fences that turn into walls to which we add moats and minefields.
Everything we do sorts and tests us. The successful might get noticed and imperfectly imitated in the next generation. In that we evolve behaviorally. Literally evolve since the act of copying is reproduction while imperfect copies are variation. Those who don't get noticed or fail enough that few want to copy them are selected against.
As long as that evolutionary process continues, I'm happy enough. If we put up walls, moats, and minefields we risk speciation. In a social sense that means blood flowing in the gutters. In this modern world with modern weapons, that means poisoning the Earth.
DP
In other words, if the universe did not already have "meaning and purpose" , then individuals would have the impossible task of creating them ex nihilo.
"meaning and purpose" - why do you say creating "meaning and purpose" is an impossible task??
IMHO creating "meaning and purpose" is really not that difficult - we do that ALL the time!
"meaning and purpose" does not have to mean some sort of universal "meaning and purpose" - instead its an individual thing
We can (and do) SHARE "meaning and purpose"
Creating "meaning and purpose" is not some sort of impossible task
Alfred Differ:
My concern comes from a sorting that lasts long enough that people erect fences that turn into walls to which we add moats and minefields.
Yes, I was being kinda pissy before. But my point is that there's a difference between the fortunate erecting barriers to keep anyone else from improving themselves and the self-destructive erecting barriers for God-knows-what reason.
I'm not a fan of segregation, but when a group self-segregates in a way that makes themselves worse off, I think the onus for correcting the inequality falls on the group itself. It's not up to Democrats to increase our percentage of COVID deaths to make us more equal to Republicans.
You shouldn't assume there is a consensus answer or even that those of us who lean toward Existentialism all agree with Sartre. Other parts of what he said make some sense to us, but there is always room to argue about conclusions.
I haven't thought about Existentialism as a concept since high school. I'm not clear that the term describes what I am, and I'm not claiming to speak for it. I just bristle at someone who doesn't know what he's talking about mansplaining what atheists must argue and what we are constrained to feel. All things considered (and all exceptions duly noted), I'm pretty content to be alive in 21st century Chicago. I don't require it to be for something else.
they tended to be people who formerly had Faith or were taught they should. Modern Existentialists don't suffer the same level of anguish because Faith was never a core element of our identities.
Yeah, I was trying to say that same thing.
Larry Hart,
You've often pointed out that among the Maga crowd "the cruelty is the point." The side discussion above about religion, my mention of the most acclaimed Christian theologians and your oft made point brought to mind another similarity between political extremists like the Maga crowd and religious extremists. They both crave cruelty. For example, from some of Christianity's heroes . . .
THOMAS AQUINAS
“In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. So that they may be urged the more to praise God. The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens to the damned.”
(Summa Theologica Question XCIV)
JONATHAN EDWARDS
“The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell? I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.”
(“The Eternity of Hell Torments” Sermon, April 1739)
TERTULLIAN
“What a spectacle when the world and its many products, shall be consumed in one great flame! How vast a spectacle then bursts upon the eye! What there excites my admiration? What my derision? Which sight gives me joy? As I see illustrious monarchs groaning in the lowest darkness, Philosophers as fire consumes them! Poets trembling before the judgment-seat of Christ! I shall hear the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; view play-actors in the dissolving flame; behold wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows. What inquisitor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favor of seeing and exulting in such things as these? Yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.”
(De Spectaculis, Chapter XXX)
AUGUSTINE
“They who shall enter into [the] joy [of the Lord] shall know what is going on outside in the outer darkness. The saints knowledge, which shall be great, shall keep them acquainted with the eternal sufferings of the lost.”
(The City of God, Bk 20, Ch. 22)
Re: craving cruelty
That's what I meant by: No trumpets or marching soldiers or Great Cleansing.
Not so much as Gandhi-peacenik-ism, but more as the Mule being suddenly and entirely neutralized by a subtle twitch from the First Speaker.
Darrell E:
another similarity between political extremists like the Maga crowd and religious extremists. They both crave cruelty
If only those people would occasionally get laid.
Darrell E: Any Heaven inhabited by souls that sadistic will inevitably go to Hell. Meanwhile, the engineers in the Hell that they gloat over will install air-conditioning. Eventually the two places will exchange places.
At this very moment, I'm listening to reports out of Maui which specify that the catastrophic fire was a NATURAL disaster (in the sense that human beings must be absolved of any & all responsibility), excepting that the fire was UNNATURAL (as it was caused by anthropogenic climate change), which means that this fire was an UNNATURAL NATURAL DISASTER for which humanity is entirely responsible.
Likewise, this blog is not immune to this greater social insanity, as I've read here that (1) there is neither God, Good nor Evil, (2) human beings are basically 'good' and 'godly', (3) there is no purpose for human existence beyond human perfectibility & godliness and (4) human beings who disagree with this assessment are simultaneously cowardly, ignoble, evil & incapable of being perfectible.
Willy-nilly, everything is now defined as its opposite, as the Godless have been declared Godly, the Imperfect are thought Perfectible, the Disagreeable are thought Evil & Irredeemable, and the Evil are thought Harmless & Cowardly.
Welcome to the Orwellian Century of Nonsense.
Best
________
Such historical revisionism is infinitely reassuring as it's nice to know that history's villains are " a cult of weenie cowards" who ALWAYS FLEE when the stunning & brave wag a disapproving finger at them. 'Shame, shame,' exclaim the stunning & brave in a way that renders the antisocial barbarian powerless as they retreat into their hidey holes. Shame, shame.
locumranch:
How many Scarecrows does it take to critique a Strawman?
Answer: One, and a mirror.
The numbered points in the second paragraph from locumranch require some extra supporting explanation. The fact that many of us here don't agree with each other on how to interpret the world around us is nothing new, so summing us up IS likely to give a strange, inconsistent POV. The error, however, is in summing us.
At least with the last paragraph, though, I could determine at whom his barbs were aimed. 8)
Question: if angels can fall from heavens and be cast into hell, can the saved/saints also lose their place in heaven.
IIRC the answer is "once saved, always saved" - even for those who have not yet died.
So the saved can never get kicked out of heaven.
But does that mean they are incapable of rebelling against God once they reach heaven? Will never want to? In either case, the saved would be lacking Free Will.
So the saved that disagree or even rebel against God (such as a saved parent sorrowing over their damned child in hell) still get to stay in heaven?
Go to limbo?
What would the fate be of a rebellious saint?
Larry,
But my point is that there's a difference between the fortunate erecting barriers to keep anyone else from improving themselves and the self-destructive erecting barriers for God-knows-what reason.
True. There is. Unfortunately it is a difference that leads to a very similar result. Moats and minefields.
when a group self-segregates
We have to respect their choice to some degree, but we can't ignore it or leave them entirely to their consequences. Moats and minefields have consequences for us too.
I haven't thought about Existentialism as a concept since high school.
I'm not well studied on the topic myself. I don't like the anguish expressed by many of their authors and strongly dislike the typical theist responses. However, one can't study modern physics theory in any depth without encountering Existentialism. One of the tangent points is the concept of Time.
When it comes to their arguments and refutations in depth, I'm inclined to defer to Gregory Byshenk who is our closest match to a resident philosopher. Whether or not he's an expert on the topic, he's likely much better read on it than I am. 8)
Darrell E,
(after reading those quotes from theologians)
How depressing. Every one of those sounds like God threatening the Saints with visions of what He could have done to them. Every one of those sounds exactly like… a vengeful human.
Ugh.
Side note: I remember being taught in Catholic grade school that the unbaptized babies and good non-Catholics would go to Limbo instead of hell.
Limbo is simply described as a place without God but without the punishments of hell.
But separation from God is supposed to to be the worst punishment in hell, far worse than any flames or torture.
So not seeing much of an improvement.
Alfred Differ:
"when a group self-segregates"
We have to respect their choice to some degree, but we can't ignore it or leave them entirely to their consequences. Moats and minefields have consequences for us too.
Keep in touch with all your old girlfriends, do you?
Moats and minefields generally are to prevent people who want to come in from doing so. Or in cases like the Berlin Wall, to prevent people who want to leave from doing so. If people whose presence is toxic or dangerous to me go away so they don't have to mingle with me, and therefore I don't have to mingle with them either, I don't see the downside. No one's will is being thwarted--on either side.
duncan - "why do you say creating "meaning and purpose" is an impossible task??"
Because in a meaningless universe, nothing matters and every action or thought is pointless.
But if all of existence is inherently meaningless, what possible compass can you use to guide yourself in the search for meaning and purpose?
"The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness, and they expended great energy responding to the question of whether surviving it was possible. Their answer was a qualified "Yes," advocating a formula of passionate commitment and impassive stoicism. In retrospect, it was an anecdote tinged with desperation because in an absurd world there are absolutely no guidelines, and any course of action is problematic. Passionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless. Enter nihilism."
The fires in Maui are indeed the Lord’s punishment, as Locum was sent to this blog to punish us for our sins.
Thus we must render our garments and cover ourselves with sackcloth and ashes!
DP:
Limbo is simply described as a place without God but without the punishments of hell.
I wasn't raised Catholic, so I often confuse terms like Limbo and Purgatory and Hell. But in any secular, metaphorical use of the term I'm familiar with, being "in Limbo" (or "in a kind of Limbo") always sounds like it is temporary--like one is stuck between where he was and where he will eventually get to, and just doesn't know how long the intervening time will be.
Having souls exist in Limbo for eternity seems awfully...well, pointless.
DP:
Enter nihilism
One of the favorite sayings my wife and I often throw at each other is, "That's your answer to everything."
Need I elaborate?
DP:
"The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness, and they expended great energy responding to the question of whether surviving it was possible.
This reminds me of nothing as much as the way I felt each of the two times that a girlfriend I had already gotten close enough to trust we'd stay together decided to call off the relationship. I'm not talking about unrequited love, but a surprise disengagement from what had promised to be a long-term relationship. The most recent time took me two years to get over the depression, to the point that I still nod ruefully when I hear the Don Henley line,
It's been over two years for me, and I'm still not quite myself.
Yes, when you build your life believing that a certain external influence is the what gives it meaning, and then that is taken away from you, it can become a crisis.
That said, I would be foolish to instruct another guy who for whom romantic love isn't his highest priority that his life is objectively meaningless without a lifelong mate. Which is exactly what it sounds like to me when you insist that everyone who doesn't believe in God is in that same condition.
Darrell E:
How depressing. Every one of those sounds like God threatening the Saints with visions of what He could have done to them.
That was my first thought. The notion that those saints praised God's justice even moreso after witnessing the sufferings of Hell isn't a testament to the perfection of God's plan. Rather, it is the reaction of a sniveling toady, profusely thanking the bully for not bullying him. Not unlike a meeting of Donald Trump's cabinet.
Larry - "Yes, when you build your life believing that a certain external influence is the what gives it meaning, and then that is taken away from you, it can become a crisis."
Belief has nothing to do with it, just basic logic. In an inherently meaningless and pointless existence, meaning and purpose are not possible for anyone or anything.
An atheist with cojones would simply accept the fact that a Godless existence is inherently nihilistic and get on with his life.
If scoundrels flee to 'patriotism'... today's nutty MAGAs don't even pretend to care about America anymore. No longer even interested in that refuge and face with with the factual disproof of every single talking (yammer) point and every screeched delusion, they have just one refuge left...
... subjectivity.
Nothing is real! Everything is incantation!
Desperately, they howl that 'facts' are nonexistent. They accuse fact users of using polemical trickery!
And since it's all yammers and assertions, they can claim "Our yammers are better!"
Um, no. Our difference is not between competing yammers. It is between fanatical yammerers on the one hand... and people who have actual, actual verifiable facts on their side. Mountains of checkable, verifiable facts and a willingness to stake $$$ upon them.
No amount of wailing and thrashing will change that.
Hence, some are deliberate liars in service to oppressors, and thus evil before God... while many others are simply insane. But all have one trait in common. They are cowards who flee from demands they step up, like men, and slap wager stakes on the bar, the way their dads would've done. Dad's who now look down upon them, ashamed.
DP: You are committing the fallacy of composition. Though the universe does not have a specific meaning or purpose of its own - for it contains all meanings and purposes - still events and beings within the universe can have meaning and purpose. For me not to stub my toe on a rock in my path means nothing to the universe, but something to me. A strawberry is delicious to me, but not to the universe, but that's OK because the universe isn't eating the strawberry, I am.
It's true that purpose is local. I don't care about things far enough away. In abstract terms that's illogical, but it makes pragmatic sense, and purpose is all about putting things into practice. What purpose would over-extending purpose serve?
There exist atheistic religions, such as Buddhism. They agree that the universe has no purpose; and they recommend ascending to a state of mind as desireless as the universe.
The difference between nihilism and enlightenment is that the first is experienced as the loss of a possession, and the second is experienced as the end of being possessed.
DP:
An atheist with cojones would simply accept the fact that a Godless existence is inherently nihilistic and get on with his life.
When you've mentioned cojones in the past, you never said exactly what those atheists were too cowardly to do, and I assumed you meant they should kill themselves. If you mean "get on with his life" instead, well that's pretty much what I am doing.
Not sure what nihilism has to do with it, though. You're assuming there is no point to a pleasant and stimulating journey unless the destination is important. I disagree.
Dr Brin:
Um, no. Our difference is not between competing yammers. It is between fanatical yammerers on the one hand... and people who have actual, actual verifiable facts on their side.
Yammers eventually bump up against solid reality, often on a battlefield.
"Not sure what nihilism has to do with it, though. You're assuming there is no point to a pleasant and stimulating journey unless the destination is important. I disagree."
False dichotomy.
Whether or not God exists, we have proved that a human society can progress ahead far faster and more efficiently and with FAR less blood on the floor than either Natural evolution or insipidly zero-sum feudal nations ever could. I will let my far, far wiser heirs fret about abstract philosophical matters. It is my job to help make those heirs and help them to BE such wiseguyas...
... who might, perhaps, go forth and rescue a whole lot of other, otherwise doomed, races across the galaxy. That'll do for me as a lesser, fallback ambition from the standard demands that I spend eternity loudly competing to out-adore a Creator's desperate anxiety for praise.
DP:
Belief has nothing to do with it, just basic logic. In an inherently meaningless and pointless existence, meaning and purpose are not possible for anyone or anything.
Belief has everything to do with it. The despair comes from the undermining or betrayal of a belief that was once central to one's sense of purpose and which is no longer maintainable. When proselytizers speak of a "God-shaped hole," in one's soul, that's what they're describing.
But the hole is the absence of something crucial that was once there, and isn't any longer. It is a fallacy to assume that the hole is still there and still raw for someone who never built his sense of self around God in the first place.
DP,
Because in a meaningless universe, nothing matters and every action or thought is pointless.
No. In a global sense Yes. In a local sense No.
I'll give you a similar example. Time in the universal sense doesn't exist. It's an illusion. Time in a local sense does appear to exist. It is a direction and we assume it makes sense on a universal scale. It doesn't, yet we measure the local direction easily.
As for getting on with our lives, most of us do. If there is no global meaning, there's not much point fretting about it. Local meaning suffices for local being-hood.
Paradoctor,
The difference between nihilism and enlightenment is that the first is experienced as the loss of a possession, and the second is experienced as the end of being possessed.
I kinda like that description. It dovetails with the way my mother raised me regarding faiths taught in schools and churches. She purposefully chose to ensure I was practically a street urchin who never learned to read when it came to religion. It didn't quite work out that clean (It takes a village), but she did try.
The way she explained her choice in later years is children aren't equipped to make what are obviously adult decisions. The truth is probably closer to her not wanting her kids to be possessed by a horror she had to face down as a kid.
Dr Brin:
"Not sure what nihilism has to do with it, though. You're assuming there is no point to a pleasant and stimulating journey unless the destination is important. I disagree."
False dichotomy
I was using "no meaning" as a floor. In other words, even if there is no grand plan, life on its own terms can still be worth the living. That doesn't require that there is in fact no grand plan.
Paradoctor:
It's true that purpose is local. I don't care about things far enough away. In abstract terms that's illogical, but it makes pragmatic sense, and purpose is all about putting things into practice. What purpose would over-extending purpose serve?
In Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan, the entire purpose of the human race was to evolve to the point where we create a spaceship so as to inadvertently deliver a spare part to a moon of Saturn which a stranded alien needs to fix his conveyance. Knowing that wouldn't make my life seem more complete. I'm just as content with a different line, also by Vonnegut from Timequake. "We're here to fart around."
Recent conversation here about atheism, meaning, purpose, etc. reminded me of an XKCD contribution a while back. IMO too good not to share in this context.
https://xkcd.com/167/
Dr. Brin - "Whether or not God exists, we have proved that a human society can progress ahead far faster and more efficiently and with FAR less blood on the floor than either Natural evolution or insipidly zero-sum feudal nations ever could."
If (as a strongly suspect) we are the only intelligent species in this galaxy, IMHO our purpose is the spread out throughout the galaxy and beyond colonizing and terraforming worlds, building habitable mega structures like Bishops rings and orbital rings - even colonizing Black Holes.
Our purpose is to transform the universe from a cold, dark lifeless, inert place to one of life and intelligence, with every star system colonized, every black hole utilized and every rock given life. Transforming lifeless matter into life and blind energy into intelligence. Spreading out across the galaxy and beyond like a virus, even at slower than the speed of like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WtgmT5CYU8
Paradoctor - "still events and beings within the universe can have meaning and purpose."
No.
No they cannot.
Once again:
"The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness, and they expended great energy responding to the question of whether surviving it was possible. Their answer was a qualified "Yes," advocating a formula of passionate commitment and impassive stoicism. In retrospect, it was an anecdote tinged with desperation because in an absurd world there are absolutely no guidelines, and any course of action is problematic. Passionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless. Enter nihilism."
Alfred - "No. In a global sense Yes. In a local sense No."
Sorry, not even at the personal level is it possible to create meaning for yourself.
Why?
Because "You" don't exist.
The "Self" is just an illusion created by brain chemistry. Further more "free will" is an illusion.
So how can an illusion lacking free will create meaning and purpose?
I'm not saying atheism is wrong.
I'm saying it is inescapably nihilistic.
Believing that you have free will and agency to create meaning, or believing that the "Self" even exists in the first place, is no different than believing in God.
Believing in "Self" is no different than believing in God.
There is no evidence for either.
Both beliefs require an act of faith.
Someone truly without faith, and is honest about it, would live and act in a nihilistic fashion and not resort to fantasies of either kind.
But I have yet to meet an atheist with the courage of his convictions that would do so, hence the lack of cojones.
And hence the fears of Nietzsche as expressed in Tom Wolfe's brilliant essay, "Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died":
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/Wolfe-Sorry-But-Your-Soul-Just-Died.php
They start with the most famous statement in all of modern philosophy, Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum," "I think, therefore I am," which they regard as the essence of "dualism," the old–fashioned notion that the mind is something distinct from its mechanism, the brain and the body. (I will get to the second most famous statement in a moment.) This is also known as the "ghost in the machine" fallacy, the quaint belief that there is a ghostly "self" somewhere inside the brain that interprets and directs its operations. Neuroscientists involved in three–dimensional electroencephalography will tell you that there is not even any one place in the brain where consciousness or self–consciousness (Cogito ergo sum) is located. This is merely an illusion created by a medley of neurological systems acting in concert. The young generation takes this yet one step further. Since consciousness and thought are entirely physical products of your brain and nervous system—and since your brain arrived fully imprinted at birth—what makes you think you have free will? Where is it going to come from? What "ghost," what "mind," what "self," what "soul," what anything that will not be immediately grabbed by those scornful quotation marks, is going to bubble up your brain stem to give it to you? I have heard neuroscientists theorize that, given computers of sufficient power and sophistication, it would be possible to predict the course of any human being's life moment by moment, including the fact that the poor devil was about to shake his head over the very idea. I doubt that any Calvinist of the sixteenth century ever believed so completely in predestination as these, the hottest and most intensely rational young scientists in the United States at the end of the twentieth....
A hundred years ago those who worried about the death of God could console one another with the fact that they still had their own bright selves and their own inviolable souls for moral ballast and the marvels of modern science to chart the way. But what if, as seems likely, the greatest marvel of modern science turns out to be brain imaging? And what if, ten years from now, brain imaging has proved, beyond any doubt, that not only Edward O. Wilson but also the young generation are, in fact, correct?
DP:
I'm saying it is inescapably nihilistic.
Maybe I don't have a good handle on what that word means. I always took it to have a negative connotation. Not simply "There's no meaning," but with a touch of "I'm in anguish because there is no meaning," and overtones of "So I'm going to take it out on everybody else!"
If that's not what you're getting at, then we've been talking past each other, at least where "nihilism" is concerned.
Believing that you have free will and agency to create meaning, or believing that the "Self" even exists in the first place, is no different than believing in God.
Believing in "Self" is no different than believing in God.
There is no evidence for either.
Both beliefs require an act of faith.
Ok, you're conflating two things concerning "belief". The phrase "believing in God" as typically used does not simply mean "believing that God exists." It also carries a sense of God being meaningful. You might say it means God gives one purpose. Alfred would put it in terms of faith.
In that greater sense, "belief in the self" is indeed a faith--belief that in the absence of God, the self will "save" me or "give meaning to" me. I'll go so far as to accept that. But I want you to understand that I think you are misreading atheists if you think that we turn to the "self" as a supernatural replacement for God. Just as a democratic revolution doesn't substitute the individual for a king, but rather asserts that individuals can manage affairs without a king. Atheists can manage their affairs without a savior. We don't have to believe that we are our own saviors.
In the other, more specific sense of "belief"--"believing that the self even exists in the first place"--you're just being silly. Or more charitably, we have such different senses of what "self", "exists", and "believe" mean that we can't even hold the same conversation with each other.
This is self-evidently true: "I believe I exist, therefore I exist." Not that the belief is what makes it true. Rather it is the "I" doing the belief which makes it true. If you disagree, you're going to have to account for exactly who you're trying to convince, and why?
As to whether God or one's self can "create meaning," I think you're hung up on something irrelevant. Meaning is a subjective value. If something feels meaningful to me--if it feels worth doing and feels satisfying when done--then it is meaningful to me. Angst over whether it is meaningful in some objective sense is not something that atheists need obsess over. I can see why religious believers who lose their faith might do so, but that's a subset of atheists, not the entire set.
Someone truly without faith, and is honest about it, would live and act in a nihilistic fashion and not resort to fantasies of either kind.
But I have yet to meet an atheist with the courage of his convictions that would do so, hence the lack of cojones.
Again, I'm not clear what you mean by "nihilistic fashion". Maybe I've been too influenced by fiction in which nihilism is always practiced by the likes of terrorists. The way you are asserting, it sounds as if I am living just the way you say you never met anyone who does, but I'm not at all certain we mean the same thing.
DP quoting:
Neuroscientists involved in three–dimensional electroencephalography will tell you that there is not even any one place in the brain where consciousness or self–consciousness (Cogito ergo sum) is located. This is merely an illusion created by a medley of neurological systems acting in concert.
And yet, neither you nor the author can explain who exactly is being fooled by the illusion. A stage magician fools the audience into perceiving that he's levitating a girl off the table or that he's sawing her in half. He doesn't fool the audience into thinking that they're in an auditorium watching his performance.
This is what I mean when I say we're using basic terms like "self" and "exists" quite differently. "I" might not show up on an X-ray or an MRI or an EKG. But I find that irrelevant. Whatever it is that is here pondering the question of my existence is in fact pondering the fact of my existence.
Do musical chords fail to exist because they are composed of multiple overlapping frequencies? Because you can't point to a single key on the piano which will produce the chord?
Does the color blue fail to exist because I have no way of telling whether it looks the same to you as it does to me?
Do love or beauty or anger fail to exist because you can't point to them on a map?
You could make a good case for any of the above, but to do so involves valuing an irrelevant curiosity over the more important characteristics being discussed. You can convince me that "blue" is a subjective illusion. You can't convince me that the sky doesn't have a particular color. Likewise, you can convince me that the self is a stranger concept than humans generally imagine it to be, but you can't convince me that the one thinking about this and arguing about it isn't me. Literally so, since if you are correct, then there is no "me" to try to convince, and no "you" to even try doing so.
Again. I'm pretty darn smart... and nowhere near smart enough to wrangle deep philopsophical conundrums to any sort of conclusion. (Though I ask good questions and pay close attention to assertions that appear to be disproved by repeatable experiment.)
So again, I believe I have a duty to help create generations better able to deal with Big Issues than I am. If I (in cooperation/competition) with millions of others manage that feat, will some/all of us be simulated, as a post-life reward? Or experiment? Or is a Creator unrolling the experiment? (Is there a meaningful difference?) Is that what's going on right now?
The futility of wrangling with all that (except as a passing amusement with community members) seems obvious (am I programmed to reach that conclusion?) All I can do is play the hand as dealt...
...and that hand appears to be a society and species that - at long last - seems poised to overcome (at long last) the poisonous traps of feudalism and become a civilization to be proud-of.
onward
onward
Post a Comment