It's helpful not to go overboard on estimates of deaths in the Middle East, just as it's helpful not to go overboard on terrorist deaths in Europe or the U.S. — Bitter Crank

Are you talking to me or to you? I am not the one who said that people in the Middle East should die because of overpopulation. That is, well, going overboard on estimates no?

I am not the one who said that people in the Middle East should die because of overpopulation. — TimeLine

"Of course there are people dying in the middle east. As well there should be; it's over populated, like much of the world."

Oh, you know, like Dickens:

"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

don't have loved ones to bury, not for a very long time and what propelled me to an intellectual life despite my gender and appearances, hence why I spend time on places like this rather than entertain social networking en masse. And if I pursued the study of law for moral purposes, I did so for the utility to position myself in an adequately suitable profession in order fulfil that utility. I don't want to work in a low-paying job in the interest of this objective, but I do. — TimeLine

Alas, I've been involved in the burial of loved ones, long ago and fairly recently, and have practiced law for longer than I'd care to admit. Although being an able lawyer requires a certain degree and kind of intelligence, though, I don't think it or what one does regarding the corpses of loved ones have much to do with living an intellectual life. This I'll admit was intended as the point of my little comment; a modest attempt at irony.

It is pretty self-explanatory. In the interest of provoking conversation, many people utilise various models of persuasion to justify vicious behavioural components only because they themselves are guilty of practicing such behaviour. The difference is that I am conscious of this intentional discourse and use it for objective rather than subjective purposes. — TimeLine

Could you provide an example of an exchange where this happens?

Alas, I've been involved in the burial of loved ones, long ago and fairly recently, and have practiced law for longer than I'd care to admit. Although being an able lawyer requires a certain degree and kind of intelligence, though, I don't think it or what one does regarding the corpses of loved ones have much to do with living an intellectual life. This I'll admit was intended as the point of my little comment; a modest attempt at irony. — Ciceronianus the White

Who said anything about burial? I have been alone for most of my life and whilst I appreciate the modest attempt, my focus on the study of human rights law and supporting children and young people whose parents became those corpses in war has everything to do with living an intellectual life, since I decided - by choice due to my living an intellectual life - to commit myself to supporting them despite the many opportunities available to me. It is called moral consciousness.

But I will say that I am sorry for your losses.

Oh, how
I wish... I were
Holier
Than Thou

Why is that holy? So, because I am a woman, am I meant to be passive and naive too?

Run along...

I could, but I'm sure you could be creative enough to think of one yourself.

I'm..running..as..I...speak...I...didn't...know...you...are...a...woman...and....I.....cannot......see........what.........difference.........it..........could.............possibly.............make :s

Despite the fact I am reading and responding on my phone as I travel on the train and may not be adequately computing your point, but when someone cannot tell whether you are being sarcastic or not, it probably signals the preferred position of silence.

My point? Stay silent.

OK, so while I find it awesome that your running and philosophizing at the same time, my point was not to put people in categories. A good woman doesn't need to be passive and naïve. Someone who is morally conscious does not need to be holy.

I could, but I'm sure you could be creative enough to think of one yourself. — TimeLine

This is true. However, I'd still like an example, (Y)

Yeah, I'm determined to put those damned peripatetics in their place!

I agree with you that people should not be put into categories (at least not without their permission). I also agree that good women have no need of passivity or naivete. But I doubt anyone is morally conscious without a holy reason (speaking secularly, of course).

This IS a very complicated thread -- some people burying corpses, some not, people running, philosophizing, and texting all the same time -- amazing -- or studying law on a phone while riding a moral train to defend the vulnerable: Saints alive!

This old psychopomps horse just can't keep up with the dizzying complexity of it all.

Are you saying that "belief in science" is incompatible with "belief in god"? — VagabondSpectre

No, I wasn't saying that. I was having some fun re-writing (and paraphrasing) bible verses with Science as the god.

Belief in science and God is of course possible, and belief is the right word here. Belief is a core component of thinking; I can't verify all scientific claims I hear about; not 100% of them. Not even a scientist can; a biologist probably takes what an astronomer says on belief. Or maybe, for fun he verifies it, but then next month he's too busy to verify someone else's astronomical claim, so he accepts it on belief. Certainly the average person accepts science simply with belief, not any verification of studies, let alone personal critical analysis of those studies. Science is truly, in a very deep sense, a belief system in this way. It's an entire system of claims which are often accepted without question. The problem is when this belief in science is assumed to be knowledge. There's quite simply too much information in the totality of the human experience for humans to not have belief. When you start thinking this way, the sheer amount of things we take solely on belief begins to become staggering. We believe in the news the same way (although not so much anymore. What's to become "fake" next, I wonder?).

Faith, on the other hand, is different. Paul Tillich describes faith as "ultimate concern". Humans have many concerns: social, political, scientific, religious, cognitive. Any can become the ultimate concern; any concern can become a faith. So,

"If [a concern] claims ultimacy it demands the total surrender of him who accepts this claim, and it promises total fulfillment even if all other claims have to be subjected to it or rejected in its name. If a national group makes the life and growth of the nation its ultimate concern, it demands that all other concerns, economic well-being, health and life, family, aesthetic and cognitive truth, justice and humanity, be sacrificed...Everything is centered in the only god, the nation - a god who certainly proves to be a demon, but who shows clearly the unconditional character of an ultimate concern."

"But it is not only the unconditional demand made by that which is one's ultimate concern, it is also the promise of ultimate fulfillment which is accepted in the act of faith. The content of this promise is not necessarily defined. It can be expressed in indefinite symbols or in concrete symbols which cannot be taken literally, like the "greatness" of one's nation in which one participates even if one has died for it, or the conquest of mankind by the "saving race", etc. In each of these cases it is "ultimate fulfillment" that is promised, and it is exclusion from such fulfillment which is threatened if the unconditional demand is not obeyed." (p1-2, Dynamics of Faith)

He goes on to describe how ultimate concern in something is faith:

"Faith as ultimate concern is an act of the total personality. It happens at the center of the personal life and includes all its elements. Faith is the most centered act of the human mind. It is not a movement of a special section or a special function of man's total being. They all are united in the act of faith...

This leads to the question of how faith as a personal, centered act is related to the rational structure of man's personality which is manifest in his meaningful language, in his ability to know the true and to do the good, in his sense of beauty and justice. All this, and not only his possibility to analyze, to calculate and to argue, makes him a rational being. But in spite of this larger concept of reason we must deny that man's essential nature is identical with the rational character of his mind. Man is able to decide for or against reason, he is able to create beyond reason or to destroy below reason. This power is the power of his self, the center of self-relatedness in which all elements of his being are united. Faith is not an act of any of his rational functions, as it is not an act of the unconscious, but it is an act in which both the rational and the nonrational elements of his being are transcended." (p. 5-6)

I think it's important to retain the word faith to emphasize the import and consequences of Tillich's concept. Anything can be an ultimate concern, looking at faith in this way. Scientific progress, for instance. Faith in science, then, is religious. Belief is not. But beliefs are a component of faith. Each of us has a faith which contains its requisite beliefs.

Work those pegs toward the lyceum. As I say in the gym. 'I squat, therefore I am.'

Nevertheless, I follow no religion, so what would be my holy reason?

I said silence!

Humpf, I am trying to eat my subway sandwich. Ok, fine.

I once encountered a lady who appeared to be a highly religious and thus apparently a moral person and as we were talking about charity, I noticed her insulting a particular ethnic group by claiming that their greediness is causing her distributive problems to the broader community. As I started explaining to her that her moral position is somewhat problematic considering that charity is not culture-specific, she immediately became defensive, to a point where she spoke over me and (since others were there) where I became 'third-person' as she spoke to others about me as an attempt to persuade others in the room that something must be wrong with me to justify her behavioral flaws. This intentional discourse was brought to a point where I was insulted. As others awkwardly listened on and as she shuffled about the kitchenette, being me, I quoted from her religious scriptures that confirmed my position and her moral failure point blank. There was nothing else she could say. She then started yelling before experiencing some 'hysteric' moment where she appeared to be fainting but not, having heart failure and paralysis and what not as Iattempted to calm her down knowing it to be superficially induced as her way to silence and win the argument and thus maintain her so-called moral superiority.

Defense mechanisms that subconsciously project false accusations in order to cope with the subjective emotions of guilt is very common, but I am conscious of it.

Each of us has a faith which contains its requisite beliefs — Noble Dust

I'm skeptical of this claim.

I'm skeptical because I've made effort in life to over-apply doubt in hopes of eviscerating the requisite beliefs of faith. I cannot see that I have an ultimate concern beyond my own well-being, and faith characterized by offering "ultimate fulfillment" is not part of my personality.

If science was my faith a la Tillich, I would expect it to have ultimate fulfillment on offer, but It only seems to offer run of the mill fulfillment; the same kind you get if you build a house or sculpt some art. There are many scientific facts that we all tentatively accept as true without actually knowing ourselves (usually by appealing to authority) but the great thing about all scientific facts is that by definition they need to be testable and falsifiable; the deeper you get in to science the less you take on authority. Rather than transcending reason, scientific pursuit drags human psychology back down to a grounded level.

The scientist with the most scientific understanding, who we would expect to employ the most faith per science as a religious system, actually takes less on faith than anyone else.

I'm skeptical because I've made effort in life to over-apply doubt in hopes of eviscerating the requisite beliefs of faith. — VagabondSpectre

Why?

Tillich also suggests that doubt is an integral part of faith:

"...faith is uncertain in so far as the infinite to which it is related is received by a finite being. This element of uncertainty in faith cannot be removed, it must be accepted. And the element in faith which accepts it is courage...If we try to describe the relation of faith and courage, we must use a larger concept of courage than that which is ordinarily used. Courage as an element of faith is the daring self-affirmation of one's own being in spite of the powers of "nonbeing" which are the heritage of everything finite. Where there there is daring and courage there is the possibility of failure. And in every act of faith this possibility is present. The risk must be taken. Whoever makes his nation his ultimate concern needs courage in order to maintain this concern." (p. 16-17).

"All this is sharply expressed in the relation of faith and doubt. If faith is understood as belief that something is true, doubt is incompatible with the act of faith. If faith is understood as being ultimately concerned, doubt is a necessary element in it. It is a consequence of the risk of faith." (p. 18, emphasis mine).

He also elaborates on another form of doubt, which reminds me of your "over-application" of doubt. Correct me if I'm wrong:

"There is another kind of doubt, which we could call skeptical in contrast to the scientific doubt which we could call methodological. The skeptical doubt is an attitude toward all the beliefs of man, from sense experiences to religious creeds. It is more an attitude than an assertion. For as an assertion it would conflict with itself. Even the assertion that there is no possible truth for man would be judged by the skeptical principle and could not stand as an assertion. Genuine skeptical doubt does not use the form of an assertion. It is an attitude of actually rejecting any certainty. Therefore, it can not be refuted logically. It does not transform its attitude into a proposition. Such an attitude necessarily leads either to despair or cynicism, or to both alternately. And often, if this alternative becomes intolerable, it leads to indifference and the attempt to develop an attitude of complete unconcern. But since man is that being who is essentially concerned about his being, such an escape finally breaks down. This is the dynamics of skeptical doubt. It has an awakening and liberating function, but it also can prevent the development of a centered personality. For personality is not possible without faith. The despair about truth by the skeptic shows that truth is still his infinite passion. The cynical superiority over every concrete truth shows that truth is still taken seriously and that the impact of the question of ultimate concern is strongly felt. The skeptic, so long as he is a serious skeptic, is not without faith, even though it has no concrete content." (p. 19-20, emphasis mine).

If science was my faith a la Tillich, I would expect it to have ultimate fulfillment on offer, but It only seems to offer run of the mill fulfillment; the same kind you get if you build a house or sculpt some art. There are many scientific facts that we all tentatively accept as true without actually knowing ourselves (usually by appealing to authority) — VagabondSpectre

I agree.

but the great thing about all scientific facts is that by definition they need to be testable and falsifiable; — VagabondSpectre

This is indeed great, but this seems to be exactly the point at which belief in science gets so confused with knowledge. Because the knowledge itself changes. Belief has to be strong to allow science to guide your thinking as the knowledge changes.

The scientist with the most scientific understanding, who we would expect to employ the most faith per science as a religious system, actually takes less on faith than anyone else. — VagabondSpectre

You're confusing faith with belief here, within Tillich's dichotomy. So, the scientist who has the most understanding we would expect to have an "ultimate concern" in science. But are you saying that he does not in fact have that ultimate concern, or simply that he has less beliefs contained in his faith because of his scientific knowledge?

"Faith" is a misrepresentation of trust, belief, values, ethics and knowledge in this context. Every philosophy, outlook or world view shares these aspects: that's an understanding of the world, of what's important, of what's needed, of how to live.

All the argument is really saying is: "everyone's postion is an understanding of how the world works and, for each position, those who hold it stick to it."

Those of faith just misread this feature as "faith" because they cannot imagine understanding, ethics, trust, knowledge or a way of life could be without partaking in faith.

"Faith" is a misrepresentation of trust, belief, values, ethics and knowledge in this context. Every philosophy, outlook or world view shares these aspects: that's an understanding of the world, of what's important, of what's needed, of how to live. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's not the argument Tillich makes. Faith isn't a representation or misrepresentation of trust, belief, values, ethics, and knowledge; it's the mechanism by which these things function. A philosophy, then, is a set of ideas and beliefs which are the product of the function of things like values, ethics, etc. So ontologically it goes faith -> functions/content (values, etc) -> philosophy. An optional 4th step is -> religion.

All the argument is really saying is: "everyone's postion is an understanding of how the world works and, for each position, those who hold it stick to it."

Those of faith just misread this feature as "faith" because they cannot imagine understanding, ethics, trust, knowledge or a way of life could be without partaking in faith. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The idea is that the mechanism of religious faith is the same mechanism that drives a secular way of thinking. So "secular faith" is a metaphor, but causally accurate, based on this view. Like I said earlier, the reason that it's important to retain the word faith is to emphasize the misunderstanding of faith versus secular thought. It's important to retain the word faith so as to underline the unity that underlies the two seemingly different ways of thinking. The other distinction that I've already made is that this is fundamentally different from the concept of belief. Like I said, belief is part of the content of faith, or one of it's functions.

...faith is uncertain in so far as the infinite to which it is related is received by a finite being. — Noble Dust

The problem in bold is that I don't understand how my faith and I might relate to "the infinite". I can recall the feeling of doubting god from my religious childhood, but my belief in god has long since been crushed under the feet of doubt and my developing empirical/epistemological standards.

The only way I can frame that is that the faith went away.

"If faith is understood as belief that something is true, doubt is incompatible with the act of faith. If faith is understood as being ultimately concerned, doubt is a necessary element in it. It is a consequence of the risk of faith." — Noble Dust

I understand that doubt is natural when someone is very concerned with the truth of something particular, but what happens when doubt wins and they discard that particular "truth" as a concern?

For me God has become a non-concern. I've rationalized it in hundreds of ways, example: if there is a God, he'll know what to do on my behalf, so I need not worry. (cheeky but effective).

"The despair about truth by the skeptic shows that truth is still his infinite passion. The cynical superiority over every concrete truth shows that truth is still taken seriously and that the impact of the question of ultimate concern is strongly felt. The skeptic, so long as he is a serious skeptic, is not without faith, even though it has no concrete content. " — Noble Dust

I over apply doubt but I don't suffocate in it. It's an attitude I apply rigorously, but I'm happy to yield before scattering my brains across the concrete. The trouble is it's not the robust concrete I contest.

The skepticism I employ is a way to test the robustness of new, existing, and competing "beliefs" out of a desire for "robust beliefs". Are robust beliefs my ultimate concern? Perhaps, but only because of the predictive power they offer. I want predictive power so I can more easily satisfy my immediate human wants and needs.

This is indeed great, but this seems to be exactly the point at which belief in science gets so confused with knowledge. Because the knowledge itself changes. Belief has to be strong to allow science to guide your thinking as the knowledge changes. — Noble Dust

Not all scientific knowledge changes. Some of it will be the same forever or the whole of it must come crashing down. Certain fundamental laws are so well established and understood that they simply will never be overturned. All future science must incorporate and expand our current understandings of those things which are undeniable realities.

Objects accelerate toward the earth at 9.81 (m/s^2) (around ground level) and we know the equation which describes that force (dependent upon the mass of the objects and the distance between them).

So we don't understand how gravity works, but any theory of gravity is going to need to offer some explanation of why the force of the earth's attraction on objects is what it is. It won't overturn or disprove the law of gravitational attraction, it will expand or explain it. The theories at the periphery of the established body of scientific knowledge do tend to change and sometimes frequently, but they are not well understood and established like some scientific facts.

You're confusing faith with belief here, within Tillich's dichotomy. So, the scientist who has the most understanding we would expect to have an "ultimate concern" in science. But are you saying that he does not in fact have that ultimate concern, or simply that he has less beliefs contained in his faith because of his scientific knowledge? — Noble Dust

It's that he has less beliefs, (and therefore less faith?), but you and Tillich are the one's suggesting that there is some ultimate concern to be "faith'd" on in the first place...

Is a shoemaker's ultimate concern shoes? Is his faith in his shoes his religion?

Why need a scientist draw ultimate fulfillment from science?

Does everyone have a faith defined by whatever it is that they happen to get the most "fulfillment" from?

Faith in religion (God, and an afterlife) as a source of ultimate fulfillment makes sense, but "faith" in cinema or math or science as a source of ultimate fulfillment makes far less sense.

I fill life with as many small things as possible because I've given up on one ultimate or infinite source in this life or any possible next lives. Doubt, for me, is a very practical attitude because I expose myself to as much as possible in search of fulfillment in the long run; it's a way to halt un-robust (and therefore unfulfilling) beliefs (and other things) at the door and provokes an identity check.

The hunt for fulfillment is itself my ultimate concern.

The problem in bold is that I don't understand how my faith and I might relate to "the infinite". I can recall the feeling of doubting god from my religious childhood, but my belief in god has long since been crushed under the feet of doubt and my developing empirical/epistemological standards. — VagabondSpectre

To be clear, I also had a similar experience with religious upbringing, and have doubted belief in God to the point of agnosticism, but not to the point of atheism. To label myself at the moment would be hard. But to be clear, I'm just extrapolating Tillich's argument here, and toying with it myself, and inserting some of my own opinions on faith vs. belief, vs. doubt, etc.

I struggle with relation to the infinite as well, but I personally can't shake the concept. Maybe it's just the religious upbringing. But I've never been anything close to a materialist or physicalist, so a concept like the infinite has remained on my horizons almost out of necessity. Not because I believe in it per se, but because it seems to need to exist metaphysically and teleologically. But I think what Tillich might be saying there is that ultimate concern encounters doubt when the infinite (God, the greatness of the nation, the totality of knowledge or certainty, the arc of scientific discovery) is encountered by the finite person. So the encounter of the finite person with the infinite, the thing categorically beyond the finite person, is what causes doubt.

The only way I can frame that is that the faith went away. — VagabondSpectre

Again, I would argue with Tillich that you're conflating faith with belief.

I understand that doubt is natural when someone is very concerned with the truth of something particular, but what happens when doubt wins and they discard that particular "truth" as a concern? — VagabondSpectre

Then the ultimate concern changes to something else.

The skepticism I employ is a way to test the robustness of new, existing, and competing "beliefs" out of a desire for "robust beliefs". Are robust beliefs my ultimate concern? Perhaps, but only because of the predictive power they offer. I want predictive power so I can more easily satisfy my immediate human wants and needs. — VagabondSpectre

It sounds to me like your ultimate concern is certainty. Or knowledge, or power, which all seem to be connected.

The trouble is it's not the robust concrete I contest. "Truth" as an ultimate concern. — VagabondSpectre

Did you mean to say "It's Truth as an ultimate concern"?

It's that he has less beliefs, (and therefore less faith?), but you and Tillich are the one's suggesting that there is some ultimate concern to be "faith'd" on in the first place... — VagabondSpectre

Not sure how faith can be a verb, but I guess I was more trying to point out that you were conflating belief and faith, which is a distinction I happen to agree with from Tillich. I suppose you don't accept that distinction though.

Is a shoemaker's ultimate concern shoes? Is his faith in his shoes his religion?

Why need a scientist draw ultimate fulfillment from science?

Does everyone have a faith defined by whatever it is that they happen to get the most "fulfillment" from?

Faith in religion as a source of ultimate fulfillment makes sense, but "faith" in cinema or math or science as a source of ultimate fulfillment makes far less sense — VagabondSpectre

Obviously that's not Tillich's argument. A shoekmaker's ultimate concern might be his family (providing for them, etc). A scientists ultimate concern might be knowledge and certainty.

Doubt, for me, is a very practical attitude because I expose myself to as much as possible in search of fulfillment in the long run; it's a way to halt un-robust (and therefore unfulfilling) beliefs at the door and provokes an identity check. — VagabondSpectre

Even here, it seems to me that all this is very important to you (I don't mean to put words in your mouth), which suggests to me that things like halting un-robust beliefs are ways to get to a deeper ultimate concern.

The hunt for fulfillment is itself my ultimate concern. — VagabondSpectre

And so making the hunt for it your ultimate concern seems to me like means with no ends, and another way of pointing at a deeper ultimate concern. If the hunt is significant, then it must have a referent; a reason for significance.

To be clear, I also had a similar experience with religious upbringing, and have doubted belief in God to the point of agnosticism, but not to the point of atheism. To label myself at the moment would be hard. But to be clear, I'm just extrapolating Tillich's argument here, and toying with it myself, and inserting some of my own opinions on faith vs. belief, vs. doubt, etc.

I struggle with relation to the infinite as well, but I personally can't shake the concept. Maybe it's just the religious upbringing. But I've never been anything close to a materialist or physicalist, so a concept like the infinite has remained on my horizons almost out of necessity. Not because I believe in it per se, but because it seems to need to exist metaphysically and teleologically. But I think what Tillich might be saying there is that ultimate concern encounters doubt when the infinite (God, the greatness of the nation, the totality of knowledge or certainty, the arc of scientific discovery) is encountered by the finite person. So the encounter of the finite person with the infinite, the thing categorically beyond the finite person, is what causes doubt. — Noble Dust

The label I wield for myself is "agnostic soft atheist". You're likely familiar with the way I use the term "agnostic" (I believe we don't have knowledge about god(s) or that such knowledge is impossible) but the term "atheist" is normally thought to mean "believes god does not exist", which is technically not true (although many [hard/strong/positive]atheists do hold such a belief). I simply lack belief in any god(s) without actually believing the inverse. I see no reason to accept anyone's claim that a particular god exists, but I don't then make presumptions about what must not exist as a result. Most self described atheists share this nuance:

Let the belief "a ball exists in my closet" be analogous to the belief "god exists".

Without any access to my closet whatsoever, are you willing to believe that there is indeed a ball there?

Would you be willing to believe that there is no ball in my closet?

If I were you, I would take no hard position either way. I would not believe there is a ball my closet, but I would also not believe there is no ball in my closet. This is soft-atheism. Agnosticism is it's rational progenitor. Hard-atheism, (the connotation that many erroneously apply to atheists at large) would be analogous to the belief that there is no ball in my closet.

I rest at ease knowing I have no access to God's equivalent of my closet. I recommend such a stance highly because it simplifies the overall scope of possible things to be concerned about in the first place, and I assume that belief either way would have no ramifications in some possible hereafter.

It sounds to me like your ultimate concern is certainty. Or knowledge, or power, which all seem to be connected. — Noble Dust

They reliably get me the things I tend to want.

Did you mean to say "It's Truth as an ultimate concern"? — Noble Dust

Sorry, I had to re-edit after realizing that I posted the wrong tab (which contained an unedited post). I was going to make the point that "truth" as an ultimate concern is a difficult comparison to make to belief in god or faith around religion because "truth" is a concern of all beliefs, including the religious.. I removed it though because I didn't think it was central to our discussion.

Not sure how faith can be a verb, but I guess I was more trying to point out that you were conflating belief and faith, which is a distinction I happen to agree with from Tillich. I suppose you don't accept that distinction though. — Noble Dust

I think the distinction is somewhat ethereal. Tillich's analysis applies readily to religion and religious belief (faith as a product of ultimate concern) because religion comes packaged with the promise of ultimate fulfillment, but science in particular does not. Religion creates it's own concern above and beyond what I believe is necessary in human psychology. If I have no reason to suspect that a heaven or hell exists, I feel no concern toward the possibility.

A scientists ultimate concern might be knowledge and certainty — Noble Dust

What if they have no ultimate concern?

Even here, it seems to me that all this is very important to you (I don't mean to put words in your mouth), which suggests to me that things like halting un-robust beliefs are ways to get to a deeper ultimate concern. — Noble Dust

Things are important to me, but what is of ultimate importance? Me being alive maybe (for now), but not science.

And so making the hunt for it your ultimate concern seems to me like means with no ends, and another way of pointing at a deeper ultimate concern. If the hunt is significant, then it must have a referent; a reason for significance. — Noble Dust

I often find myself using this thought experiment to demonstrate the kind of certainty I let in the door along with a complete existential basis for value: Imagine that you're holding a massive and heavy television. Now imagine dropping it squarely on your foot. The referent becomes a painful broken foot; something believably and intrinsically undesirable. A objective emerges: an unbroken foot; a lack of pain; comfort.

The ends are somewhat clear to me. And all of us exploit science in the same ways in order to achieve these ends.

Religion is like opium. Too much opium can leave one dead in a ditch, but just the right amount can return function to the pain-crippled. I wouldn't say that this is hard and fast rule, but I've come to expect it: religious people handle adversity better than atheists, and I think it's because of the functionality-returning gift of anesthesia.

It may be difficult to follow my non-linear thinking here, but this is why the things that have really advanced atheism are not logical arguments. It's penicillin, knowledge about cholera, vaccines, and the like. Medicine makes people a little less dependent on the opium of religion than they were, say 100 years ago when death was a pretty common feature of the average person's life year after year.

If it's true that cultural development waxes and wanes, then the medical establishment we now enjoy will eventually disappear, dependence on religion will return and atheism will be eclipsed (again).

So what's your prediction? — Mongrel

My prediction is that unless the increase or decrease in cultural development was drastic enough, the results would be fairly insignificant. But if we're talking about drastic change, then the results would be of greater significance, although hard to predict on your terms. A number of people would probably turn to religion as a means of coping with and explaining away this drastic change, and a number of others would probably be disillusioned with religion, as it would have failed to meet their expectations, and they would be jolted out of their former sense of security and begin to face up to the harshness of reality. Which number would be greater? Hard to say. In the event of a technological crash, for example, my guess would be that a greater number of people would turn to religion as a sort of comfort blanket, but even if that's a win for religion, it's a loss for humanity.

I don't think that there's enough of a basis to your claim that dependence on religion will return and atheism will be eclipsed. There already is widespread dependence on religion to varying extents, and I can't help but find that to be largely sad and unfortunate. I am inclined to agree with Marx with regards to that passage from which that famous line of his, "opium of the masses", came.

Judging by a number of recent studies, religion is declining and secularism is rising.

I struggle with relation to the infinite as well, but I personally can't shake the concept. Maybe it's just the religious upbringing. But I've never been anything close to a materialist or physicalist, so a concept like the infinite has remained on my horizons almost out of necessity. Not because I believe in it per se, but because it seems to need to exist metaphysically and teleologically. — Noble Dust

I feel the same way. I think it's a memory or an intuition - possibly it's even what Plato meant, in his idea of 'anamnesis' - that at some time, before this life, we really knew it, and some part of ourselves remembers that knowing. So the spiritual quest - which Plato called the philosophical quest - is 'unforgetting' (that's what an-amnesis means) that great thing we once knew.

I personally had a vivid premonition of that, aged about 12 or 13, when I felt I was right on the verge of remembering some great thing I had once known, and which was the most important thing you could know. That experience had profound influence on my life subsequently.

My view, over the subsequent years, was that religion, in the Western sense, had defined whatever that intuition was in its own way, and then insisted that you believe it in that particular way. A lot of Christianity is grounded in 'right belief' (which is the etymological meaning of 'orthodoxy'.) Whereas, I always felt that some state of higher knowing, which Christianity didn't understand, but Eastern religions did.

I'm not so black-and-white about it now, but that's because I have looked at it from both perspectives. In other words, I have learned to re-interpret the Christian approach from a more oriental perspective. Interestingly, Tillich was criticised by a number of other Protestants for being 'too oriental'.

The article you reference says that secularism is increasing based on polls and other studies around the world currently, but it also projects a return of the religious uptick by 2050. The Pew Research report "The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050"

Doubt, for me, is a very practical attitude because I expose myself to as much as possible in search of fulfillment in the long run... the hunt for fulfillment is itself my ultimate concern. — VagabondSpectre

The problem is the clarity of this ultimate search for fulfilment in the long run, the sustainability of happiness of which, in my opinion, requires an authenticity of mind, clear from subjective influences and the fear of our separateness from the world around us. We inhibit our perceptual capacity because the angst or the emotional dread precipitated by unheimlich, the realisation that we are 'drawing away' from the childish reality. The problem here is that our minds are instinctually trained to overcome or eliminate anxiety and since our fears are being drawn from a concept we cannot understand or the 'nothingness' of freedom that draws people away from their own sense of significance, we repress the alienating force.

So we end up developing a type of ressentiment, ignoring these feelings and never transcending by conforming to others - allowing others to think on our behalf - because by following and failing to exercise autonomy they feel the same 'comfort' of their childish reality, distracting themselves with the pleasure materialism provides along with the applaud of their social connections. Capitalism enables the masses to resist ever exercising objective thought. Thus, unconsciously, they 'hate' themselves in a way because of this cowardice, so they project it by treating others with this insatiable hostility (doesn't need to be violent, it could simply be trying to crush opponents as you attempt to climb the corporate ladder or by exercising the right 'image' like in Instagram, or quite simply just shutting off from the world and not caring at all etc).

Moral consciousness - for me - is the only way that would enable a person to begin exercising independent thought because they begin to exercise objective thinking, or Nietzsche' conventionalism. I think that was what Jesus was talking about albeit in a simplified manner to help push along all the morons, using moral parables to get people think objectively. I don't know what Christianity is on about.

I struggle with relation to the infinite as well, but I personally can't shake the concept. Maybe it's just the religious upbringing. But I've never been anything close to a materialist or physicalist, so a concept like the infinite has remained on my horizons almost out of necessity. Not because I believe in it per se, but because it seems to need to exist metaphysically and teleologically. — Noble Dust

This struggle is not a unique problem only for the religious; I follow no religion, I follow no institution or person and I believe in God. The concept of the infinite in science is just as baffling and I feel that the only thing left in the end is faith since no one can neither prove nor disprove. What makes this faith is what one would need to question and any anthropomorphic projections that render the infinite as a man on a cloud or something temporal is only necessitated to support the smallness of our perceptions and influenced by the historical, but the logic behind it is actually quite sensible pending the elimination of the archaic traditions. This returns back to the above-mentioned, the need to transcend and to learn how to utilise the mind objectively and authentically. We need social constructs for language and understanding, etc &c., and though much of our learning heavily involves the subjective and emotional during our developmental stages that we attach to for most of our lives, our mind is a tool and tools can function objectively.

The problem is that most people never reach that, aimlessly inhibiting their own capacity for happiness as they are fraught with the powerlessness of their fear for anxiety, failing to exercise independent and rational judgement because they don't want to let go.

Although being an able lawyer requires a certain degree and kind of intelligence, though, I don't think it or what one does regarding the corpses of loved ones have much to do with living an intellectual life. — Ciceronianus the White

Care to expound on this special kind of intelligence required to be an able lawyer? Is that the capacity to outwit the others, thereby proving your point, regardless of whether or not what you are arguing for is the truth? Would that be a type of intelligence to be proud of?