How about existence of truths which has always been the same unaffected by time. For example the fact that there are an infinite number of prime numbers. Or are you considering these not to be "things"? — anthonyshinex

I concur. Quantum Field Theory describes the universe's existence as an amalgamation of the probability of it existing at any specific point and, even if you remove the universe from existance, that potential is always present, however infinitesimal it might be. Therefore, this potential is both an intrinsic part of reality and can neither begin nor end.

The "truths" @anthonyshinex would work in a similar way.

What? No. My fear is perfectly rational. Nuclear reaction, of both kinds, are objectively some of the most destructive forces in nature. Messing about with them is dangerous. Sure, no risk no reward and all that but we can't rush this.

Cool, I'll have a look.

I have a lot of hope for fission and fusion. — Posty McPostface

"Traditional" Nuclear power plants use nuclear fission to generate energy. Fission and fusion are the two primary processes that are responsible for the existence of suns. It stands to reason that if something goes wrong with either bad things happen. We have already witnessed the destruction of fission, but it remains to be seen what happens when we lose control of fusion.

I personally support research into fusion energy. We just need to be really, really careful.

Yeah, sorry I'm just being argumentative for arguments sake.

When fusion is working, it's great. But if it goes wrong, the potential for catastrophe ranges from the creation of black holes to the instantaneous destruction of reality, according to a few hypotheses. Point is we don't really know how bad it could be, only that it will be bad, just like fission.

Your use of the word "embrace" detracts from the severity of the issue and will aid fossil fuel based business in battling the implementation of alternative energy. It suggests that it's fine to allow climate change to get worse and the market will sort it out. "If it's fine to allow climate change to continue, then it not as big a deal as people make it out to be so isn't just easier to keep going as we are." Is what I'm sure they'll claim.
I agree, the market will decide but let's not tempt fate by giving opponents ammunition to fight back.

Nuclear is a renewable resource, even though it's not classified as one. — Posty McPostface

Yep, it sure is. Even funnier is that Nuclear fusion is just as, if not more, dangerous but everyone loves it.

Interesting point. However I don't think embracing a potentially catastrophic issue is the best way to argue for why the layman should switch to solar, regardless of its economical merit. I also think it ignores that fact that the main opposition to renewable energy is the highly influential conglomerates that profit from and control the fossil fuel industry. They will not to down without a fight and embracing climate change will only help them hold on to their influence.

Of course, I'm sure your being hyperbolic, but language is important when discussing these issue since it can be used against you. Embrace is just the wrong word to use.

One is a science issue, the other is a social issue. Neither pits one against the other.

I take this back. Science is not a value nor a principle. It is simply a method by which we make discoveries and therefore there is no such thing as a "Science Issue".
My mistake.

Both climate change and abortion pit science against social issues.

One is a science issue, the other is a social issue. Neither pits one against the other.

Tell you what, I'll give my take on these two issues and you can point out the contradiction.

On climate change:
The industrialisation and, by extension, energy consumption of modern civilisation is causing massive damage to the environment which threatens the livelihoods of future generations. However, we cannot just reverse industrialisation since our economies and daily lives depend on it so much so we need to invest in alternative sources of energy and goods that are more efficient and sustainable.
It is an issue of the correct allocation of our resources.

On abortion:
It is human nature that people make mistakes and that can lead to "unplanned" pregnancies. In some cases it is reasonable to allow the parent to terminate the pregnancy if they are not in a position to properly care for a child. This should be done in an individual bases depending on a number of factors. It is also important to consider the life of the child and so we, as a society and potential parents, should better educate our children on the implications of pregnancy in a way that prepare them for one without terrifying them into never having intercourse. In order to prevent abuse of this system we should define when it is too late to terminate the pregnancy and the parents involved should pay at least something towards the cost of the procedure.
It is an issue of how to correctly deal with an individual's actions within society.

Summary:
We should do something about climate change. I am pro-abortion, but it should be situational.

Both issues are for more complex then this but I am trying to be brief.

Because they do not question the same principles.

Sure, I can agree with that for the most part. But I still feel it assumes that there is a conflict between values in the context of discussing these two issues, which is just not the case.

Most people, at least in my experience, are not even aware that they have specific, definable values let alone consider how best to apply them, so it is almost certain they resort to "after the fact justification" when considering political issues. But even if they are the values surrounding these issues do not contradict each other. Can you demonstrate that there is and cite the specific principles that contradict?

@Rank Amateur

What I find interesting is in many cases an individual would make an argument based on science for climate change against a social, financial argument. And make a social argument for abortion against the science. I also find it interesting that the final objective of those who favor climate change, is ultimately about saving future lives, And at the same time can find justification to devalue future human lives in the cases of abortion

This is because they are very different issues.

@Rank Amateur

I see both about a tension between human life, and some other thing of value.

This can be said about almost any issue and this over simplification is probably why you think people change their values depending on the issue. Neither issue calls on the same principles.

Climate change is an issue of systemic responsibility and the discussion is between funding for scientific advancement vs spending elsewhere depending on collective principles.
Abortion is an issue of individual autonomy and whether a person should be responsible for their actions and mistakes as well as how to define life.

I disagree that these issues are comparable. Climate change is an issue about preserving the environment so we can sustain our civalisations. The abortion debate is about how we value the autonomy of people's choices, mistakes and lives. Both issues are far too complex to be summed up as you have.

No, it's not the expectation of completeness. More the illusion of it. The artist convinces us their world is complete because the characters conform to the laws of that world.

Indeed. Consistent probably isn't the most suited term, but our points are the same. In order for an artistic expression to be believable, or real, we need to have an understanding of the wider world it is a part of. We need to believe there is something beyond the path, even if we never experience it.

Of course, subverting this notion can be just as rewarding. As the OP points out, breaking the forth walk and other abstract concepts like it can be just as engaging. However, these exceptions prove the rule. Sometimes an expression is engaging because it is not believable, as it is with stories like Deadpool and abstract art.

I agree with T Clark. In the context of artistic expression, I find the most believable, and therefore engaging, forms of art are the ones that suggest there is something beyond what the artist directly shows. A good story is one that takes place in a consistent universe. That consistency is best portrayed by a fully realised, or complete, world. For example, I like A Game Of Thrones because the world it takes place in feels complete and consistent with its own set of physical, social, political and even magical laws. Because the story is told from the perspective of its characters the audience does not see all of this but can "paint" a complete picture thanks to the consistency of its laws.

Abeit, A Game Of Thrones isn't 100% consistent with laws in the latest episodes. But that, I feel, aids my point. When the world isn't consistent, the shows drama and my enjoyment of it suffers.

Those were the names of the categories of particles that interact on the various fields. I.e. The Leptons; electron, muon, tau, electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino, all interact on the electromagnetic field. The "God Particle", aka the Higgs Boson, was called that only because it seems to reside in all things. It was merely a nickname of sorts.
However you have touched on something that might be representative of reality: that interactions on the fundamental fields might create something "bigger".

Life as we experience it could be an amalgamation of the interactions of particles and their respective fields, just as it is with everything else.

We are just as much a part of the universe as the universe is a part of us.

In quantum field theory each subatomic particle we have identified exists as an excitement on its own, specific field (Bosons, Leptons, Quarks, Baryons). Therefore, if life is an excitement on its own field, then we need to have identified a specific particle or category of particles separate from the others that we have discovered. A "life particle" if you will.

Thank you both. Those are some very valid criticisms.

People did or did not vote for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for similarly emotional reasons which may not have been entertained prior to entering the ballot box. I was appalled that Donald Trump had been nominated, and was horrified that he might be elected. None the less, I wasn't happy with Clinton either. I did not vote for Trump, but I wanted to vote against Hillary. (Minnesota was securely in Hillary's pocket.) It was pure small-minded emotion at play in choosing to vote for a down ballot candidate.

Do you not think this is the influence of the two party system? Everyone had other choices, they just assume voting for them would be redundant. However, if everyone that felt like you voted for a third party it may have had a positive impact on the future of politics if not the results themselves?

"So how do we fix the errant course of politics?"

My main contention with the current political climate is that it encourages tribalism with the awful "Two Party Elections". I think we need to promote a new set of economic, social and political principals that inspires people to take agency over there own lives rather then allowing the state to dictate it for them.

For example: rather then incentivize people to work towards building a huge conglomerate we should encourage them to build networks of smaller companies that collaborate together to function like a massive corporation. That way, more people will be in a position to acquire production capital without compromising the free market and the generation of wealth. In short, people should strive to acquire the means of production themselves rather then relying on capitalist elites to provide it for them. This will also have the added benefit of encouraging people to build companies that last, rather then the current model of building them to liquidate them.

This is not necessarily relevant to politics but with a new way of thinking in economics we can bring the agency of people back and remind them that they have the power to make changes.

Not at all, you are being very patient.
"I’m suggesting sensible boundaries." - Unfortunately those boundaries will expand to exclude some people in society that would otherwise have those rights whether or not it is what you intend.



Indeed, I have conversed with @Bitter Crank before. A charming fellow as are you all.

Yes, but your argument is based on the premises I have objected too. Unless you can demonstrate these premises are true, then that invalidates your conclusion of "The System Is A Failure". Considering that you are proposing taking away peoples rights, these points are very important indeed.

You can hold the opinion that the political system is inadequate, there is nothing wrong with that. But you must acknowledge that this is your opinion and that other people may have a different one. That is to say, just because the system is failing you does not mean it is failing everyone and taking away people's rights based on that is the first step on a slippery slope towards authoritarianism.

No offence taken then. I am not the most eloquent nor well educated person on the internet and I tend to be quite stubborn. The merit in these questions is simply so I can explore your point of view so I can better understand the perspectives of others.

The state of the current political climate and the biology of frogs are not comparable. You can objectively prove frogs are amphibious, but I am afraid you cannot claim that the political climate/direction/regime/whatever is wrong objectively because that claim is based on your personal beliefs, priorities and perspective; i.e your opinion. Furthermore, you cannot take away people's right to vote simply because you don't agree with the way they are voting, whatever the cause. Being ill informed is the weakest excuse for this.

"I’ve been reluctant to humor these rather captious objections, but I’ll try again." - Loose the condescending tone, its unbecoming of you.

"“Uniformed votes” should not be controversial. Unless you largely approve of the political climate and direction of the country, it’s hard to see how you believe our electorate is well informed." -
Assuming voters are misinformed because you're not happy with the current political climate is wrong. They may be perfectly informed, but just do not agree with you.

"“Serious problems” might just as easily be “problems”, since I’m not convinced we’re getting much of anything right. But if you don’t think fiscal solvency, clean and plentiful water, affordable energy or environmental sustainability are serious issues, I have nothing left to say." -
The quote i used was "Most serious problems". Sure those things are serious problems. I'm just saying that some people may not think they are the Most serious problems. Different perspectives = different priorities.

You last point is a good one. We already have a qualifier based on education/"wisdom levels: minimum age of 18. Personally I think that is enough but perhaps it could be raised to 20 or something with the right justification.

"Uninformed votes" - Assertion.
"Our most serious problems" - What you consider the most serious problems may not be what the rest of society considers the most serious problems.
"reinforce inequalities." - Clarification needed. Are you talking about equality of outcome or equality of opportunity and how is that relevant to an Electorate Qualification?

"I would add that only (heterosexual) married people with children are allowed to vote."

Unless they decide to vote in a way you disapprove of. Most problems are subjective. You should be careful when limiting power to a select few in case their ideals don't align with yours and you find yourself without the power to oppose them.

I don't think "maturity" is a particularly important trait in a potential state leader. It is preferable, yes, but a Nation's political system should be divided to limit the power of any one institution and, therefore, minimize the influence of potential corruption. Trump has tried and failed to do a lot of silly things and this is a great example of how the American system should work.

As for Plato's notion that a age is good indicator of wisdom? Trump is 71, is that old enough?

An evolution is merely a change over time. So to say "Language evolves" is only suggesting that it changes over time, which is demonstrable. Don't think too far into it.

I don't think it is fair to compare humans on any metric, nuanced of generalized, since value as a concept is purely subjective.

The only way to accommodate the differences inherent within the people of a society in the context of governance is to remove collectivist notions of arbitrary demographics like race or gender and adopt a more individualist approach to writing legislation. That is to say, provide equal opportunity as a right to every individual and let those individuals decide what to do with those opportunities. Although you wont see equal outcomes between typical demographics, this is as equal as society can get without descending to authoritarianism and/or fascism.

Ok so after reading the article its not as interesting as I'd hoped. Yes, the brain rewards certain behavior with dopamine, this is nothing new. It rewards the Religiously minded when they do spiritual stuff because it has been conditioned to think that behavior is good, which is fine and is the same process for any other addictive behavior or substance. I hope they go into more detail some day.

That is a good point. Although I feel this is the first time Religion has adopted a philosophy that is directly antithetical to its previous practices showing a form of "desperation" in its need to be attractive to the population.
I haven't read or heard of that study. Thanks it will be an interesting one to keep an eye on. I predict there will be a correlation between religious and non-religious brain activity, how they tackle problems and their susceptibility to outside influence.

Wonderful, its great that Religious Schools teach critical theory. I haven't been to a Religious Liberal Arts Colleges so I don't know what their teaching methods are like but I can speculate and you can say whether or not my hypothesis is plausible.

As I said before a lot of Religious Organisations are in the process of being replaced by more modern notions of what is an agreeable set of morals. For example: The Pope reversing it's stance on Homosexuality. I'm sure we can assume anyone who has had even a brief interaction with Religion knows that the Catholic stance on being gay has not always been so tolerant, and changing that is without a doubt for the better. However, this is not a "traditional" tenant of Religious ideology and has been adopted from another, rising philosophy: Liberalism.
Therefore I feel it is not unreasonable to suggest the word "Liberal" in the title Religious Liberal Arts College is the contributing factor that has enabled these institutions to adopt a more critical teaching method. Critical analysis is inherently encouraged by Liberal principles (Secularism, Individual Rights, Democracy, Economic Freedom, Blind Justice and, most importantly, Freedom of Speech) and is primarily anti-authoritarian. The "traditional" principles Religious ideology seem to have been conservative and traditionalist throughout history. Only recently have they began adopting Liberal principles in order to remain relevant in a world that is quickly moving towards a more Liberal Society.
These two points suggest that Religious Ideology is capable of adopting principles from more socially agreeable ideologies as well as a motivation for doing so, however, I need to add that this is not an evolution of Religion, but rather a replacement of it.

Schools throughout the ages have been controlled and managed by Religious Organisations and whereas western schools are moving away from the more archaic practices (beating a child with a ruler if he is naughty) you can still find plenty of examples of strict, authoritarian ideology being enforced in societies that are less Liberal. This further leads one to the idea that these principles are derived from Liberal Ideology and not from evolving Religious Principles.

Schools that are not very good are not very good for a reason. Recently a large number of Secular Schools and Universities are becoming more and more Progressive (for better of for worse) at the expense of teaching Critical Analysis. What is interesting about this is that they are using same Indoctrination Tactics that Religions use to suppress critique and the freedom of speech of their students and faculty. Whereas these institutions claim to be Liberal, they do not follow the principles of Liberal Ideology and therefore are Authoritarian in nature and therefore not Liberal in nature. As I mention before, I have seen this sort of behavior in places outside of Recognized Religious Organisations. This further supports my previous claim as it demonstrates that even traditionally Liberal Ideologies are capable of adopting another ideologies principles to further its goals and in turn contradicting its traditional foundations. In this case: Authoritarian practices from Religion and become anti-liberal as a result.

Of course, this is me mostly thinking out loud. I'm very interested to hear what you have to say.

Sorry I forgot to conclude my initial point. Please insert this after paragraph 4.

If you agree that people are capable of organizing their hopes and dreams etc. without Religion and since science is an objectively better replacement for explaining the universe, the two primary functions of Religion are replaceable. When combined with the negative political and cultural connotations (the stiffing of critical analysis to name one) it renders Religion obsolete in the modern world.

The first part I'm not so sure about. People can express intense desire, arousal, excitement, anticipation, comfort, belonging and any other emotion typically communicated through non-verbal communication. Such things, I thought, have evolved to supplement what is now our primary form of communication, verbal. But it is certainly a sound idea.

The second part is very interesting. I'm going to look that up, thanks.

"People seem to need some kind of "religion" on which to organize their experiences, hopes, aspirations, disappointments, failures, dreams, nightmares, tedious or exciting experiences, and so on. I do disagree with you that "religion" is obsolete."

Need is an interesting word choice; it suggests people can not have those things without Religion. I strongly disagree with this but I only have anecdotal evidence for the contrary so I admit it is a fair position to hold.

"It isn't obsolete because human beings have not changed in fundamental ways in the last couple hundred thousand years and we haven't achieved super-rationality. It doesn't look like super-rationality is just around the corner, either. So... religion of some sort is probably going to last quite a while yet."

I agree that we have not achieved super-rationality, nor our we close and nor will science alone be enough to get us there. However, since science is an extension of Religion (that is to say in the pursuit of explaining the universe Religion built the foundations on which scientific pursuit is built) it would naturally replace Religion as a means of expanding our understanding by giving us a means to do so with measurable accuracy. This is an objectively superior way of studying the universe.
Also note that Religion has only lasted so long by indoctrinating people into believing it as the ultimate truth despite lacking tangible evidence and threatening eternal punishment to anyone that questions "God's Words". This is an artificial way of extending the lifespan of Religion.

The rest of your post I agree with. I think the process of replacing Religion is underway but, as I pointed out, Religion has an effective way of slowing that process down, to a halt if left unchecked. What will replace it in the end is entirely up for grabs, I guess.

Personally I think by teaching people critical thinking skills early in life, as opposed to just telling them what is "true" to pass an exam, is the best way to inspire the kind of innovation towards problem solving that will lead to living conditions improving the world over. Religious ideology is antithetical to this pursuit. Most cultural and political issues are, in my opinion, at least partially to blame for the rigid thinking that is causing a lot of issues in the political sphere. That doesn't just end with recognized Religions organisations like Christianity. I have seen this thinking in Atheist communities, as Theists love to point out, as well as others. It is a hard habit to crack but in time I think it is inevitable.

"If we all speak different languages, then that logically implies that there is a global language that comes before words, ie: we don't think in words."

I'm sorry, I don't see how you got from speaking different languages to a global language before words. Can you describe the logical steps for your thought process, please?



Can you give an example of a thought that can not be expressed with words in the context of someone that can speak?

My mistake and fair enough. Take it easy.

Yeah, I guess my question could be a trick but only in that it highlights a fundamental contradiction I feel Religious ideology has always had by trapping anyone answering into contradicting themselves. I understand that not all Religious people ascribe to that particular principle (that God exists and created everything), nevertheless it is an almost universal foundation upon which Religion is based.
I wouldn't call that a straw man, but I could be wrong.

"It cannot be the text, because you don't know the text."

A rather bold assumption, and a mostly incorrect one. I have read The Bible, but not for many years. I was brought up a Christian and turned away from Religion when it refused or avoided answering the questions I had.

My issue is with the applied principles of Religious doctrine in politics and the daily lives of its subscribers. That includes Organised Religion but is not necessarily limited to it.

Your right, I am talking in general terms. All I am trying to say is that Religion discourages critical thinking. It does this by claiming it already has all the answers.

But, to be more specific: personally I'd ask Religion whether or not they feel people are capable of creating an agreeable moral code without the need for a omnipotent, celestial deity laying one out for them and, if not, whether or not they think that contradicts the claim that people are created by said omnipotent deity in His image?



Of course you can be intelligent and Religious. In fact I'd credit Religion with crating the foundations of scientific inquiry. However; whereas science began to accept that we do not have all the answers and that we should begin questioning everything we thought we knew, Religion forbid any inquiries that suggested they might be wrong. Science is the natural evolution of Religious principles and now that Religion is all but obsolete, they must double down on indoctrinating people into rigid thought processes in order to maintain their influence.