It seems to me that secularists and religionists are equally capable of seeing purpose, meaning, and beauty, as well as order and truth.

incidentally, about this dogma that 'faith is belief without evidence'. The believer will say that the world itself evidences divine providence. There may not be evidence in the sense of double-blind experimental data across sample populations of X thousand persons. But the testimony of sages, the proper interpretation of religious texts, and the varieties of religious experience all constitute evidence, although of course all of that may equally be disregarded. The will not to believe is just as strong as the will to believe. — Wayfarer

I would say that the world itself evidences the Buddhist concept of emptiness, and that the so-called 'realization of emptiness' is a deeply personal experience—one that is profoundly difficult to convey to others. Not sure where divine providence may play a role though.

Why do they choose to suffer in that way? And if it's a choice, can't they simply choose not to suffer when they get bored with it?

- Let's say you have a book that contains information on an ancient people. It contains a list of rulers dating back 1000 years. We can confirm the list dating back 500 years, but the evidence starts to become less reliable after that. Does the record in the book count for anything, or would we consider the claims in the books to be baseless beyond 500 years? — BitconnectCarlos

There’s a variety of methods for dating ancient documents and they’re reported to be quite accurate. Personally I would consider the content of the document a one piece of evidence.

-Let's say you were up with Moses on Mount Sinai. What would need to transpire for you to become a believer? — BitconnectCarlos

It’s said that only Moses was allowed on the mountain so just being there with him would be unconvincing.

People can become stuck in a hellish frame of mind, but it's not punishment. It's a self imposed prison. — frank

I doubt people choose to imprison themselves in a hellish frame of mind.

Divine judgment implies a conscious, willful decision by a deity. Perhaps you fear that Buddhism is wrong and theistic religions are true?

I do fear divine judgement. Not so much the others. — Wayfarer

As a Buddhist? That's cause & effect and not divine judgement, isn't it?

The deeper dynamic of that is that secular philosophy is antagostic to the possibility of the transcendent because it is fearful that it might be real after all (compare Thomas Nagel's 'fear of religion'). Better to leave the whole question sealed. — Wayfarer

A lot of if is designed to inspire fear, I'm afraid.

On the flip side, believers have a lot to fear as well, such as:

• Fear of Doubt and Unbelief
• Fear of Divine Judgment
• Fear of the "Other" or the Secular World
• Fear of Nihilism
• Fear of Social or Familial Consequences

Wait, what? I thought tariffs were paid by abusive countries. :joke:

"All that I have written seems like straw"
— St. Thomas Aquinas

In this light I don’t understand your and Fire’s current complaints about irrationality, or rather, non-rationality. Many spiritual seekers go to great pains to transcend the rational. Does the good and the true converge in rationality?

I see. That was an impulsive comment and I regret making it. Your post caught me off guard—in a funny way—and the wine didn’t help. Sorry. :pray:

Okay, great. My point was that even the most tolerant do not tolerate everything. When I say that Christianity values unity in plurality, I am not saying that Christian tolerance is without limit. — Leontiskos

Still missing the point but nevermind if you don’t want to speak more directly or whatever.

A good thread for you: The Myopia of Liberalism — Leontiskos

Unity in the plurality of purposes?

What I meant was that religious influence is used for a variety of purpose, many of which are good of course, but many are self-serving or worse. I think it should be used for what it claims to offer, and nothing besides. Why waste time and effort on anything besides salvation if salvation is worthwhile?

Anyway, I’ve read most of the thread you’ve recommended and skimmed the rest of it. I’ve also read Why Liberalism Failed, as I mentioned. I’m still curious why it’s good for me.

Ah, got it — you're asking about the computational or energy cost of extra words like “please” when talking to me, not socially.

The short answer: it's negligible.

To put it in perspective:

• Modern language models like me process words in chunks called tokens. “Please” is just one token.
• Processing a single extra token takes a tiny fraction of a second and a tiny fraction of energy, typically on the order of microjoules to millijoules depending on the hardware.
• The biggest energy use comes from generating the response itself, not minor variations in input.

So, whether you say:

• “Tell me a joke.”
• or “Please tell me a joke.”

…makes almost no difference in energy use.

If you’re interested in total energy use, though — data centers running AI models do consume a lot of energy overall, but removing polite words isn’t going to meaningfully reduce that. The biggest savings would come from reducing unnecessary requests, optimizing model efficiency, or using smaller models when possible.

I've always worn sandals a lot and the last pair I got have a bottle opener on the bottom. I didn't want it, it just happened to be on the cheap pair I chose. Funny thing is that it's come in handy on occasion but is kind of gross to use.

I know of no secular intentional communities outside the history of rapidly collapsing communes or ethnic colonies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

How about something like Twin Oaks? Not a cult!

Blog post evaluating the successes and failures of Twin Oaks.

Yeah, but did you care he died, like were you at all invested in him as a character, or was it just pretty prose? — Hanover

Not really, no. I like the way Tom describes his experience, that the story's enchantment lies in how it's told.

This part where Gatsby is found in the pool made a lasting impression. Rich like chocolate cheesecake.

“The laden mattress moved irregularly down the pool. A small gust of wind that scarcely corrugated the surface was enough to disturb its accidental course with its accidental burden. The touch of a cluster of leaves revolved it slowly, tracing, like the leg of compass, a thin red circle in the water.”

My wife teaches it in High School English and can’t praise it enough. When I commented about the writing she began reciting some of her favorite lines from memory.

Hamlet? I think he was indirectly calling me a nihilist.

I read Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deneen not too long ago. What’s your point?

The Great Gatsby.

Beautifully rich writing though a little too rich for my pedestrian tastes, I guess.

Lol, the hallmark of all religions is the expulsion of dissonant voices.

Plurivocity is the sign of a rich text. — Leontiskos

That can be used for a variety of purposes. Shouldn’t there be just one purpose though?

Religious argument and religious interaction is the most interesting kind. This is because religion is primordially identical to culture. Before the pluralism of secular states there was no difference at all. Religio-cultural encounter is the most interesting kind because it involves the interaction of totalizing forms. Chinese Confucianism meets European Christianity meets Indian Hinduism. That sort of thing is the epitome of human encounter, precisely because you have such maximally full and developed expressions of human life coming into contact with one another.

And I'm sorry, but if you think religion or culture or sacred texts are not amenable to argument and rational interpenetration, then your ignorance of history is massive. On a quantitative scale that sort of argument dwarfs all other kinds. — Leontiskos

Interesting because believers typically lament the enlightenment and the so called death of God.

And sacred text are eminently amenable to reinterpretation, unfortunately.

Did you notice the discussion of intuition in the "what is real" thread? Intuition might not be a firm basis for agreement. — Banno

Agreed.

You’re not missing anything. Many consider moral foundations a half-baked theory.

You’re suggesting that people with a God-shaped hole in their hearts may be desperate enough to gulp down some authentic looking Kool-Aid? A leap of faith is not always rewarded, or is it?

Is it against the forum rules to substitute AI responses for your own? — Leontiskos

My understanding is that we’re required to mention when AI is used, which is why I mentioned it.

I addressed the strange idea of "blind trust" earlier, specifically <here> and <here>. — Leontiskos

It’s a strange idea that people are entirely rational.

You don’t think that blind trust or faith has any value?

According to MFT, I guess MAGA is skewed towards Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Liberty/Oppression.

I’ll let AI take care of the uninteresting questions.

Trust is earned through consistent actions, honesty, accountability, empathy, and respect. By being reliable, transparent, and showing integrity, people come to believe in your character and dependability.

Blind trust is given without evidence or experience, often driven by emotional needs, optimism, authority, or urgency.

Now back to what I think is an interesting question: what is the value of blind trust?

Trust can be earned or given blindly. What is the value of giving it blindly?

Then I would say that trust is the most abused aspect of life, and that religion is part of life. — Leontiskos

More generally I’m inclined to say that power is the most abused aspect, though in society power amounts to influence and that includes a degree of trust. For the religious that degree of trust or faith offers enormous influential power, and as we all know, power corrupts.

Let’s say for now that X = trust.

It’s painfully obvious that faith is the most abused aspect of religion, isn’t it?

I heard about a study not long ago ( by Jonathan Haidt) which showed that conservatives have a broader set of values. It also showed that conservatives can model what liberals think, but liberals have no idea what conservatives think and they think that conservatives are just evil. This study would seem to be consistent with the idea I just described that leftists have a lower level of moral development than conservatives. A understanding B and B not understanding A would seem to indicate that A is more developed. — Brendan Golledge

You don’t understand, perhaps willfully? We all have the same moral intuitions. How could we not?! It’s just that, according to moral foundations theory, conservatives value intuitions more evenly and liberals favor care and fairness, if I recall correctly. The idea that liberals cannot conceive of or are lacking intuitions like loyalty or sanctity is obviously absurd.

Btw, can you explain to me why I support a woman’s right to choose despite the intuition that abortion is wrong?

"Belief without evidence" and "We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence" seem like pretty standard claims of irrationality.

If you don't see faith as irrational that's great, but anti-religious folks tend to view faith as irrational. — Leontiskos

See Tom’s last post above.

I’m anti-religious and view faith as non-rational, though there are clearly many instances of irrational religious faith.

Is that the same use of "essence" as that of the Philosophers hereabouts? "that which makes a thing what it is and not another", or whatever? — Banno

Of course not, I would say it’s intuitive and that we all have intuitive assessments of things and the intuitive sense is foundational. Knowledge, analysis, and philosophizing can shape our intuitions and allows increased manipulation but the intuition is always there.

I don’t get it. Tom doesn’t claim that faith is inherently irrational in that post or the couple of subsequent posts.

What is it to "have the essence" of mum, beyond what one does? — Banno

I’m thinking that pretty much all a child has is the essence of mum. No words or definitions. Mum may mean security, nourishment, and the like, on an instinctual or just ‘feel good’ level.