Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Strongpoint]

Otherwise how about faith in yourself/spouse/kids? Optimism? Hope?

Actually, the difference is observations and reasonable expectations. There are tons of observations that serve as evidence that my relatives love me. This is why I believe that they do love me. The fact that I want this to be true doesn't mean that observations don't exist

There are no observations that any form of afterlife exists, nevertheless, billions believe it, because they want it to be true.

This is why those are very different forms of belief.

[Frumple]

Many social issues are wicked problems characterized by complexity, uncertainty and lack of clear cut solutions, these include things like poverty or climate change, we all know they exist but we don't know what the best way to solve the, only faith-based approaches that involve subjective perceptions of situation, values, needs and wants.

I mean, it's a point worth making that while we don't know the best ways to solve things like poverty or climate change, we do in fact know really damn good ways to. We know cutting emissions would help with climate change and know a slate of highly effective ways of doing so, we know dozens of ways to slash poverty that are within most societies' means of effecting, from housing to various sorts of welfare.

Many social issues factually have entirely clear cut solutions that we're 100% certain work and often aren't even particularly complicated*, they're just ones certain segments of the population with more societal power than they bloody should have are very insistent we don't implement.

General point being, for all the so-called soft sciences are indeed working with wicked problems that are much more difficult to address and handle than the hard sciences are, they're not just faith based guessing games throwing stuff at a wall without being able to tell what sticks. They've advanced a long bloody way over the years, and for all the problems with them and the distance left to go there's a lot they've managed to piece together that's pretty damn solid.

*Just as an example, just about the most effective and cost efficient means of reducing homelessness we're aware of is to just goddamn give people a home. Don't gate it, don't make it have hoops to jump through, just give them three hots and a cot with a permanent address. The costs are less than the costs involved in leaving them on the street, it's just about the most effective means we're aware of for keeping them from ending up back on the street, so on and so forth. Homelessness is a problem with a solution that would be cheaper than not addressing the problem and more effective and efficient than more or less any other proposed solution in existence.

Except people are brainwormed, unfortunately especially among the world's religious (just world fallacy is a hell of a drug), and refuse to just. Do. That. For a pile of reasons, none of them good.

[Schmaven]

There are no observations that any form of afterlife exists-

It is nevertheless a very compelling theory as the existence of previous lives would explain very well the existence of child prodigies, as well as why some people have very strong habits and tendencies from an early age that are otherwise unrelated to their environment or upbringing.  The existence of previous lives would also explain why good things happen to bad people, and bad things to good people.  I admit none of those conveniences are themselves proof, but as a basis for belief, they are observational ties to our experience in the world.  You mentioned afterlife however, and not previous lives.  Some people even claim to recall previous lives.  Feeling some unusually strong connection to someone you've just met could likewise be explained by having had a very close relationship to them in some way in some form in a previous life as well.  And logically, if previous lives exist, then this present life is the "afterlife" of some previous life, which implies the existence of an afterlife. 

Unfortunately, I have a hard time even remembering much of what happened in the earlier years of this current life I'm living, so I don't expect to be able to remember further back to the completely different experiences of being in a womb, let alone whatever I may have been experiencing even before that.  Death is generally regarded as a traumatic experience for many, so that likely impedes memories between lives as well. 

The practical side of a belief such as the existence of past and future lives, would be that all we seem to take with us are our habits and tendencies.  So the stronger we make our good tendencies and habits of mind now, the more likely it is we'll be able to reap the fruits of those actions in future lives as well as this one.  Similarly, overcoming bad habits both would help now and in the long run.  It can give even more motivation to the normal motivational force to make whatever changes in life we seek. 

Yet this is all still within the realm of spiritual beliefs, and as such, deals with the more meta-approach to life than the "what is the best way to brush your teeth" level of life. 

[Strongpoint]

It is nevertheless a very compelling theory as the existence of previous lives would explain very well the existence of child prodigies, as well as why some people have very strong habits and tendencies from an early age that are otherwise unrelated to their environment or upbringing.

This is a good start and, indeed, observations. But does this theory explains it better than the alternative one of random DNA producing slightly different brains? We have detected and tested DNA and while we don't understand it completely it is definitely a real thing and behavioral traits are definitely inheritable. We, humanity, know that behavior is inheritable since the early days of animal husbandry.

Some people even claim to recall previous lives

False memory is known to exist and it is also a way more plausible explanation

[hector13]

People are generally very poor at recalling events.

[jipehog]

Otherwise how about faith in yourself/spouse/kids? Optimism? Hope?

Actually, the difference is observations and reasonable expectations. There are tons of observations that serve as evidence that my relatives love me. This is why I believe that they do love me. The fact that I want this to be true doesn't mean that observations don't exist

There are no observations that any form of afterlife exists, nevertheless, billions believe it, because they want it to be true.

This is why those are very different forms of belief.

We aren't talking about scientific observations. Our observations are always based on lack of information, incomplete understanding and shaped by our biases. As kids we have lower mental capacity and biologically wired to blind-trust our parents, as adults I believe that our attitudes are often shape by leaps of faith. Otherwise, can't we similarly say that religion is the generational tested observational wisdom?

As for afterlife but "grandpa its just a story..  "

Many social issues are wicked problems characterized by complexity, uncertainty and lack of clear cut solutions, these include things like poverty or climate change, we all know they exist but we don't know what the best way to solve the, only faith-based approaches that involve subjective perceptions of situation, values, needs and wants.

I mean, it's a point worth making that while we don't know the best ways to solve things like poverty or climate change, we do in fact know really damn good ways to. We know cutting emissions would help with climate change and know a slate of highly effective ways of doing so

And if the the question was how can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions you'd have clear cut solution.

[hector13]

Not burning fossil fuels would be a good start.

[Strongpoint]

We aren't talking about scientific observations. Our observations are always based on lack of information, incomplete understanding and shaped by our biases. As kids we have lower mental capacity and biologically wired to blind-trust our parents, as adults I believe that our attitudes are often shape by leaps of faith.

This is why we must doubt and check our views not follow them blindly because "I decided that this sacred thing is immune to logic and doubt"

Why we must? Garbage in, Garbage out. If you base your actions on incorrect information, results of those actions will be detrimental to you and society.

Otherwise, can't we similarly say that religion is the generational tested observational wisdom?

No. Because religions reliably fail tests as new knowledge is acquired. Again and again. Despite those failed tests faith remains.

[Frumple]

And if the the question was how can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions you'd have clear cut solution.

I mean, short-term effective start (or ramp up, where it's already started) steadily shifting the massive subsidies we're feeding into fossil fuels into... not fossil fuels. Even beyond various sorts of regulation or direct investment opportunities in renewables or emission capture/reduction, you do that and suddenly the market becomes even more interested than it already was in building infrastructure et al that puts less emissions in the air.

And that's just one pretty bloody straightforward solution to greenhouse gas emissions, maybe not a silver bullet or "best" solution, but an effective one that isn't some kind of convoluted 20 year plan or whatever.

It's not exhaustive, folks more plugged in to the renewable et al field have been beating their various drums on stuff like that probably longer than either of us have been alive. There's a pile of pretty bloody clear cut ways to help on that front if certain folks with more money than sense would stop getting in the friggin' way.

[EuchreJack]

Unfortunately, "classical studies" is the new way to teach that LGBTQ doesn't exist.

[jipehog]

And if the the question was how can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions you'd have clear cut solution.

I mean, short-term effective start (or ramp up, where it's already started) steadily shifting the massive subsidies we're feeding into fossil fuels into... not fossil fuels. Even beyond various sorts of regulation or direct investment opportunities in renewables or emission capture/reduction, you do that and suddenly the market becomes even more interested than it already was in building infrastructure et al that puts less emissions in the air.

And that's just one pretty bloody straightforward solution to greenhouse gas emissions, maybe not a silver bullet or "best" solution, but an effective one that isn't some kind of convoluted 20 year plan or whatever.

It's not exhaustive, folks more plugged in to the renewable et al field have been beating their various drums on stuff like that probably longer than either of us have been alive. There's a pile of pretty bloody clear cut ways to help on that front if certain folks with more money than sense would stop getting in the friggin' way.

Bloody clear cut is not the scientific method. Unlike the previous proposition, the debate on climate change is inherently political involving economic, social, and political ramifications. For example in the UK, many would find your bloody straightforward solution vastly insufficient arguing that UK should do much more than steady shift, although interestingly even if tomorrow UK drop from the face of earth it this will not significantly effect climate change.

Addressing climate change requires international cooperation (particularly that of China) meaning that you have to worry about international actors which have conflicting perspectives, sense of urgency, capabilities, and focus on their own interests.

I already touched on this in another thread, but that was about narratives and Russia:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[..]More importantly, one should understand that climate change is global problem, but green tech is not a viable or desirable solution for everyone, and thus someone will need to pick up the slack. Then there are super national considerations, and political realities.

For example, in Russia solar and wind energy are not as viable as they are in north Africa and north-west Europe respectively. Russia lack the infrastructure, even countries like Germany had issues, and Russia due to dilapidated state and its huge size would need to invest MUCH more with far LESS profit margins (wrose if you consider electric car charging stations). There are security considerations, many advanced schemes require cooperation and dependence on other countries, and one may not want the possibility of your industry grinding into halt with a flick of switch or hitting couple of main transmission lines. Finally, there are economic realities (Russia have a lot of cheap fissile fuels) and the global market.

Here just few other quick points of the many issues involved here:

* The argument is that shift to a low-carbon economy can provide new economic opportunities, it would also impact existing industries and those who depend on them (cost of living too?) and historically these things tend to effect disproportionately particularly low-income communities with job retraining may not be accessible everywhere
* The high cost of infrastructure can be a barrier to developing and even developed countries, an opportunity cost loss that would have negative effects on their economic growth.
* Tough its called green tech it would require significant resources, the extraction and manufacturing of which would inevitably cause much environmental degradation and human rights abuses in the usual suspects with weak environmental and labor protections.
* Power politics, I am sure that if the west give it Taiwan China would be amicable to a big compromise.. ( Not sure that anything short of a blowjob from Biden could do the same for Putin )

Anyway. Your expletives hide that your greater good equitable solution is faith based. You nor anyone else can formulate a clear solution for climate change that would address all the above. This is why international effort have been lackluster with everyone agreeing on a small step in the right direction that everyone can live with.

[Duuvian]

Personally I'd count modern fission reactors as pretty close to clean, though I'm saying that without knowing what kind of numbers of barrels of nuclear waste we are talking about or if that's mostly old reactors. Fusion would be a great thing to throw money at science for; that way the scientists could sleep on an actual pile of money for a few hours before going back to work.

1: Horse and buggy argument. EDIT: That sounds callous and I don't like it, but I also don't think it's a forever industry. Plus I think I remember suggesting in the past new social supports in regards to at least US fossil fuels workers if they lose employment, so that's about the best I can do.

2: Cost of at least of some of the things have come down where they are competitive in price to fossil fuels (except for maybe coal IIRC). Also to further decrease the cost, upscaling of production capital would be desirable which requires demand.

3: You are comparing this to fossil fuels industry

4: Mutual interest but I don't know or tell them what to do so you could be right (though I don't think it would be effective as it's already difficult to pursue a change to cleaner energy and carries a high risk of abandonment at even mild headwinds, or if the next R in the White House isn't quite some time from now)

[delphonso]

Without going too far into it, nuclear power is a necessary stopgap until battery breakthroughs give us the grid storage we need to run entirely on green tech. The risks of nuclear power are nothing compared to the externalized costs and inherent risks of fossil fuels. Waste per person in their lifetime is like...a soda can size.

Also, this is a religion thread.

[jipehog]

@Duuvian. To clarify these are not arguments for or against any approach, only the means to illustrate why this is a wicked problem. These factors are intertwined, where any change set a chain reaction that set other actions into motion in unpredictable ways and with consequences that change the initial condition.  Which is why it is a unique problem that we have no way to test, or play trial and error with moreover complicated by international venue actors conflict perspectives and interests[1] as the reader and whoever their political party might be. Thus all we can do is reach consensus on an action plan and hope for the best and adapt.[2]


Otherwise, modern fission reactors are also more expensive than other solutions, this could change with upcoming small modular reactors which should reduce construction cost substantially.

[1] After all we are setting a new business model one that may not deliver the same level of profitability and economic development for everyone.. For example, currently there many in the global south say leave us be, let the rich west deal with it.
[2] This is as part of the thread about the limits of science, and my suggestion that its not necessarily science that governing our stance on some of the biggest political issues (that not to suggest that religion should)

Edited.

[EuchreJack]

Also, this is a religion thread.