Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on May 17, 2020, 04:54:15 PM
-
Hi everyone,
In the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic, has anyone's beliefs about the nature of life and death changed significantly?
Have any atheists begun to see some merit in spiritual beliefs....not necessarily in a Christian God or other specific religious beliefs?!
Have any religious people had any change of thinking about their beliefs in God or the after-life or other supernatural things?
Any beliefs that have been further strengthened?
Any views?
Sriram
-
No, no, no idea, and no - and it is clearly a bugger of a virus.
-
No, no, no idea, and no - and it is clearly a bugger of a virus.
Ditto
-
Ditto
+1
-
As it happens I was wondering in, I suppose, a vindictive way, if Christians were going to admit that, as everything in the World and in life, good, bad and bloody awfu, came with the permission of their God it was another indisctment of just what a vindictive and unpleasant bastard He is!
And, as a result, if any of the decided that it was about time they dumped Him down the toilet!
Monty Python had it just about right in their version of "All things Bright and Beautiful!"
Yes, I know that my deities are more human in their ways and therefore one or more of them are responsible BUT that is the point! I expect some nastiness from some my deities as they are far more human than the Christian dictator.
-
S it happens I was wondering in, I suppose, a vindictive way, if Christians were going to admit that, as everything in the World and in life, good, bad and bloody awfu, came with the permission of their God it was another indisctment of just what a vindictive and unpleasant bastard He is!
I see paganism hasn't tempered or moderated you or made you any happier. Anyway arguing that God is an unpleasant bastard isn't an atheist argument nor a pagan one I wouldn't imagine.
And, as a result, if any of the decided that it was about time they dumped Him down the toilet!
I haven't.
Monty Python had it just about right in their version of "All things Bright and Beautiful!"
Yes, I know that my deities are more human in their ways.
What's good about that? Since there are palpable villains here namely the Tories and their evil supporters, I would be asking whether there are still any humanists.
-
I see paganism hasn't tempered or moderated you or made you any happier. Anyway arguing that God is an unpleasant bastard isn't an atheist argument nor a pagan one I wouldn't imagine.
Oh, it has made me far happier than I ever was as a Christian! I have deities now who do not pretend to be omnipotent, nor do they masquerade a caring eniities while still being omnipotent deny that (or their followers - like you) they are responsible for the nasty things in the world like Covid 19! They, like the humans who worship them are fully aware of their faults, they are the same faults as humans have, of course they are, hyumans are truly made in thier image!
For an accurate asessment of your God I recommend the Monty Python version of All Things Bright and Beautiful!
I haven't.
Yeah, I've noticed - does walking around with your eyes that tight shut cause you to walk into walls and other objects?
What's good about that? Since there are palpable villains here namely the Tories and their evil supporters, I would be asking whether there are still any humanists.
Personally I am not a fan of politicians of any party, particularly an anti-Semetic leader of an anti-Semetic party and a supporter of the I R A (who, incidentally, were responsible for the murder of three fellow soldiers, off duty, out of uniform and out with their families who also died in the explosion!
Nice friends you have!
-
Hi everyone,
In the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic, has anyone's beliefs about the nature of life and death changed significantly?
Have any atheists begun to see some merit in spiritual beliefs....not necessarily in a Christian God or other specific religious beliefs?!
Have any religious people had any change of thinking about their beliefs in God or the after-life or other supernatural things?
Any beliefs that have been further strengthened?
For many, the opposite, I think; people losing their loved ones is the last straw for a faith that was already weak. A brush with death is a reality check, a wake up call, that can shatter illusions.
-
For many, the opposite, I think; people losing their loved ones is the last straw for a faith that was already weak. A brush with death is a reality check, a wake up call, that can shatter illusions.
Agreed! OK. I have not had a close brush, but my sister-in-law has been sent home and isolated, she is a nurse, and her sister, my ex, is sweating cob-nuts as a result, she is also a nurse!
I don't quite know who are praying hardest - the Christians or the Pagans!
-
As it happens I was wondering in, I suppose, a vindictive way, if Christians were going to admit that, as everything in the World and in life, good, bad and bloody awfu, came with the permission of their God it was another indisctment of just what a vindictive and unpleasant bastard He is!
Why does it never occur to atheists that it might be God's power that is limited, not God's love? According to the Bible, God is loove - not just loves or is loving but is love. I don't think we are ever told in the Bible that God id omnipotent: very powerful, yes, but not all-powerful. I think that idea comes from Greef philosophy. If God was necessarily all-powerful by definition, Jesus couldn't have been God incarnate, because he obviously wasn't all-powerful during his incarnation.
-
Oh, it has made me far happier than I ever was as a Christian! I have deities now who do not pretend to be omnipotent, nor do they masquerade a caring eniities while still being omnipotent deny that (or their followers - like you) they are responsible for the nasty things in the world like Covid 19! They, like the humans who worship them are fully aware of their faults, they are the same faults as humans have, of course they are, hyumans are truly made in thier image!
For an accurate asessment of your God I recommend the Monty Python version of All Things Bright and Beautiful!
Yeah, I've noticed - does walking around with your eyes that tight shut cause you to walk into walls and other objects?
Personally I am not a fan of politicians of any party, particularly an anti-Semetic leader of an anti-Semetic party and a supporter of the I R A (who, incidentally, were responsible for the murder of three fellow soldiers, off duty, out of uniform and out with their families who also died in the explosion!
Nice friends you have!
I hope to see Tories in front of international courts over there handling of the crisis and for crimes against humanity over herd immunity which must be the first instance of a nation like ours employing a lethal biological agent on its population as policy and subsequently using children as pit canaries. Absolutely monstrous.
-
For many, the opposite, I think; people losing their loved ones is the last straw for a faith that was already weak. A brush with death is a reality check, a wake up call, that can shatter illusions.
The illusion of progress and enlightenment as held by Pinker and Dawkins yes. A central plank of new atheism falls although to be fair the assumptions of humanism take a bigger hit since progress and capitalism are exposed as lethal by class.
-
For many, the opposite, I think; people losing their loved ones is the last straw for a faith that was already weak. A brush with death is a reality check, a wake up call, that can shatter illusions.
I think the bereaved will find their loss swept under the carpet by society both secular and non consoling.
-
For many, the opposite, I think; people losing their loved ones is the last straw for a faith that was already weak. A brush with death is a reality check, a wake up call, that can shatter illusions.
Not necessarily so. For many it is death and a personal loss that makes the reality of an after-life and a purpose to life, all the more necessary.
Good times make people feel life is nothing but enjoyment and pleasure. Bad times bring into focus our limitations and the temporal nature of life.
-
As it happens I was wondering in, I suppose, a vindictive way, if Christians were going to admit that, as everything in the World and in life, good, bad and bloody awfu, came with the permission of their God it was another indisctment of just what a vindictive and unpleasant bastard He is!
And, as a result, if any of the decided that it was about time they dumped Him down the toilet!
Monty Python had it just about right in their version of "All things Bright and Beautiful!"
Yes, I know that my deities are more human in their ways and therefore one or more of them are responsible BUT that is the point! I expect some nastiness from some my deities as they are far more human than the Christian dictator.
There's a danger of weaponising bereavement in the cause of promoting anti christianity.
-
For many, the opposite, I think; people losing their loved ones is the last straw for a faith that was already weak. A brush with death is a reality check, a wake up call, that can shatter illusions.
Are you trying to find a silver lining here?
-
There's a danger of weaponising bereavement in the cause of promoting anti christianity.
As there is a danger of characterising secularism as not caring.
-
As there is a danger of characterising secularism as not caring.
I think secularists should learn that their conception of the secular state as essentially benign progressive and humanist is misplaced.
-
I think secularists should learn that their conception of the secular state as essentially benign progressive and humanist is misplaced.
It's a damn sight better than when the church ran the state.
-
It's a damn sight better than when the church ran the state.
Yes, theocracies don't work. In this country though the church was never the seat of power. Dynasties and oligarchs have been.
-
I think secularists should learn that their conception of the secular state as essentially benign progressive and humanist is misplaced.
I think some religious people should recognise there is a difference between secularism and free market capitalism.
-
I think some religious people should recognise there is a difference between secularism and free market capitalism.
Alas after a life time we are learning that that is effectively mere theory.
-
Not necessarily so. For many it is death and a personal loss that makes the reality of an after-life and a purpose to life, all the more necessary.
That would be a kick back against a brush with reality, a refusal to come to terms, a deepening of our investment in escapism. Better decision making requires that we face reality and measure up, with honesty. This touches on why the climate problem is deeper - when people are dying in numbers, right here, right now, we can mobilise and make enormous and sudden sacrifices in our way of life. But when the suffering is far away, decades into the future, we find it easier to procrastinate. We need to be shocked into facing reality.
-
In the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic, has anyone's beliefs about the nature of life and death changed significantly?
I wouldn't say that anything's significantly shifted; it's been a strange exercise in realising where people's priorities lie, in some instances, but for me personally with a small circle of friends and acquaintances it's been slightly surreal. I know precisely no-one that's actually gone down with it, certainly no-one that's died from it, and I've been working all the way through (not a key-worker, I'm just easily capable of working from home). The only real noticeable impact has been that Mrs. O. hasn't been able to drag us all to the beach to waste the weekends when it's sunny, which isn't really that much of a hardship. But then the news media has been entirely inundated with it, to the point where it seems there's practically no other news at all - even the royals haven't been able to get a look in - not really sure what the significance of that stark difference between everyone else's experience (assuming that the media is on to something in their coverage) and mine.
Have any atheists begun to see some merit in spiritual beliefs....not necessarily in a Christian God or other specific religious beliefs?!
The only thing even tangentially related to spiritually that occurred to me was that the Guardian hadn't felt the need to ask Justin Welby for his input.
Any beliefs that have been further strengthened?
Not a belief, as such, but it's been reassuring to see that when the chips are down most people (at least in this country) seem to fall down on the side of trusting the science. That said, I have this personal suspicion that when it's all blown over the excess mortality count isn't going to be that significant; the issue being that if we get something worse in our lifetimes people are going to look back on this and just adopt a 'keep calm and carry on' mentality.
O.
-
I think the bereaved will find their loss swept under the carpet by society both secular and non consoling.
I think the bereaved will be consoled by their family, friends and their broader social network, just as has occurred in the past.
-
I hope to see Tories in front of international courts over there handling of the crisis and for crimes against humanity over herd immunity which must be the first instance of a nation like ours employing a lethal biological agent on its population as policy and subsequently using children as pit canaries. Absolutely monstrous.
I notice that you have carefully NOT commented upon the last sentance of my post - this one
Personally I am not a fan of politicians of any party, particularly an anti-Semetic leader of an anti-Semetic party and a supporter of the I R A (who, incidentally, were responsible for the murder of three fellow soldiers, off duty, out of uniform and out with their families who also died in the explosion!
Sorry that you don't have the balls to have a go at Commie Corbyn!
By the way, I cannot say that I support any of the politicians elected to the House, the British politician is rapidly becoming as bent as the US counterparts!
-
here's a danger of weaponising bereavement in the cause of promoting anti christianity.
There is, i regret to say, no danger of you ever realising that I am Not anti-Christian - I am anti-Christ and anti-his Father!
A lot of Christians, excluding the clergy and blinkered or blind zealots like you, are good people.
-
It's a damn sight better than when the church ran the state.
Ain't that the truth!"
-
Hi everyone,
In the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic, has anyone's beliefs about the nature of life and death changed significantly?
Have any atheists begun to see some merit in spiritual beliefs....not necessarily in a Christian God or other specific religious beliefs?!
Have any religious people had any change of thinking about their beliefs in God or the after-life or other supernatural things?
Any beliefs that have been further strengthened?
Any views?
Sriram
The pandemic hasn't altered my views on the nature of life and death at all, except, perhaps, to assess and value those things which I find most important in my life at the present time (e.g. family, nature, opportunity to learn a new skill).
I always saw merits in my spiritual inclinations(rather than beliefs)as I have said before, and that hasn't changed. (I doubt that your idea of spiritual beliefs is the same as mine.)
What religious people think is up to them.
The only realizations that have been strengthened for me is that, on one level, we live in a world where things happen which take no account of human beings at all. From nature's point of view we are no more significant than a virus. Yet I am encouraged by the evidence that, as a social animal, we tend to come together as individuals and support each other in times of trial. Finally, the realization that we are dependent on what we can do, especially through science, will hopefully see us through in the long term.
-
Yes, theocracies don't work. In this country though the church was never the seat of power. Dynasties and oligarchs have been.
We do not have a theocracy, but we do have an upper chamber with an inordinate number of clergy sitting in it! It's bad enough that the upper house is unelected but to have the higher levels of only one religion present is disgusting especially taking account of the number of religions actively pursued by the UK's VOTING population is diguting in its bias - all or none not just one!
-
In the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic, has anyone's beliefs about the nature of life and death changed significantly?
No.
Have any atheists begun to see some merit in spiritual beliefs....not necessarily in a Christian God or other specific religious beliefs?!
Not me personally, but I won't attempt to speak for all atheists.
Have any religious people had any change of thinking about their beliefs in God or the after-life or other supernatural things?
Don't know.
Any beliefs that have been further strengthened?
Yes. My belief that there are quite a lot of bloody idiots in the world has been strengthened.
Any views?
I'm getting quite familiar with the one out of my office/bedroom window.
-
Hi everyone,
In the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic, has anyone's beliefs about the nature of life and death changed significantly?
Have any atheists begun to see some merit in spiritual beliefs....not necessarily in a Christian God or other specific religious beliefs?!
Have any religious people had any change of thinking about their beliefs in God or the after-life or other supernatural things?
Any beliefs that have been further strengthened?
Any views?
Sriram
Nope - the Covid 19 pandemic hasn't altered my beliefs, or rather lack of belief in god. Nor has it changed my feelings about broader spiritual beliefs - I don't believe in them and do not consider their claims of veracity to be credible - but I do recognise that they (along with belief in god etc) do give some people comfort. Provided those people don't try to claim their beliefs are objectively true (i.e. true for everyone) rather then subjectively true (i.e. true for me) then I've no issue with that.
The current situation, does however, remind me of the time, some 31 years ago, when I came to recognise that I did not believe in god. I don't think I ever really believed in god but until that point I don't think I had really come to recognise that I was atheist. Thirty one years ago 96 completely normal and innocent people went to a football match and ended up dead - trying to reconcile that with the notion of an all power and supposedly loving god was impossible. Everything became so much clearer - snapped into focus so to speak - by moving god completely out of the picture. We ended up with a human tragedy with human causes, human failings and human heroes too.
Similar for cover-19 - a natural pandemic, horribly affecting the entire world. If god existed how could he let this happen - to reconcile that you need to tie your self up in theological knots. The explanations are so much easier and clearer if god doesn't exist. It doesn't mean the tragedy is belittled, quite the reverse - not believing in god means that we all have to stand up and take responsibility as people - we have to grow up - we cannot rely on the emotional crutch of a god, in the way a child relies on their parents to sort things. But of course, at least parents exist.
-
I don't understand vindictiveness, pretty sure I never felt it & if anyone felt it against me I haven't noticed. What good does it do?
-
Sririam all I hope is that we are all a little kinder when this ends. I've always been awre of the fragility of life, that hasn't changed.
-
Sririam all I hope is that we are all a little kinder when this ends. I've always been awre of the fragility of life, that hasn't changed.
I really think that, considering the behaviour of some people during lock-down/isolation/social distancing, the fragility of life is going to continue to be demonstrated by the death-toll from this bloody disease!
-
I don't think that even deeply religious people believed that the world is some sort of a holiday resort which God is supposed to manage such that people are all well taken care of and have no difficulties at all. Just be born, eat and drink, have sex, live to a hundred and die peacefully in the sleep. Pointless...I should think!
Difficulties and problems are an essential part of the world. Its temporal nature is itself a part of it. That is what makes the idea of a spiritual angle and an after-life all the more meaningful.
The idea of the world being like a school in which difficulties are the lessons is what seems meaningful.
-
I don't think that even deeply religious people believed that the world is some sort of a holiday resort which God is supposed to manage such that people are all well taken care of and have no difficulties at all. Just be born, eat and drink, have sex, live to a hundred and die peacefully in the sleep. Pointless...I should think!
Difficulties and problems are an essential part of the world. Its temporal nature is itself a part of it. That is what makes the idea of a spiritual angle and an after-life all the more meaningful.
The idea of the world being like a school in which difficulties are the lessons is what seems meaningful.
Yeah! But if the difficulties he imposes are, like Covid 19 at the moment,, insoluble, it just makes Him an even bigger bastard than I already thought him to be!
-
That is like a school child cribbing that the Principal is a tyrant. The child is not seeing the big picture in terms of his own future development.
-
I really think that, considering the behaviour of some people during lock-down/isolation/social distancing, the fragility of life is going to continue to be demonstrated by the death-toll from this bloody disease!
Overwhelmingly, from the information that's available currently, the people dying from/with Covid-19 are people who might normally be expected to die anyway. I'm not suggesting that there aren't young, otherwise fit people falling to the disease, but the bulk of the victims are the elderly or otherwise frail. This is not to diminish that Covid has been involved, but when the excess mortality is determined after the fact it's going to be interesting to see exactly how much of an impact this has actually had to that figure - if 90% of the deaths have happened to people who otherwise would have died in the same period, just from something else, how much of an impact can Covid be said to have actually had?
And then someone needs to go in an try to estimate how much worse it would have been if the measures that have been successfully implemented hadn't been, and what the advise will therefore be for the next time...
O.
-
Overwhelmingly, from the information that's available currently, the people dying from/with Covid-19 are people who might normally be expected to die anyway. I'm not suggesting that there aren't young, otherwise fit people falling to the disease, but the bulk of the victims are the elderly or otherwise frail. This is not to diminish that Covid has been involved, but when the excess mortality is determined after the fact it's going to be interesting to see exactly how much of an impact this has actually had to that figure - if 90% of the deaths have happened to people who otherwise would have died in the same period, just from something else, how much of an impact can Covid be said to have actually had?
And then someone needs to go in an try to estimate how much worse it would have been if the measures that have been successfully implemented hadn't been, and what the advise will therefore be for the next time...
O.
Observations I would move that change nothing for the predicament of those in at risk groups. I doubt those people will be stopping to say......''You know that boy Outrider, he's got something you know''.
-
Observations I would move that change nothing for the predicament of those in at risk groups. I doubt those people will be stopping to say......''You know that boy Outrider, he's got something you know''.
Sorry, I've been through that multiple times, and I still can't work out what it is that you're trying to say?
O.
-
Sorry, I've been through that multiple times, and I still can't work out what it is that you're trying to say?
O.
Gobbledegook is Vlad's communication device. ;D
-
The idea of the world being like a school in which difficulties are the lessons is what seems meaningful.
Blimey - not sure I'd send my kids to a school where 96 completely innocent kids are killed to teach the others a lesson (as in the case of Hillsborough) - or hundreds of thousand are permitted to die to teach a lesson to those that don't die (as in the case of the pandemic). I think a school like that should be closed, it's Headteacher sacked, prevented from ever being in charge of a school again and charged with criminal responsibility for those deaths.
-
Blimey - not sure I'd send my kids to a school where 96 completely innocent kids are killed to teach the others a lesson (as in the case of Hillsborough) - or hundreds of thousand are permitted to die to teach a lesson to those that don't die (as in the case of the pandemic). I think a school like that should be closed, it's Headteacher sacked, prevented from ever being in charge of a school again and charged with criminal responsibility for those deaths.
What??
-
What??
You claimed the relationship between god and people is like that of a teacher and pupils - that god allows (or even directs) things to happen to ensure people learn. But in my examples how are the 96 innocent, or hundreds of thousands of people affected by the decisions of that god going to learn ... as they are dead!
A teacher that permits of directs learning through untold death or suffering amongst his or her pupils would be rightly considered to be a monster and unfit to be a teacher. The same applies to a god that does the same.
-
That is like a school child cribbing that the Principal is a tyrant. The child is not seeing the big picture in terms of his own future development.
In the analogous examples I used, you are correct that the child won't see the big picture in terms of his own future development ... because he is dead and his death is the direct responsibility of the Principal's failure to keep that child safe.
-
In the analogous examples I used, you are correct that the child won't see the big picture in terms of his own future development ... because he is dead and his death is the direct responsibility of the Principal's failure to keep that child safe.
Well...we have a long way to go it seems...! Never mind! Thanks Prof D.
-
In the analogous examples I used, you are correct that the child won't see the big picture in terms of his own future development ... because he is dead and his death is the direct responsibility of the Principal's failure to keep that child safe.
I suppose though that if you believe in reincarnation as Sriram does that it isn't the end but is more like losing a life in a video game.
-
I suppose though that if you believe in reincarnation as Sriram does that it isn't the end but is more like losing a life in a video game.
Yes....you're right, that's where I am coming from. Each life time is like a class where we learn certain lessons and move on to a higher level in the next birth. Progressively we grow and finally attain enlightenment and freedom when we pass out of this world permanently. That is my view.
But even if people don't accept reincarnation, the idea of an after-life is imperative once we talk of a God and of spiritual development. Death cannot be the end when we talk of spiritual ideas.
-
Well...we have a long way to go it seems...! Never mind! Thanks Prof D.
So it would appear you think the death of innocent people is a price worth paying to allow others to learn a lesson. You do indeed have a long way to go if that is your approach to ethics and morality.
-
I suppose though that if you believe in reincarnation as Sriram does that it isn't the end but is more like losing a life in a video game.
Even if that is the case (and of course there is no evidence for reincarnation) I think you'd still think someone who deliberately forces you to lose a life to have done something wrong. And in what respect could that reincarnated individual have learnt a lesson themselves - to do so would require us all to have complete knowledge of, and be able to learn from, our previous lives. If that were true there would be evidence of reincarnation as we'd all be clear about those previous lives in the same way as we are about what happened yesterday.
-
Yes....you're right, that's where I am coming from. Each life time is like a class where we learn certain lessons and move on to a higher level in the next birth.
But what lesson could a complete innocent person learn from the ill fortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting crushed to death in a football stadium.
I can see how others who had actual responsibility for safety etc may learn a lesson (but none of them died), but I'm completely in the dark as to what lesson 14-year old Philip Hammond could have learned from having his life so cruelly and tragically cut short in April 1989.
-
But even if people don't accept reincarnation, the idea of an after-life is imperative once we talk of a God and of spiritual development. Death cannot be the end when we talk of spiritual ideas.
Just because you might like something to be true or even need it to be so to fit with your philosophical beliefs, doesn't mean it is so. You can wish and wish and wish as hard as you like for there to be an after-life, but that means not a jot in terms of whether there is or it isn't.
-
But what lesson could a complete innocent person learn from the ill fortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting crushed to death in a football stadium.
I can see how others who had actual responsibility for safety etc may learn a lesson (but none of them died), but I'm completely in the dark as to what lesson 14-year old Philip Hammond could have learned from having his life so cruelly and tragically cut short in April 1989.
But then your inability to see that just allows the mysterious ways defence. Don't get me wrong I don't think reincarnation is credible, but at least intellectually it copes with some of the issues of the problem of suffering more easily than the single life option common in the Abrahamic religions.
-
I think there are a variety of views on the Karmic idea. One of them is that when you die your 'spirit' will be coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences. When reincarnated those 'colourings' will attract to it learning experiences in the new life to balance the former life. If your experience, for example, was that of a murderer in a former life, you will attract the circumstances to experience what it is like to be a victim in a later life. Whatever you sow so shall you also reap, but there is no judging God. With the Abrahamic religions, there is the afterlife of a Heaven or a Hell and a judgement.
-
I think there are a variety of views on the Karmic idea. One of them is that when you die your 'spirit' will be coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences. When reincarnated those 'colourings' will attract to it learning experiences in the new life to balance the former life. If your experience, for example, was that of a murderer in a former life, you will attract the circumstances to experience what it is like to be a victim in a later life. Whatever you sow so shall you also reap, but there is no judging God. With the Abrahamic religions, there is the afterlife of a Heaven or a Hell and a judgement.
Yes I'm well aware of the notion, but one has to ask what is the appropriate next life a perfectly innocent 14 year old victim of a tragic crushing at a football match that is 'coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences'.
More uncomfortable - using your example you'd have to imply that Philip Hammond must have done something truly awful in his previous life to justify such a horrible end - was he a murderer? That seems to me to be the grossest of victim blaming of a completely innocent 14 year old to imply his horrible death was just 'reaping what you sow'. That is grotesque in the extreme.
-
Yes I'm well aware of the notion, but one has to ask what is the appropriate next life a perfectly innocent 14 year old victim of a tragic crushing at a football match that is 'coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences'.
More uncomfortable - using your example you'd have to imply that Philip Hammond must have done something truly awful in his previous life to justify such a horrible end - was he a murdered? That seems to me to be the grossest of victim blaming of a completely innocent 14 year old to imply his horrible death was just 'reaping what you sow'. That is grotesque in the extreme.
I agree.
-
But then your inability to see that just allows the mysterious ways defence. Don't get me wrong I don't think reincarnation is credible, but at least intellectually it copes with some of the issues of the problem of suffering more easily than the single life option common in the Abrahamic religions.
I don't think there is much difference intellectually between the reincarnation option and the single life with heaven/hell at the end of it in terms of their challenge. While they are a little different, neither deal effectively with the issue of suffering within the context of a purported omnipotent god. As pointed out upthread the notion that a horrible reincarnated life is somehow punishment for immorality in a previous life is grotesque. But then so is the idea that a completely innocent new-born baby is somehow tarnished with the sins of two people long, long ago disobeying god in a garden.
-
I don't think there is much difference intellectually between the reincarnation option and the single life with heaven/hell at the end of it in terms of their challenge. While they are a little different, neither deal effectively with the issue of suffering within the context of a purported omnipotent god. As pointed out upthread the notion that a horrible reincarnated life is somehow punishment for immorality in a previous life is grotesque. But then so is the idea that a completely innocent new-born baby is somehow tarnished with the sins of two people long, long ago disobeying god in a garden.
I think your emotions are getting in the way here.
-
Overwhelmingly, from the information that's available currently, the people dying from/with Covid-19 are people who might normally be expected to die anyway. I'm not suggesting that there aren't young, otherwise fit people falling to the disease, but the bulk of the victims are the elderly or otherwise frail. This is not to diminish that Covid has been involved, but when the excess mortality is determined after the fact it's going to be interesting to see exactly how much of an impact this has actually had to that figure - if 90% of the deaths have happened to people who otherwise would have died in the same period, just from something else, how much of an impact can Covid be said to have actually had?
And then someone needs to go in an try to estimate how much worse it would have been if the measures that have been successfully implemented hadn't been, and what the advise will therefore be for the next time...
O.
We know that there have already been about 55,000 "excess deaths" to last week, and "cautiously estimated" to be over 61,000 to today (Chris Giles FT).
You seem to be saying that these deaths don't matter as many of these people would have died later this year or next year, so don't have an impact? But everyone is going to die at some time - so does it matter if the figure is 100,000 or 200,000? Or for that matter, if they are old or young?
What about people that (though they may be in the 70's now) would have gone on to live another 20 years without covid?
-
I think there are a variety of views on the Karmic idea. One of them is that when you die your 'spirit' will be coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences. When reincarnated those 'colourings' will attract to it learning experiences in the new life to balance the former life. If your experience, for example, was that of a murderer in a former life, you will attract the circumstances to experience what it is like to be a victim in a later life. Whatever you sow so shall you also reap, but there is no judging God. With the Abrahamic religions, there is the afterlife of a Heaven or a Hell and a judgement.
Both just seem like metaphysical fantasies really. How about we just see what is going on here and now and try and do something about it one way or another?
-
I think your emotions are getting in the way here.
Not at all - you don't need to be being emotional to feel strongly if someone is inferring that the completely innocent 14-year old victim of a horrible tragedy is somehow reaping what they sow, without a shred of evidence that a) reincarnation actually exists; b) that the reincarnated life somehow corrects the previous life and c) that Philip Hammond did something awful in his previous life to deserve to be crushed to death at a football match.
That view is intellectually flawed (as there is no evidence) and morally bankrupt, as it relies on the grossest form of victim blaming - in other words where you have no evidence whatsoever that Philip Hammond has done anything wrong - let alone so worn as to justify the nature of his death.
-
Not at all - you don't need to be being emotional to feel strongly if someone is inferring that the completely innocent 14-year old victim of a horrible tragedy is somehow reaping what they sow, without a shred of evidence that a) reincarnation actually exists; b) that the reincarnated life somehow corrects the previous life and c) that Philip Hammond did something awful in his previous life to deserve to be crushed to death at a football match.
That view is intellectually flawed (as there is no evidence) and morally bankrupt, as it relies on the grossest form of victim blaming - in other words where you have no evidence whatsoever that Philip Hammond has done anything wrong - let alone so worn as to justify the nature of his death.
And here we see the emotion inherent in the system. You are struggling to move from an idea that it's about victims (an emotional term) as opposed to a restriction in how the system works.
-
And here we see the emotion inherent in the system. You are struggling to move from an idea that it's about victims (an emotional term) as opposed to a restriction in how the system works.
NS - I'm afraid it is you who is letting your emotions cloud your rational judgement as you claim that victim is somehow an emotional term - it isn't (unless you yourself want to make it one, in which case you have stayed into territory where your emotions are getting the better of you).
The typical dictionary definition of victim is as follows:
'a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action'
That is a statement of fact, there is no emotion about it. Stating that Philip Hammond was a victim is a statement of fact - what other term would you use to describe someone killed as the result of an accident (or a crime depending on where you see the culpability at Hillsborough) other than the word that is defined as someone killed as a result of an accident or crime.
-
NS - I'm afraid it is you who is letting your emotions cloud your rational judgement as you claim that victim is somehow an emotional term - it isn't.
The typical dictionary definition of victim is as follows:
'a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action'
That is a statement of fact, there is no emotion about it. Stating that Philip Hammond was a victim is a statement of fact - what other term would you use to describe someone killed as the result of an accident (or a crime depending on where you see the culpability at Hillsborough) other than the word that is defined as someone killed as a result of an accident or crime.
Dearie me,the idea of a victim to blame is so emotional. You aren't getting the idea of this being the only way but are inventing some 'perfect' for you idea. Which is the ultimate in emotion. You override what must be with a false idea of a utopia. It's very religious.
-
Dearie me,the idea of a victim to blame is so emotional. You aren't getting the idea of this being the only way but are inventing some 'perfect' for you idea. Which is the ultimate in emotion. You override what must be with a false idea of a utopia. It's very religious.
You are doing it again - both victim and blaming are perfectly rational, not emotional terms
Victim: 'a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action'
Blame: 'assign the responsibility for a bad or unfortunate situation or phenomenon to (someone or something)'
Victim blaming is a situation where someone assigns the responsibility for a bad or unfortunate situation to a person who is harmed, injured or killed as a result of that situation. Where is the emotion in that - it is merely a statement of fact where someone suggests the responsibility for an accident (for example) lies with a person who is also a victim of that accident.
-
You are doing it again - both victim and blaming are perfectly rational, not emotional terms
Victim: 'a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action'
Blame: 'assign the responsibility for a bad or unfortunate situation or phenomenon to (someone or something)'
Victim blaming is a situation where someone assigns the responsibility for a bad or unfortunate situation to a person who is harmed, injured or killed as a result of that situation. Where is the emotion in that - it is merely a statement of fact where someone suggests the responsibility for an accident (for example) lies with a person who is also a victim of that accident.
Blaming is precisely not an emotion free term. And seeing someone as a victim is not a factual judgement. Who are the victims in the Israel/Palestine dispute. You drip with emotion, and ignore intellect.
-
Blaming is precisely not an emotion free term. And seeing someone as a victim is not a factual judgement.
Only if you see things through your emotion-tinted specs, as you seem to do NS. Take away that emotion and you use the terms correctly and appropriately, which is what I was doing.
Who are the victims in the Israel/Palestine dispute.
All the people who have been harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict, which is obvious unless you feel the need to apply an emotion-tinged right vs wrong, good vs bad judgement-clouding layer to your thinking. Serious question NS - who else would you consider to be the victims of the Israel/Palestine dispute other than everyone harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict.
-
Only if you see things through your emotion-tinted specs, as you seem to do NS. Take away that emotion and you use the terms correctly and appropriately, which is what I was doing.
All the people who have been harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict, which is obvious unless you feel the need to apply an emotion-tinged right vs wrong, good vs bad judgement-clouding layer to your thinking. Serious question NS - who else would you consider to be the victims of the Israel/Palestine dispute other than everyone harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict.
How do you make a judgement without emotion?
-
That is like a school child cribbing that the Principal is a tyrant. The child is not seeing the big picture in terms of his own future development.
With this nasty disease a lot of children are likely not to have any future development!
NO it not like a school child cribbing that the Principal is a tyrant.
because the tyrant teacher does not impose his tyranny on the whole world!
-
Overwhelmingly, from the information that's available currently, the people dying from/with Covid-19 are people who might normally be expected to die anyway. I'm not suggesting that there aren't young, otherwise fit people falling to the disease, but the bulk of the victims are the elderly or otherwise frail. This is not to diminish that Covid has been involved, but when the excess mortality is determined after the fact it's going to be interesting to see exactly how much of an impact this has actually had to that figure - if 90% of the deaths have happened to people who otherwise would have died in the same period, just from something else, how much of an impact can Covid be said to have actually had?
And then someone needs to go in an try to estimate how much worse it would have been if the measures that have been successfully implemented hadn't been, and what the advise will therefore be for the next time...
O.
Oh well, if you are right, that is me fucked well and truly! 73 asthmatic and diabetic! All I need for the full set is Covid 19 - you have truly made my day Outrider!
-
How do you make a judgement without emotion?
By using evidence and a rational decision making approach.
By definition judgement shouldn't be based on emotion.
All I can say is I hope you never considered becoming a magistrate - as I'd be a bit worried if you were making judgements based on emotion.
-
By using evidence and a rational decision making approach.
By definition judgement shouldn't be based on emotion.
All I can say is I hope you never considered becoming a magistrate - as I'd be a bit worried if you were making judgements based on emotion.
You can't get an ought from an is. All i can say is i hope you aren't a magistrate, if you have no idea of how you make judgements.
-
You can't get an ought from an is. All i can say is i hope you aren't a magistrate, if you have no idea of how you make judgements.
On facts presented - or statements presented as facts? On oath, of course.
-
On facts presented - or statements presented as facts? On oath, of course.
Indeed - what you certainly do not do is base your judgements on emotion.
-
On facts presented - or statements presented as facts? On oath, of course.
not a clue what you are saying here.
-
Indeed - what you certainly do not do is base your judgements on emotion.
Except you have to, else you can't have a value to judge.
-
You can't get an ought from an is. All i can say is i hope you aren't a magistrate, if you have no idea of how you make judgements.
No I am not a magistrate - are you? - I hope not.
However I am regularly involved in the quasi-judicial HR processes in the work place - disciplinary, grievance etc. So I'm well aware how judgements should be made - and that is based on fact and evidence and rational decision making, aligned with clear processes and procedures and clarity on standard of proof (in these cases on the balance of probabilities. I'm also been involved in similar processes as a school governor. In both cases the decisions you make are on the lowest rug of the formal judicial hierarchy in this country.
And what you must always do when involved in these processes is leave your emotions at the door.
-
Except you have to, else you can't have a value to judge.
No you don't - in judicial process, your job is to apply the law (or policy etc) not to apply your own values. You have to park both your emotions and also your own values at the door - your job is to apply the values set out in the law.
-
Except you have to, else you can't have a value to judge.
I think you are muddling judgement with opinion NS.
-
I think you are muddling judgement with opinion NS.
I think you are muddling a posh word with a less posh one with no ability to make the split.
-
No you don't - in judicial process, your job is to apply the law (or policy etc) not to apply your own values. You have to park both your emotions and also your own values at the door - your job is to apply the values set out in the law.
Accepting the law is a value judgement. Not a factual one. Would you simply have followed orders in Germany in the wsr? If not, why not?
-
No I am not a magistrate - are you? - I hope not.
However I am regularly involved in the quasi-judicial HR processes in the work place - disciplinary, grievance etc. So I'm well aware how judgements should be made - and that is based on fact and evidence and rational decision making, aligned with clear processes and procedures and clarity on standard of proof (in these cases on the balance of probabilities. I'm also been involved in similar processes as a school governor. In both cases the decisions you make are on the lowest rug of the formal judicial hierarchy in this country.
And what you must always do when involved in these processes is leave your emotions at the door.
It's nice that you lie to yourself but accepting the 'rules' as being 'right' is not an intellectual decision, it's an emotional one.
-
I think you are muddling a posh word with a less posh one with no ability to make the split.
No I'm not - judgement and opinion are not the same thing. You might argue that all judgements are opinions, but not all opinions are judgement as the latter, by definition requires careful consideration and thought. A judgement needs to be based on that careful consideration - you can express an opinion based on bugger all consideration or thought process.
-
Accepting the law is a value judgement. Not a factual one. Would you simply have followed orders in Germany in the wsr? If not, why not?
But if it is a judgement it needs to be carefully and thoughtfully considered. So if I looked into the political ideology of the Nazis and gave their opinions careful and considered though and decided that their ideology was wrong, that would be a value judgement. If on the other hand I dismissed the Nazi ideology because I didn't like the length of boots they wore that would not be judgement. If I dismissed them as an emotional gut reaction but without careful consideration, that too would not be a judgement. Each might be an opinion, a decision, a choice perhaps - but only through careful consideration can there be a judgement.
-
No I'm not - judgement and opinion are not the same thing. You might argue that all judgements are opinions, but not all opinions are judgement as the latter, by definition requires careful consideration and thought. A judgement needs to be based on that careful consideration - you can express an opinion based on bugger all consideration or thought process.
And yet any judgement must be based on a value judgement. Is Hume really so much of a mystery to you?
-
But if it is a judgement it needs to be carefully and thoughtfully considered. So if I looked into the political ideology of the Nazis and gave their opinions careful and considered though and decided that their ideology was wrong, that would be a value judgement. If on the other hand I dismissed the Nazi ideology because I didn't like the length of boots they wore that would not be judgement. If I dismissed them as an emotional gut reaction but without careful consideration, that too would not be a judgement. Each might be an opinion, a decision, a choice perhaps - but only through careful consideration can there be a judgement.
And only with an emotional leap can you make it. You cannot jump to what is wrong or right from facts.
-
And yet any judgement must be based on a value judgement. Is Hume really so much of a mystery to you?
Nice little diversion into talking about values - we were talking about emotions. Emotions and values are not the same thing.
-
Nice little diversion into talking about values - we were talking about emotions. Emotions and values are not the same thing.
But how do choose values without emotions?
-
And only with an emotional leap can you make it. You cannot jump to what is wrong or right from facts.
No - decision on right and wrong might be based on values, they aren't necessarily based on emotions. Indeed I'd argue that, in the same way that judgements shouldn't be based on emotions, neither should values. Once you get into the territory of 'it is wrong because I just feel it is' emotion-based 'values' we are into the thread on Spud and Steve's homophobia - emotion-based gut reactions that do not stand up to any kind of rational 'kicking of the tyres'.
-
But how do choose values without emotions?
In the same way as judgement - through careful consideration and rational thought - ever heard of ethics NS?
-
In the same way as judgement - through careful consideration and rational thought - ever heard of ethics NS?
Tons of times But you obvs have got very confused if you think you can assert that they are about facts.
-
No - decision on right and wrong might be based on values, they aren't necessarily based on emotions. Indeed I'd argue that, in the same way that judgements shouldn't be based on emotions, neither should values. Once you get into the territory of 'it is wrong because I just feel it is' emotion-based 'values' we are into the thread on Spud and Steve's homophobia - emotion-based gut reactions that do not stand up to any kind of rational 'kicking of the tyres'.
But how do base values based on facts? As already noted the inability to derive an ought from an is really seem to confuse you.
-
And night night to all
-
Tons of times But you obvs have got very confused if you think you can that they are about facts.
Once again you are twisting - first emotions becomes values.
Then evidence becomes facts.
The whole point about ethics, philosophy, political science etc etc is that they aren't based on emotions, no they are based on carefully considered argument, weighing of evidence, logical consistency etc etc.
Heaven help us if we leave values to be merely emotions - down that path lies Spud and Steve's homophobia based on ughh factor - down that route lies countless dictators whose modus operandus is whipping up emotion about otherness of people from other countries, faiths, races etc.
Nope I prefer my values to be carefully considered and not based on emotions - because values based on emotions are ... err ... emotions, not values.
-
All the people who have been harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict, which is obvious unless you feel the need to apply an emotion-tinged right vs wrong, good vs bad judgement-clouding layer to your thinking. Serious question NS - who else would you consider to be the victims of the Israel/Palestine dispute other than everyone harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict.
You asked me a question NS:
'Who are the victims in the Israel/Palestine dispute'
I responded (see above).
But I asked you an equivalent question, namely:
'Serious question NS - who else would you consider to be the victims of the Israel/Palestine dispute other than everyone harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict.'
Do don't seem to have answered NS - please would you do so as I'm at a loss how you could consider the victims in the Israel/Palestine dispute as anyone other than the people who had been harmed, injured and killed in this conflict. Maybe you see it otherwise (probably due to emotion clouding your judgement) - so please tell us NS - who do you think are the victims of the Israel/Palestine conflict?
-
To return to the OP and broaden it out a bit.
What do I think will be the effect of cover-19 on religiosity in the UK.
Well I suspect it will result in a small, but not negligible, reduction in religiosity - in other words people have a belief and/or active affiliation with a religion. Why?
1. Well first and most obviously the death rate. 55k additional deaths and counting and this will be biased toward the older population who are most likely to be religious. The long-range main reason why religiosity is declining is generational replacement, whereby the oldest and most religious generation die and are replaced by the youngest and least religious generation. The additional deaths will accelerate this effect.
2. Loss of routine - there will be many people who attend church as a matter of routine. Given that that routine will be broken for a period of months this will have an effect. Sure most church-goers will head straight back when they can, but there will be a proportion who, having got out of the habit, simply won't return to it. The reverse effect is very unlikely - someone whose routine isn't going to church is very unlikely to suddenly decide to start going when they can again.
3. Loss of faith - I think the long term effect of covid-19 will be to reduce faith rather than increase it. The trajectory of many natural disasters in developed countries is a brief increase in religiosity, largely associated with churches as the centre of community action, followed by a rapid return to normal. We won't see that brief increase for covid-19 as churches are simply not available as the hub for people to come together and people have come together in a much more organic and fundamentally community-oriented manner. I think that the long range effect on religiosity will be a slight additional loss of faith rather than the other way around.
Now I'm pretty confident on 1 and 2 - 1 is almost certain to have an effect. Less confident on 3.
-
I cannot help but feel that this has got quite a long way off-topic.
-
I cannot help but feel that this has got quite a long way off-topic.
Which is why I have tried to bring it back on topic - albeit in a broader manner than just asking the small number of people who post on this MB what their personal reflections are.
I think, certainly in the UK, that the overall religiosity in the country will be slightly diminished compared to what would have happened had covid-19 not happened.
-
Just because you might like something to be true or even need it to be so to fit with your philosophical beliefs, doesn't mean it is so. You can wish and wish and wish as hard as you like for there to be an after-life, but that means not a jot in terms of whether there is or it isn't.
I agree with that. But we humans cannot help formulating hypotheses to explain life and its purpose. Scientists may keep saying that there need not be any answers to our philosophical questions...but that is neither here nor there.
We can adopt a purely materialistic view saying that its all just a chance happening beginning with the Big Bang. Life is just an inevitable consequence of initial conditions. No after-life, no God, no soul, no purpose, no nothing.
Alternatively, we can adopt a religious view such as that of the Abrahamic religions. One God, one time creation, soul, after-life, Judgement day, heaven and hell.
Or alternatively again, we can adopt a Hindu view which also happens to be secular and is not specifically religion based. Existence of a universal Consciousness that is the source of creation. Life is illusionary (maya) like in a VR game. Spiritual evolution of life from lower forms of consciousness to higher forms of consciousness. Soul (atma), after-life, Karma, reincarnation, spiritual progress life after life to eventual freedom. An ongoing process like the water cycle.
First idea is a default one based purely on sensory inputs. Second is a belief based on scripture. The third is speculative but has some evidence in the form of NDE's, reincarnation research by Jim Tucker etc. Philosophies such as Cosmopsychism and panpsychism support this view.
Take your pick...
-
I agree with that. But we humans cannot help formulating hypotheses to explain life and its purpose.
True but having formed hypotheses we need methods to determine whether they are correct or not. And why should life have a 'purpose' - you are presupposing that it does.
Scientists may keep saying that there need not be any answers to our philosophical questions...but that is neither here nor there.
As I professional scientist but with a strong secondary professional interest in ethics and philosophy I think that is non-sense. I cannot think of any scientist I know who thinks that philosophy and a range of other social sciences are irrelevant. However just as science should not stray outside it's appropriate territory, neither should philosophy.
Where scientists have a problem is when philosophy (which are inherently subjective, true-for-you and non provably in an objective sense) stays into spiritualism and pseudo-science - and claims that they are objectively true. If they are objectively true - e.g. faith healing and many other pseudo-science claims - then they will be amenable to the scientific method and have strayed into the world of science. Of course science proves them to be non-sense (beyond the well-known placebo effect).
But philosophy in its proper form and place is fine - and I kind think there are many scientists who'd disagree - it is about how we think and how we interact within human societies. It provides frameworks for how we live. All fine provided it doesn't stray into the territory of claiming god made everything in 7 days, or that lightning is made by the Thor or that a clinically dead person suddenly came alive again 3 days later.
-
I agree with that. But we humans cannot help formulating hypotheses to explain life and its purpose.
Not every notion is an hypothesis, though - in order to be an hypothesis the idea needs to be experimentally verifiable. Claims of 'non-physical', 'spiritual' or 'mystic' influences without measurable impacts on reality are not hypotheses; they aren't definitively wrong, but in the absence of a means by which they can be verified or refuted they are something other than hypotheses.
Scientists may keep saying that there need not be any answers to our philosophical questions...but that is neither here nor there.
It is quite an important point - any time you presume that there is something there to be found you are begging the question.
Or alternatively again, we can adopt a Hindu view which also happens to be secular and is not specifically religion based. Existence of a universal Consciousness that is the source of creation. Life is illusionary (maya) like in a VR game. Spiritual evolution of life from lower forms of consciousness to higher forms of consciousness. Soul (atma), after-life, Karma, reincarnation, spiritual progress life after life to eventual freedom. An ongoing process like the water cycle.
'Universal consciousness', 'source of creation', 'higher forms of consciousness', 'soul/atma', 'afterlife', 'Karma', 'reincarnation', 'spiritual progress' - a precise definition of religion is difficult to nail down, but wherever the exact line in the sand is this stuff is from way, way, way over the other side of that line from the materialist viewpoint.
First idea is a default one based purely on sensory inputs. Second is a belief based on scripture. The third is speculative but has some evidence in the form of NDE's, reincarnation research by Jim Tucker etc. Philosophies such as Cosmopsychism and panpsychism support this view.
I'd argue - playing Devil's advocate - that the claim of the religious would be that scripture is the way the message is conveyed, but the original authors were passing on their own sensory inputs. I wouldn't agree with them, but the scripture didn't emerge out of nothing, it was written by people who may have genuinely thought they'd been told about people experiencing exactly what they've recorded.
As to the third, it's just a variant of the second; you've got claims from olden days passed down and unverifiable by actual investigation. Either there is no evidence or the evidence is weak and can be interpreted to support multiple interpretations. Philosophies like panpsychism do not 'support' a view, they ARE the view - they are at best not contradicted by the evidence, but there is no basis for presuming them to have any validity.
Take your pick...
I'll take the phenomena I can establish with some confidence actually exist.
O.
-
I'll take the phenomena I can establish with some confidence actually exist.
O.
Indeed.
-
We can adopt a purely materialistic view saying that its all just a chance happening beginning with the Big Bang. Life is just an inevitable consequence of initial conditions. No after-life, no God, no soul, no purpose, no nothing.
Alternatively, we can adopt a religious view such as that of the Abrahamic religions. One God, one time creation, soul, after-life, Judgement day, heaven and hell.
Or we can follow the evidence - your first line is backed up by huge amounts of evidence, your second line is backed up by none.
-
Existence of a universal Consciousness ...
Unevidenced assertion.
that is the source of creation.
Unevidenced assertion.
Life is illusionary (maya) like in a VR game.
Unevidenced assertion.
Spiritual evolution of life from lower forms of consciousness to higher forms of consciousness.
Why does this need to be spiritual evolution, standard evolutionary theory is able to comfortably explain the progression in levels of consciousness through the evolution of species on the basis of evolutionary advantage.
Soul (atma),
Unevidenced assertion.
after-life,
Unevidenced assertion.
Karma,
Unevidenced assertion.
reincarnation,
Unevidenced assertion.
spiritual progress life after life to eventual freedom.
Unevidenced assertion.
-
Yes I'm well aware of the notion, but one has to ask what is the appropriate next life a perfectly innocent 14 year old victim of a tragic crushing at a football match that is 'coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences'.
More uncomfortable - using your example you'd have to imply that Philip Hammond must have done something truly awful in his previous life to justify such a horrible end - was he a murderer? That seems to me to be the grossest of victim blaming of a completely innocent 14 year old to imply his horrible death was just 'reaping what you sow'. That is grotesque in the extreme.
I don't know the answer to your questions but I suppose that in the eyes of karma if you are 'perfectly innocent' there will be no further rebirths as you have arrived at nirvana or heaven or whatever state of being the religion indicates. I don't think 'victim blaming' features in the karmic scene, I believe it is supposed to be like a natural learning process. If for instance you were a rational intellectual psychopath in one life and deliberately caused a painful death of somebody, then in the next life you will attract a painful experience from which you will gain the quality of empathy.
-
Both just seem like metaphysical fantasies really. How about we just see what is going on here and now and try and do something about it one way or another?
Yes, at the level of the 'mystic', the practices are more about inner stillness rather than metaphysical speculation or means of control by religious organisations.
-
I don't think 'victim blaming' features in the karmic scene, I believe it is supposed to be like a natural learning process. If for instance you were a rational intellectual psychopath in one life and deliberately caused a painful death of somebody, then in the next life you will attract a painful experience from which you will gain the quality of empathy.
But that is just pure sophistry.
If someone is the victim of a painful experience and you think the reason they suffered that painful experience is because they themselves caused pain to someone else in the past that is clearly victim blaming - in other words placing the responsibility for the painful experience (blaming) on the person who is harmed by that painful experience (the victim).
It seems to me of little consequence whether 'in the past' means earlier in that individual's life or in a previous life (if you believe in reincarnation), except the latter is rather more offensive as firstly you do not know that there was a previous life and secondly there is much less direct relationship between purported reincarnated existences rather than earlier and later periods in a single life.
And the notion of 'teaching a lesson' is a classic trope in victim blaming behaviour - 'serves you right you were raped if you went out in that skirt - you'll learn to dress more modestly next time'.
-
If for instance you were a rational intellectual psychopath in one life and deliberately caused a painful death of somebody, then in the next life you will attract a painful experience from which you will gain the quality of empathy.
Blimey I can think of much better ways of teaching people empathy than needing them to be murdered. Doesn't sound very effective nor very ethical to me.
And there is a problem with the maths - so if a murderer needs to be a murder victim in the next life - well you'll need a whole new set of murderers to do the murdering. Now in their next life they too will need to 'learn' so they'll need to be murder victims themselves, so which you'll need a further set of murder victims. It is kind of like a crime ponzi scheme - can't see how this can ever move toward a less violent, more caring and more ethical position.
But maybe you've not through this through properly ekim.
-
I don't know the answer to your questions but I suppose that in the eyes of karma if you are 'perfectly innocent' there will be no further rebirths as you have arrived at nirvana or heaven or whatever state of being the religion indicates. I don't think 'victim blaming' features in the karmic scene, I believe it is supposed to be like a natural learning process. If for instance you were a rational intellectual psychopath in one life and deliberately caused a painful death of somebody, then in the next life you will attract a painful experience from which you will gain the quality of empathy.
I think you have fallen into the same trap that Glen Hoddle(former England football manager) did some years ago, when, in an interview with the Times, he suggested that for people who were disabled, it was because of mistakes made in their previous life. You seem to be saying much the same thing. Hoddle lost his job partly because of that interview, even though he later apologised. I agree with the Prof, perhaps you need to think this through again.
-
Blimey I can think of much better ways of teaching people empathy than needing them to be murdered. Doesn't sound very effective nor very ethical to me.
And there is a problem with the maths - so if a murderer needs to be a murder victim in the next life - well you'll need a whole new set of murderers to do the murdering. Now in their next life they too will need to 'learn' so they'll need to be murder victims themselves, so which you'll need a further set of murder victims. It is kind of like a crime ponzi scheme - can't see how this can ever move toward a less violent, more caring and more ethical position.
But maybe you've not through this through properly ekim.
Karma is not about 'tit for tat'.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/karma/
-
I think you have fallen into the same trap that Glen Hoddle(former England football manager) did some years ago, when, in an interview with the Times, he suggested that for people who were disabled, it was because of mistakes made in their previous life. You seem to be saying much the same thing. Hoddle lost his job partly because of that interview, even though he later apologised. I agree with the Prof, perhaps you need to think this through again.
I agree, though to be fair to ekim ISTM he was probably trying to describe how some see the system, rather than supporting that view.
Even the idea of having one life after another - ie. serially in time, doesn't make much sense if the lives (ie universes) are virtual.
Anyway, it makes no difference, Our experiences, including covid, are where we are and it is in response to those that we make any decisions or act, ethically or otherwise.
-
Karma is not about 'tit for tat'.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/karma/
From the article:
'It is believed that any person who does something wrong or selfish acquires bad karma, while anyone who does something good and selfless acquires good karma.
A person who acquires bad karma will face troubles and misfortunes such that the bad karma is eventually eliminated.'
Which effectively means - do bad stuff and you will have bad stuff done back to you as a consequence.
-
From the article:
'It is believed that any person who does something wrong or selfish acquires bad karma, while anyone who does something good and selfless acquires good karma.
A person who acquires bad karma will face troubles and misfortunes such that the bad karma is eventually eliminated.'
Which effectively means - do bad stuff and you will have bad stuff done back to you as a consequence.
You didn't read the full article.......
-
But that is just pure sophistry.
If someone is the victim of a painful experience and you think the reason they suffered that painful experience is because they themselves caused pain to someone else in the past that is clearly victim blaming - in other words placing the responsibility for the painful experience (blaming) on the person who is harmed by that painful experience (the victim).
It seems to me of little consequence whether 'in the past' means earlier in that individual's life or in a previous life (if you believe in reincarnation), except the latter is rather more offensive as firstly you do not know that there was a previous life and secondly there is much less direct relationship between purported reincarnated existences rather than earlier and later periods in a single life.
And the notion of 'teaching a lesson' is a classic trope in victim blaming behaviour - 'serves you right you were raped if you went out in that skirt - you'll learn to dress more modestly next time'.
I'm not sure where you are getting those inferences from in my attempt to explain how I see karma. I am not blaming anybody. There is no God who is doing the blaming. I may be wrong but as I said, I believe it is seen as a natural process like action and reaction but with the opportunity to be aware of consequences and grow accordingly with potentially a greater degree of harmony. There is no 'teacher of lessons' other than the one you have introduced.
-
Blimey I can think of much better ways of teaching people empathy than needing them to be murdered. Doesn't sound very effective nor very ethical to me.
And there is a problem with the maths - so if a murderer needs to be a murder victim in the next life - well you'll need a whole new set of murderers to do the murdering. Now in their next life they too will need to 'learn' so they'll need to be murder victims themselves, so which you'll need a further set of murder victims. It is kind of like a crime ponzi scheme - can't see how this can ever move toward a less violent, more caring and more ethical position.
But maybe you've not through this through properly ekim.
As I said in the above post, there is no teacher other than the one you have invented but perhaps there is a learning process just as there is if you brush against something and it stings you. You gain in awareness of a painful situation. I don't think it is seen as a crime/ sin and punishment situation as in the Abrahamic tradition but more one of ignorance and illumination.
As regards your ponzi notion, perhaps karma as an educational scheme is not very efficient and this is shown by the ever increasing numbers of war and conflict victims throughout man's history. Still, all it will take now is one psychopath aided and abetted by a few self righteous scientists to improve upon the weapons of mass destruction and maybe the balance will be restored, provided our technological rape of the planet doesn't come first.
I will admit that it was about 50 years ago when I looked at the idea of karma and my thoughts about it are likely to have degenerated over time.
-
You didn't read the full article.......
Yes I did - but most of it is guff and non-sense, for example:
We can picture the proton as the Higher self and the electron as our Lower Self. The further away the Lower Self is from the centre, the more energy it has and the more unstable it is. It tends to bond with others and get involved in activities more and more.
and
The concept of Fractals wherein patterns seem to repeat in Nature at all levels, indicate that there could be certain natural phenomena from which we can learn about such abstract patterns that work in our lives. We could draw on certain well known theories and see if we can adopt a similar model to understand Karma.
But what is absolutely clear from the article is the concept that effectively means that if you do bad stuff you will have bad stuff happen to you in the form of pain and suffering. So not just the 'headline' quote that I post here again:
It is believed that any person who does something wrong or selfish acquires bad karma, while anyone who does something good and selfless acquires good karma.
A person who acquires bad karma will face troubles and misfortunes such that the bad karma is eventually eliminated.
but this too:
If we indulge in bad karmic actions, it is only through what we perceive as ‘suffering and pain’ that they can be erased. This is the only ‘cleaning’ process. There is no other way.
-
I think you have fallen into the same trap that Glen Hoddle(former England football manager) did some years ago, when, in an interview with the Times, he suggested that for people who were disabled, it was because of mistakes made in their previous life. You seem to be saying much the same thing. Hoddle lost his job partly because of that interview, even though he later apologised. I agree with the Prof, perhaps you need to think this through again.
Please see Udayana comment. Whether there is karma or a ruling judging God, I don't know, but adversity can be a powerful learning experience about one's self.
-
Please see Udayana comment. Whether there is karma or a ruling judging God, I don't know, but adversity can be a powerful learning experience about one's self.
All seems terribly Victorian 'crime and punishment' - take the criminal, lock him up, treat him appallingly and he'll learn a lesson.
What we realise now is that rehabilitation doesn't work like that. If you want people to learn a lesson and change their ways, punishment rarely works (although it may be completely appropriate for justice and safety of the public). No people learn through positive rehabilitation programmes, not through punishment and suffering.
-
All seems terribly Victorian 'crime and punishment' - take the criminal, lock him up, treat him appallingly and he'll learn a lesson.
What we realise now is that rehabilitation doesn't work like that. If you want people to learn a lesson and change their ways, punishment rarely works (although it may be completely appropriate for justice and safety of the public). No people learn through positive rehabilitation programmes, not through punishment and suffering.
Yes, the 'crime and punishment' ideas are basically stories intended to scare children or people into doing what they are told.
To behave ethically you need to think about and understand the consequences flowing from your actions, intentional or not, and whether those are right or wrong.
But, unfortunately, it is an impossible task as the consequences are determined by the laws of the universe (dharma) ... as are your own thoughts and decisions.
Now, how does this relate to covid? ... perfectly!
-
Yes, the 'crime and punishment' ideas are basically stories intended to scare children or people into doing what they are told.
And in the case of many religions, including christianity and hinduism to get the majority and impoverished populace to accept poverty and suffering, as they'll 'get their reward' in the next life, regardless of whether that is heaven or the next incarnation. Of course there is no evidence that this next life actually exists, but it is a great trick for those at the top of a heirarchical society to keep those at the bottom in check. And this is why many religions seem to think that pain, suffering and poverty are somehow noble and worthy - it is a great way to tell those who are having a really, really shit time to effectively shut up, accept their lot and wait for their reward in the next life.
-
To behave ethically you need to think about and understand the consequences flowing from your actions, intentional or not, and whether those are right or wrong.
True.
When we are children we need the notion of reward and punishment to help us to see the difference between right and wrong. But once we grow up we can see the difference through understanding the consequences of our actions - we no longer need the threat of punishment, nor the offer of reward to make the right choices.
Strangely many religions seem never to have progressed beyond childish 'first gear' of thinking people will only make appropriate choices under the threat of punishment and the offer of reward.
-
True.
When we are children we need the notion of reward and punishment to help us to see the difference between right and wrong. But once we grow up we can see the difference through understanding the consequences of our actions - we no longer need the threat of punishment, nor the offer of reward to make the right choices.
Strangely many religions seem never to have progressed beyond childish 'first gear' of thinking people will only make appropriate choices under the threat of punishment and the offer of reward.
I'm not sure I understand your comment about how once people grow up they do not need the threat of punishment. The amount of crime adults commit indicates many people never outgrow the need for threats of punishment to curb their behaviour.
The amount of late filing and even tax dodging that would go on if there wasn't the threat of penalties/ surcharges and interest to keep people in line does not bear thinking about. Many of them know it's wrong but self-interest over-rides the interests of others if they thought they could get away with it. And it is self-interest that makes many of them pay their tax as a better option than facing the punishment. There are still a quite a few people who are willing to risk the punishment, as they figure HMRC does not have the resources to check everything, and only relatively large amounts will be flagged as needing investigating.
-
I'm not sure I understand your comment about how once people grow up they do not need the threat of punishment. The amount of crime adults commit indicates many people never outgrow the need for threats of punishment to curb their behaviour.
If punishment curbed people's behaviour there would be no crime - well certainly no reoffending. But we know that most crime is committed by reoffenders, which demonstrates that punishment has very little impact on reoffending behaviour.
Punishment might work as a measure of justice, it may well keep people safe while offenders are in prison, but it is piss-poor at changing behaviours.
-
The amount of late filing and even tax dodging that would go on if there wasn't the threat of penalties/ surcharges and interest to keep people in line does not bear thinking about. Many of them know it's wrong but self-interest over-rides the interests of others if they thought they could get away with it. And it is self-interest that makes many of them pay their tax as a better option than facing the punishment. There are still a quite a few people who are willing to risk the punishment, as they figure HMRC does not have the resources to check everything, and only relatively large amounts will be flagged as needing investigating.
I think you are confusing the threat of punishment with the threat of getting caught - they aren't the same thing.
UK stats indicate that at least 75% of offenders go on to reoffend having been punished - hardly supports the notion that punishment changes reoffending behaviour. There is actually good evidence that punishment and harsher punishment not only didn't reduce reoffending behaviour, but actually slightly increases it.
-
If punishment curbed people's behaviour there would be no crime - well certainly no reoffending. But we know that most crime is committed by reoffenders, which demonstrates that punishment has very little impact on reoffending behaviour.
Punishment might work as a measure of justice, it may well keep people safe while offenders are in prison, but it is piss-poor at changing behaviours.
My experience is that there are quite a few people who are deterred by the thought of the punishment. The stats for people who were deterred aren't available to measure against the reoffending rate. Plus there are lots of people who don't re-offend after they leave prison. I think it's difficult to conclude that the threat of punishment does not work.
-
I think you are confusing the threat of punishment with the threat of getting caught - they aren't the same thing.
Not sure what the difference is in terms of affecting human behaviour. Can you please explain? You would only get punished if you got caught presumably.
UK stats indicate that at least 75% of offenders go on to reoffend having been punished - hardly supports the notion that punishment changes reoffending behaviour. There is actually good evidence that punishment and harsher punishment not only didn't reduce reoffending behaviour, but actually slightly increases it.
How many of those is because they do not have any structure or discipline to their life or a means of earning an income, or because they are addicts? I don't pretend there are simple answers but I do think the threat of punishment deters a lot of adults from doing something that would incur that punishment, but may not deter other adults, who may have a bigger appetite for risk.
-
My experience is that there are quite a few people who are deterred by the thought of the punishment. The stats for people who were deterred aren't available to measure against the reoffending rate. Plus there are lots of people who don't re-offend after they leave prison. I think it's difficult to conclude that the threat of punishment does not work.
Oh the world according to Gabriella's experience - heard this one before.
I prefer actual evidence based on reoffending rates. Surely if the threat of punishment might have an effect, then actual punishment would have a much greater effect, and the harsher the punishment the greater the deterrent to reoffend. But the evidence doesn't bear this out.
Currently due to police capacity, the threat of punishment for minor crimes, e.g. bike theft, is effectively zero. So why don't I (and countless others go out a knick a few bikes) - the reason is because I and other people recognise it to be wrong, not because of the threat of punishment.
-
Not sure what the difference is in terms of affecting human behaviour. Can you please explain? You would only get punished if you got caught presumably.
The difference is huge.
Actually in many cases crimes are committed in the heat of the moment without any consideration of the consequences. But where the person is taking a more measured decision the threat of getting caught is the key deterrent, the actual punishment is so many steps away it simply doesn't affect behaviour.
And if punishment had a genuine effect on behaviour, why do 75% of UK offenders who have been punished go on to offend again. And why have studies shown that if you make the punishment more harsh, then reoffending rates increase by 3%, rather than decrease.
-
How many of those is because they do not have any structure or discipline to their life or a means of earning an income, or because they are addicts? I don't pretend there are simple answers but I do think the threat of punishment deters a lot of adults from doing something that would incur that punishment, but may not deter other adults, who may have a bigger appetite for risk.
Which is why properly designed rehabilitation programmes do work in changing behaviour, but punishment doesn't.
As I've said before, punishment is important for justice, punishment (by locking people up) may make the general public more safe as dangerous criminals are behind bars, but punishment is really poor at changing people's behaviours.
Restorative justice, in other words getting offenders to recognise the consequences of their offending does work in changing behaviours - punishment doesn't.
-
Oh the world according to Gabriella's experience - heard this one before.
I prefer actual evidence based on reoffending rates. Surely if the threat of punishment might have an effect, then actual punishment would have a much greater effect, and the harsher the punishment the greater the deterrent to reoffend. But the evidence doesn't bear this out.
Currently due to police capacity, the threat of punishment for minor crimes, e.g. bike theft, is effectively zero. So why don't I (and countless others go out a knick a few bikes) - the reason is because I and other people recognise it to be wrong, not because of the threat of punishment.
Are there any stats on the reduction in different behaviours due to the threat of getting caught and punished? Fines for not wearing seat belts, parking fines, tax penalties? Are surveys carried out asking people what offences they might have considered if they weren't worried about getting caught and punished. Fear of adverse consequences can be a pretty good motivator. Re-offenders is one part of the picture but it does not take into account the people who were deterred from committing a crime in the first place by the threat of getting caught and punished.
I don't think it necessarily follows that experiencing actual punishment would have a bigger effect than the threat of punishment. For example, the threat of punishment still leaves you the opportunity to make a better choice that will not incur the punishment and adversely affect your future financial opportunities. Once you are actually punished, the circumstances of your life can change a lot e.g opportunities that were available to you before the punishment may no longer be available because you have a criminal record. Limited opportunities could make life more difficult, affect your emotions and judgement and lead you to commit crime again.
-
The difference is huge.
Actually in many cases crimes are committed in the heat of the moment without any consideration of the consequences. But where the person is taking a more measured decision the threat of getting caught is the key deterrent, the actual punishment is so many steps away it simply doesn't affect behaviour.
And if punishment had a genuine effect on behaviour, why do 75% of UK offenders who have been punished go on to offend again. And why have studies shown that if you make the punishment more harsh, then reoffending rates increase by 3%, rather than decrease.
Yes I would agree that the threat of getting caught is the deterrent, but if you knew that if you got caught parking in a restricted parking area and the fine would be 10p I am pretty sure a lot more people would take the risk of getting caught - so the punishment would also have to be something that would deter the behaviour.
And of course the punishment would not have the same effect on every individual - some would tolerate the punishment better than others - so a very rich person may not be deterred by the risk of a £1000 fine but a poorer person would. Presumably the threat of prison would also affect different people differently.
-
But that is just pure sophistry.
If someone is the victim of a painful experience and you think the reason they suffered that painful experience is because they themselves caused pain to someone else in the past that is clearly victim blaming - in other words placing the responsibility for the painful experience (blaming) on the person who is harmed by that painful experience (the victim).
It seems to me of little consequence whether 'in the past' means earlier in that individual's life or in a previous life (if you believe in reincarnation), except the latter is rather more offensive as firstly you do not know that there was a previous life and secondly there is much less direct relationship between purported reincarnated existences rather than earlier and later periods in a single life.
And the notion of 'teaching a lesson' is a classic trope in victim blaming behaviour - 'serves you right you were raped if you went out in that skirt - you'll learn to dress more modestly next time'.
I do not think it follows that recognising the concept of karma and thinking it might be in play is automatically the same as victim-blaming, though some people may well make use of the concept of karma to actually blame a victim. Karma is considered a complex interaction of positives and negatives that people are subject to, which is a passive state, whereas blame is an active verb where someone would have to pass judgement and intentionally make a declaration that the victim is to blame. Karma is the idea that actions in a past life could have an inevitable adverse knock-on effect in a subsequent life, which is not the same as actively passing judgement and blaming the victim.
-
Please see Udayana comment. Whether there is karma or a ruling judging God, I don't know, but adversity can be a powerful learning experience about one's self.
Not in all circumstances - but I agree with you that there are many circumstances where adversity is a positive thing that builds resilience or gives greater understanding, changes view points and behaviour, leaves people feeling their lives have been enriched etc. But not sure that argument is palatable when lots of people die.
On the other hand the issue of climate change is all about telling people that millions of people are going to die unless people change their behaviour. Maybe PD will consider that message victim-blaming?
-
Hi everyone,
In the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic, has anyone's beliefs about the nature of life and death changed significantly?
I think it has reminded me how fragile life is and the limitations of human abilities in preventing death, and how significantly our behaviour can change when faced with a life or death threat.
Have any atheists begun to see some merit in spiritual beliefs....not necessarily in a Christian God or other specific religious beliefs?!
Have any religious people had any change of thinking about their beliefs in God or the after-life or other supernatural things?
Any beliefs that have been further strengthened?
Any views?
Sriram
I think my belief has strengthened as there is less to distract me - no going out for entertainment or to socialise or to exercise, less visits to the supermarket etc so more time to spend on what seems important - time with the family. Husband and both children are home all day (not away at university. school or hanging out with friends), and we have cooked together and eaten together at the table every day, and cleared away together. As we are fasting for Ramadan the lock down has been helpful in that respect.
None of us would be spending so much time at home if it wasn't for the alarming threat of catching Covid-19 and getting very ill ourselves (and possible dying) or passing it on to more vulnerable people who could die. Actually, just the thought of having to isolate for 14 days is enough of a deterrent to alter our normal behaviours and inclinations.
-
I think it has reminded me how fragile life is and the limitations of human abilities in preventing death, and how significantly our behaviour can change when faced with a life or death threat.I think my belief has strengthened as there is less to distract me - no going out for entertainment or to socialise or to exercise, less visits to the supermarket etc so more time to spend on what seems important - time with the family. Husband and both children are home all day (not away at university. school or hanging out with friends), and we have cooked together and eaten together at the table every day, and cleared away together. As we are fasting for Ramadan the lock down has been helpful in that respect.
None of us would be spending so much time at home if it wasn't for the alarming threat of catching Covid-19 and getting very ill ourselves (and possible dying) or passing it on to more vulnerable people who could die. Actually, just the thought of having to isolate for 14 days is enough of a deterrent to alter our normal behaviours and inclinations.
Yes...spending more time with family helps focus on our priorities and to shed the 'action...action...do something' syndrome that most people are caught in.
That could further help in focusing on oneself and ones feelings and thoughts. More time to 'Travel within'.
-
Yes I did - but most of it is guff and non-sense, for example:
We can picture the proton as the Higher self and the electron as our Lower Self. The further away the Lower Self is from the centre, the more energy it has and the more unstable it is. It tends to bond with others and get involved in activities more and more.
and
The concept of Fractals wherein patterns seem to repeat in Nature at all levels, indicate that there could be certain natural phenomena from which we can learn about such abstract patterns that work in our lives. We could draw on certain well known theories and see if we can adopt a similar model to understand Karma.
But what is absolutely clear from the article is the concept that effectively means that if you do bad stuff you will have bad stuff happen to you in the form of pain and suffering. So not just the 'headline' quote that I post here again:
It is believed that any person who does something wrong or selfish acquires bad karma, while anyone who does something good and selfless acquires good karma.
A person who acquires bad karma will face troubles and misfortunes such that the bad karma is eventually eliminated.
but this too:
If we indulge in bad karmic actions, it is only through what we perceive as ‘suffering and pain’ that they can be erased. This is the only ‘cleaning’ process. There is no other way.
To understand what I have written about Karma one needs to understand the total philosophy that I believe in.
First of all....if you believe that right & wrong are merely social requirements with no absolute purpose or meaning....all that I say will not hold any meaning to you. Might as well shrug your shoulders and walk away from the discussion.
If on the other hand, we believe that life has a greater purpose....we can leave it all to God's wisdom without going too deep into it. Or alternatively, we could try to understand what the big picture is and what our purpose could be.
It is in the latter case that karma becomes meaningful. In my view Karma is not a 'tit for tat' or about righting any personal wrong. IMO, Karma is some sort of a primordial energy that we have acquired. No idea why or how. This is like the idea of Original Sin that is common in the Abrahamic religions.
This primordial energy has resulted in great instability or in-equilibrium. Moving from the state of instability to stability is what is 'Right' and moving backwards towards instability is 'Wrong'. In other words, It is this pull towards stability on one side and towards instability on the other, that is the game of life. This is the tussle between 'God and the Devil'.
Karma is about acquiring energy and becoming unstable or about shedding energy and becoming stable. The more unstable we become, the more the corrective action that we will experience. This is what we see as punishment. The more we move towards stability, the less corrective action we experience. This is the peace that is seen as the reward.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
To understand what I have written about Karma one needs to understand the total philosophy that I believe in.
Blimey I didn't realise you wrote this - in which case you can hardly dismiss you 'headline' statement, namely.
It is believed that any person who does something wrong or selfish acquires bad karma, while anyone who does something good and selfless acquires good karma.
A person who acquires bad karma will face troubles and misfortunes such that the bad karma is eventually eliminated.
And why have you written so much complete non-sense, for example about fractals and sub-atomic energetics. I'm sorry but this is non-sense on stilts. And has this article been peer reviewed in any way for coherence and credibility? I suspect not - anyone can write any old garbage and place it on the web - just because it appears on a web site doesn't mean it has any credibility Sriram.
-
First of all....if you believe that right & wrong are merely social requirements with no absolute purpose or meaning....all that I say will not hold any meaning to you. Might as well shrug your shoulders and walk away from the discussion.
You do understand that it is perfectly possible to consider that 'right and wrong' are entirely social construct, yet have clear purpose and meaning, namely purpose and meaning within that societal context.
This is what I consider to be the case. Social animals, including humans, require social rules and customs to allow their social groups to operate effectively. From this requirement flow the concept of right and wrong - behaviours that are acceptable and not acceptable within that social context, typically with methods to embed those social rules within the group, via learning and sanctions or punishments for those that digress. We see this not only in humans but also many other higher animal species that have highly developed social behaviours - most obviously many other primate species.
What about the meaning and purpose - well those relate most proximally to keeping the group together and functioning well. But in the longer range this is all driven by the evolutionary imperative - groups that develop these rules are more successful, more likely to generate offspring that survive and therefore the development of effective societal rules and concepts of right and wrong drive evolutionary advantage.
Note no god required. So until you recognise that you can consider the social constructs of right and wrong to have meaning and purpose within that social construct without the need for god ... well there's not much point in continuing the discussion.
-
Karma is about acquiring energy and becoming unstable or about shedding energy and becoming stable. The more unstable we become, the more the corrective action that we will experience. This is what we see as punishment. The more we move towards stability, the less corrective action we experience. This is the peace that is seen as the reward.
Cheers.
Sriram
The way I understood the relationship with karmic forces was slightly different and where stability was not the desired goal either. I seem to remember that there were three gunas - rajas (as action), tamas (as stability) and sattwa (similar to intelligence) and that the idea was to achieve harmony through the use of sattwa by allowing rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas. Excessive rajas leads to chaos and excessive tamas leads to inertia. Continuous harmony was the goal.
-
The way I understood the relationship with karmic forces was slightly different and where stability was not the desired goal either. I seem to remember that there were three gunas - rajas (as action), tamas (as stability) and sattwa (similar to intelligence) and that the idea was to achieve harmony through the use of sattwa by allowing rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas. Excessive rajas leads to chaos and excessive tamas leads to inertia. Continuous harmony was the goal.
Yes... There are different ways of understanding these abstract concepts. In Hinduism there is no one scriptural authority on such matters. Different people have different views over the ages. I have given my way of understanding it.
Even an electron can be understood in different ways. As a particle, as a wave, as something in superposition, as a Field, as the vibration of a String......
These are just models that give us a sketchy view of reality. What reality actually is...we don't know.
-
The way I understood the relationship with karmic forces was slightly different and where stability was not the desired goal either. I seem to remember that there were three gunas - rajas (as action), tamas (as stability) and sattwa (similar to intelligence) and that the idea was to achieve harmony through the use of sattwa by allowing rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas. Excessive rajas leads to chaos and excessive tamas leads to inertia. Continuous harmony was the goal.
We can construct all kinds of systems with varying numbers of categories (or properties) and sub-categories: ying/yang, gunas, elements, ... and why not? They may help with organizing or managing ones thoughts or feelings. It doesn't mean that they necessarily reflect anything intrinsic in the universe, or any moral truths. What findings would verify or falsify them? At best they are metaphors.
Goals are intangible and change according to where you are or have been.
-
Many years ago whilst attending a retreat at a Buddhist centre I came down with ‘flu and was transferred to a sick room. What I now remember most vividly about the days that followed is the number of people who stuck their heads into the room to tell me how lucky I was to have become ill - although I don’t think any of them lingered in the hope of joining me in my good fortune!
In Buddhist understanding getting ‘flu was the karmic result of a negative action done in the past (almost certainly by some long forgotten creature) which had left a trace on the mind-stream that was currently ‘mine’. According to the ‘law of karma’ such traces increase over time so the ripening of this action as ‘flu now prevented any possibility that in future the same karmic imprint might come to fruition as an even worse experience such as rebirth in hell. This is why I was lucky.
A similar interpretation of infection with Covid-19 would follow the same ‘logic’, even one ending in agony and death. Things could always be worse, and in due course almost certainly will be.
I guess the moral of the tale might be to choose your beliefs with care. They could seriously affect your mental health.
-
You do understand that it is perfectly possible to consider that 'right and wrong' are entirely social construct
But of course that doesn't cover you or the issues of homosexuality and the wrong behaviour of religionists where right and wrong are apparently absolute.
-
We can construct all kinds of systems with varying numbers of categories (or properties) and sub-categories: ying/yang, gunas, elements, ... and why not? They may help with organizing or managing ones thoughts or feelings. It doesn't mean that they necessarily reflect anything intrinsic in the universe, or any moral truths. What findings would verify or falsify them? At best they are metaphors.
Goals are intangible and change according to where you are or have been.
Yes, that's more or less it, a kind of ancient structure to help with esoteric realisations rather than exoteric reality. You can see the same 'guna' trinity in astrology with its free, fixed and mutable signs and their suggested impact upon the 4 elements of the psyche. I believe it is a mistake to try to mix it with modern day science, but good luck to those who try.
-
But of course that doesn't cover you or the issues of homosexuality and the wrong behaviour of religionists where right and wrong are apparently absolute.
Explain please in a manner I can understand and I'll try to respond.
-
Yes I would agree that the threat of getting caught is the deterrent, but if you knew that if you got caught parking in a restricted parking area and the fine would be 10p I am pretty sure a lot more people would take the risk of getting caught - so the punishment would also have to be something that would deter the behaviour.
And of course the punishment would not have the same effect on every individual - some would tolerate the punishment better than others - so a very rich person may not be deterred by the risk of a £1000 fine but a poorer person would. Presumably the threat of prison would also affect different people differently.
You do seem rather fixated with issues of money, both in terms of expected payment and fines. I'm not sure this is what we are really considering in terms of right and wrong.
Parking charges are simply one of a range of ways to raise money - so people agree with them, others don't. Some feel the costs are too high. But the decision whether to charge for parking and what level to charge is a purely arbitrary one, not a matter or morality I don't think. I think there is also an issue of justice - I think many people may look to fiddle tax not just because it might provide personal gain, but because there is a feeling of injustice - the little person has to pay their tax, yet the rich guys and gals, and companies get off scot free.
However I was thinking about more specifically moral issues - so in effect whether the threat of punishment is sufficient to prevent someone doing something they know to be wrong but which would provide personal gain for the perpetrator, or mere fun.
And there are countless examples of minor misdemeanours where the chances of being caught are pretty well zero - e.g. petty theft (like the bike example I used upthread) - yet people by and large still don't commit the misdemeanours - why, well I think because they recognise it to be wrong, not because the threat of punishment has any effect.
There is also a really good example where you can compare punishment with rehabilitation - speeding offences. Punishment with a fine and point on the licence is much less effective in preventing repeat offences than going on a speed awareness course (the rehabilitation option).
-
Many years ago whilst attending a retreat at a Buddhist centre I came down with ‘flu and was transferred to a sick room. What I now remember most vividly about the days that followed is the number of people who stuck their heads into the room to tell me how lucky I was to have become ill - although I don’t think any of them lingered in the hope of joining me in my good fortune!
In Buddhist understanding getting ‘flu was the karmic result of a negative action done in the past (almost certainly by some long forgotten creature) which had left a trace on the mind-stream that was currently ‘mine’. According to the ‘law of karma’ such traces increase over time so the ripening of this action as ‘flu now prevented any possibility that in future the same karmic imprint might come to fruition as an even worse experience such as rebirth in hell. This is why I was lucky.
A similar interpretation of infection with Covid-19 would follow the same ‘logic’, even one ending in agony and death. Things could always be worse, and in due course almost certainly will be.
I guess the moral of the tale might be to choose your beliefs with care. They could seriously affect your mental health.
Your experience here is so interesting to me. The Evangelical world, from which I've freed myself, would have explained this exact same thing as Satan, which you have somehow, unknowingly, allowed in. I'm not sure which is more difficult psychologically to endure? Past ancestors are the fault, or something you have no idea of how is the fault. Seems to me either one is just as difficult for mental health.
-
You do understand that it is perfectly possible to consider that 'right and wrong' are entirely social construct, yet have clear purpose and meaning, namely purpose and meaning within that societal context.
This is what I consider to be the case. Social animals, including humans, require social rules and customs to allow their social groups to operate effectively. From this requirement flow the concept of right and wrong - behaviours that are acceptable and not acceptable within that social context, typically with methods to embed those social rules within the group, via learning and sanctions or punishments for those that digress. We see this not only in humans but also many other higher animal species that have highly developed social behaviours - most obviously many other primate species.
What about the meaning and purpose - well those relate most proximally to keeping the group together and functioning well. But in the longer range this is all driven by the evolutionary imperative - groups that develop these rules are more successful, more likely to generate offspring that survive and therefore the development of effective societal rules and concepts of right and wrong drive evolutionary advantage.
Note no god required. So until you recognise that you can consider the social constructs of right and wrong to have meaning and purpose within that social construct without the need for god ... well there's not much point in continuing the discussion.
As I have said before, if you take a materialistic view that everything can and should be explained only through material and social means....there is nothing to discuss.
If someone takes the view that there is more to life than meets the eye....and seeks to explain those aspects that science cannot examine...only then, will such metaphysical discussions make sense.
Its a matter of perception, not of information.
-
As I have said before, if you take a materialistic view that everything can and should be explained only through material and social means....there is nothing to discuss.
If someone takes the view that there is more to life than meets the eye....and seeks to explain those aspects that science cannot examine...only then, will such metaphysical discussions make sense.
You do understand that you don't have to believe in god to recognise the importance of, and be able to engaged in, discussions about philosophy and ethics. So yes there is plenty to discuss providing you aren't confusing metaphysics with supernatural, which I suspect you may be.
Its a matter of perception, not of information.
Wrong - you need both to understand the world.
-
Your experience here is so interesting to me. The Evangelical world, from which I've freed myself, would have explained this exact same thing as Satan, which you have somehow, unknowingly, allowed in. I'm not sure which is more difficult psychologically to endure? Past ancestors are the fault, or something you have no idea of how is the fault. Seems to me either one is just as difficult for mental health.
It could be said that if your mental health was impaired by the Evangelical world then Satan was working through that world and you have freed yourself from his clutches. From the karmic point of view, you have freed yourself from the repetition that will impinge upon your mental condition in a future life. But as Bramble said 'choose your beliefs with care' and I would add - don't become attached to them'. They are still only beliefs.
-
Your experience here is so interesting to me. The Evangelical world, from which I've freed myself, would have explained this exact same thing as Satan, which you have somehow, unknowingly, allowed in. I'm not sure which is more difficult psychologically to endure? Past ancestors are the fault, or something you have no idea of how is the fault. Seems to me either one is just as difficult for mental health.
I agree. The extreme Christian Pentecostal dogma, which spoilt my childhood, can cause mental health problems. I have suffered from anxiety syndrome since I was a child.
-
Your experience here is so interesting to me. The Evangelical world, from which I've freed myself, would have explained this exact same thing as Satan, which you have somehow, unknowingly, allowed in. I'm not sure which is more difficult psychologically to endure? Past ancestors are the fault, or something you have no idea of how is the fault. Seems to me either one is just as difficult for mental health.
There's something worryingly grandiose about having to invoke Satan or karma to explain a simple case of the 'flu, I think, when putting it down to a virus would suffice. Why must some folk embed every last detail of their lives in a cosmic moral drama? Is it the fear of insignificance?
-
There's something worryingly grandiose about having to invoke Satan or karma to explain a simple case of the 'flu, I think, when putting it down to a virus would suffice. Why must some folk embed every last detail of their lives in a cosmic moral drama? Is it the fear of insignificance?
The thing is though if you believe the omni god, this has to be all part of the plan. This is not only the best of all possible worlds for the Calvinists, it's the only possible world.
ETA - and even for some of those who think their god is limited in some way, like Alan Burns, their god is capable of being interested in finding their contact lens.
-
There's something worryingly grandiose about having to invoke Satan or karma to explain a simple case of the 'flu, I think, when putting it down to a virus would suffice. Why must some folk embed every last detail of their lives in a cosmic moral drama? Is it the fear of insignificance?
No one denies that the virus causes illness. The question is why one person and not another? We can explain it away as 'luck'.....which is a chance factor. But believers in God and spirituality do not believe in chance factors. Everything has a purpose.
-
No one denies that the virus causes illness. The question is why one person and not another? We can explain it away as 'luck'.....which is a chance factor. But believers in God and spirituality do not believe in chance factors. Everything has a purpose.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm!
-
No one denies that the virus causes illness. The question is why one person and not another? We can explain it away as 'luck'.....which is a chance factor. But believers in God and spirituality do not believe in chance factors. Everything has a purpose.
Which makes your 'god' a thug. It has chosen to nearly kill my friend and debilitate her severely. It can go take a flying fuck.
-
No one denies that the virus causes illness. The question is why one person and not another?
By and large, not luck.
The medical and science community are well on their way to identifying risk factors, age being by far the greatest determining factor. Diabetes another. Obesity another. Heart disease another. Those are the reasons why it's one person and not another.
The reasons why people have those factors (apart from age which none of us can avoid if we live long enough) are either lifestyle choices, or medical conditions. I don't know whether its still being looked at but blood type appeared to play a part too. You really don't need to try and add some extra layer of God into this.
-
No one denies that the virus causes illness. The question is why one person and not another? We can explain it away as 'luck'.....which is a chance factor. But believers in God and spirituality do not believe in chance factors. Everything has a purpose.
Can you not see how your 'purpose' diminishes everything? The universe isn't there to reflect our little compulsions.
-
By and large, not luck.
The medical and science community are well on their way to identifying risk factors, age being by far the greatest determining factor. Diabetes another. Obesity another. Heart disease another. Those are the reasons why it's one person and not another.
The reasons why people have those factors (apart from age which none of us can avoid if we live long enough) are either lifestyle choices, or medical conditions. I don't know whether its still being looked at but blood type appeared to play a part too. You really don't need to try and add some extra layer of God into this.
Its the same thing...! Why is one person obese, diabetic, has heart problem...and not another? Why does one person have bad genes, epigenes, bad upbringing, no money etc. etc.? Either Luck or Karma or God.....
-
Can you not see how your 'purpose' diminishes everything? The universe isn't there to reflect our little compulsions.
What is it there for...according to you?!
-
What is it there for...according to you?!
Why does it have to be for anything?
-
Its the same thing...! Why is one person obese, diabetic, has heart problem...and not another? Why does one person have bad genes, epigenes, bad upbringing, no money etc. etc.? Either Luck or Karma or God.....
Why does one person have bad genes - well because they either inherited then or there was a mutation that occurred in the genes at some point due to the random errors that occur in DNA replication or due to the influence of external factors, for example radiation or chemical agents that can generate mutations.
Why does someone have bad upbringing - because their parents were poor at bringing them up and/or poor social circumstances.
etc etc etc.
Why on earth do you need to invoke luck or karma or god - certain for the latter two there is no evidence that they even exist. I on the other hand can clearly demonstrate the mechanisms that lead to 'bad genes' as you call it etc etc.
-
There's something worryingly grandiose about having to invoke Satan or karma to explain a simple case of the 'flu, I think, when putting it down to a virus would suffice. Why must some folk embed every last detail of their lives in a cosmic moral drama? Is it the fear of insignificance?
It probably started thousands of years ago to explain the causes of good fortune and bad luck, and then, as usual, the canny few saw it as a means of controlling people and from that came the birth of mass marketing. Once hooked, it is difficult to break free especially if those people who attempt it become ostracised or punished. Pleasure and pain, heaven and hell, good karma and bad karma become strong motivators
-
Can you not see how your 'purpose' diminishes everything? The universe isn't there to reflect our little compulsions.
Absolutely - the notion that the universe needs 'purpose' in terms that are achingly human-centric is not only diminishing, but also rather arrogant, implying humans are the be all and end all of everything. Guess what Sriram, the universe doesn't revolve around us.
-
It probably started thousands of years ago to explain the causes of good fortune and bad luck, and then, as usual, the canny few saw it as a means of controlling people and from that came the birth of mass marketing. Once hooked, it is difficult to break free especially if those people who attempt it become ostracised or punished. Pleasure and pain, heaven and hell, good karma and bad karma become strong motivators
Yup - that kind of sums it up really - hierarchical societies need something to keep the impoverished in check, something to force them to accept their pain and suffering, either through the promise of jam tomorrow (a paradise in the next world) or that their misfortune is their own fault through inherited guilt (whether reincarnation or original sin).
A truly, truly horrible ideology.
-
No...it has nothing to do with habit or ideology... These are just easy, 'one size fits all', dismissive 'explanations'. Typically the attitude scientists take towards areas that are beyond the scope of science.
Remember that life and death are still a mystery. No one can conclusively say what death really is. We have thousands of NDE's in all cultures that explain death...if anyone is willing to listen...
Once we accept an after-life, purpose and meaning to life arise automatically. Once purpose arises, the nature of morality and its mechanisms become important. Karma or God become obvious.
-
Remember that life and death are still a mystery. No one can conclusively say what death really is. We have thousands of NDE's in all cultures that explain death...if anyone is willing to listen...
Err you seem terribly confused - if death is a mystery and no on can conclusively say what death really is, how exactly is death explained by NDEs - you are directly contradicting yourself.
Of course there is no evidence for life after death and we have significant evidence that NDEs are caused by physiological and neurological alterations in brain function. They do not 'explain death' they are part of the dying process.
-
Ok...thanks Prof D.
I am done here.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Ok...thanks Prof D.
I am done here.
Cheers.
Sriram
Hopefully popping off to acquaint yourself with some evidence on neuroscience - being ignorant of the evidence is never a good look, but even less so if when pointed out that you fail to gain a little knowledge and instead plough on with the same unevidenced guff.
See you later.
-
I had hoped that the experience with Covid 19 would have made at least some people contemplate their own impermanence, nature of death, nature of ultimate reality and so on....
Clearly certain mindsets don't change so easily. :(
-
I had hoped that the experience with Covid 19 would have made at least some people contemplate their own impermanence, nature of death, nature of ultimate reality and so on....
Clearly certain mindsets don't change so easily. :(
Covid-19 hasn't revealed hitherto unknown insights into the nature of life and death. It's a virus, viruses evolve, viruses can invade eukaryotic cells and can kill us in the worst cases. There is nothing new in this, we've understood all this for centuries already. Death and suffering are an inescapable consequence of life, again, nothing new in this. Why should people change their understanding when there is no new evidence to warrant a change ? A brush with death might be a reality check inducing a change in attitudes or values but that does not equate to casting aside clarity of thought or abandoning intellectual integrity. Better to face adversity with dignity and honour rather than crumble and succumb to some or other woo just because it sems to offer solace in a time of hardship.
-
Covid-19 hasn't revealed hitherto unknown insights into the nature of life and death. It's a virus, viruses evolve, viruses can invade eukaryotic cells and can kill us in the worst cases. There is nothing new in this, we've understood all this for centuries already. Death and suffering are an inescapable consequence of life, again, nothing new in this. Why should people change their understanding when there is no new evidence to warrant a change ? A brush with death might be a reality check inducing a change in attitudes or values but that does not equate to casting aside clarity of thought or abandoning intellectual integrity. Better to face adversity with dignity and honour rather than crumble and succumb to some or other woo just because it sems to offer solace in a time of hardship.
:D
Let me clarify. Adversity and coming face to face with our impermanence, can reduce our Ego and sense of self importance dramatically. This can trigger our ability to see beyond our physical existence. It can open up the mind to deeper insights.
Its not about weakness or seeking solace. Its about an awakening.
I do realize that it doesn't happen to everyone.
-
:D
Let me clarify. Adversity and coming face to face with our impermanence, can reduce our Ego and sense of self importance dramatically. This can trigger our ability to see beyond our physical existence. It can open up the mind to deeper insights.
Its not about weakness or seeking solace. Its about an awakening.
I do realize that it doesn't happen to everyone.
I don't see that reducing one's ego is particularly relevant. If there is something 'beyond our physical existence', then there needs to be some evidence and rationale for that for it to be convincing. Covid-19 hasn't provided any such thing, it has only provided more evidence as if any were needed that people die when they die. Clearly people miss their dearly departed and would love to think they can be reunited somehow , somewhere, but to entertain such ideas in the absence of evidence is mere delusion brought on by allowing emotions to supervene over reasoning. To seek truth requires a dispassionate mind.
-
:D
Let me clarify. Adversity and coming face to face with our impermanence, can reduce our Ego and sense of self importance dramatically. This can trigger our ability to see beyond our physical existence. It can open up the mind to deeper insights.
Its not about weakness or seeking solace. Its about an awakening.
I do realize that it doesn't happen to everyone.
Sriram - the problem with your posts is you step from the reasonable to into the realms of fancy - and you have only one message in that world of fancy.
So of course people (including me) have re-evaluated our lives and what is important and not important in those lives. We've recognised thing that we might have taken for granted but now miss greatly, we've reacquanted ourselves with things that we once enjoyed but had forgotten about, we've (bizarrely) connected with people more in lockdown than we did when we could just visit them etc etc etc.
All fine, reasonable and true.
But then you stray into the mumbo-jumbo of Ego (with a capital E - what's that all about :o), 'see beyond our physical existence', 'nature of ultimate reality' etc, etc - emphatically no - the world is the same as it always was, we have had our lives turned upside down by the virus (but we will recover from this and guess what it will be science not spiritualism that get's us beyond this), we are all reassessing our lives in various ways, but no that doesn't mean we've come to think that god, religion, spiritualism, Ego (with a capital E) are anything other than unevidenced non-sense.
-
I had hoped that the experience with Covid 19 would have made at least some people contemplate their own impermanence, nature of death, nature of ultimate reality and so on....
Clearly certain mindsets don't change so easily. :(
What arrogance you show, Sriram! You originally asked a series of open questions to which various people gave their honest responses. However, now we find that if you didn't like their responses because they don't fit your take on the nature of life and death, you tend to label them as people who haven't thought deeply about 'their own impermanence etc.' and then accuse them of having rigid mindsets. On the contrary, people can think deeply about these things, Sriram, and they can come to entirely different conclusions to you, in many cases giving clear and well thought out reasons why they don't. Perhaps you need to think about their conclusions and their reasoning instead of dismissing them with the arrogance which seems to stem from a rather over inflated ego. Indeed, perhaps you need to take heed of your own suggestions and come to terms with your own sense of self importance. :)
-
What arrogance you show, Sriram! You originally asked a series of open questions to which various people gave their honest responses. However, now we find that if you didn't like their responses because they don't fit your take on the nature of life and death, you tend to label them as people who haven't thought deeply about 'their own impermanence etc.' and then accuse them of having rigid mindsets. On the contrary, people can think deeply about these things, Sriram, and they can come to entirely different conclusions to you, in many cases giving clear and well thought out reasons why they don't. Perhaps you need to think about their conclusions and their reasoning instead of dismissing them with the arrogance which seems to stem from a rather over inflated ego. Indeed, perhaps you need to take heed of your own suggestions and come to terms with your own sense of self importance. :)
I agree.
While Sriram is polite in his posting, he comes across as arrogant and pompous - he has an incredible fixed mind-set and cannot see beyond it. But the biggest problem is that mindset leads him to feel that people need to go on a spiritual journey to better themselves, and of course that spiritual journey ends in the same mindset as he has.
He doesn't seem to be able to understand that there are other ways of looking at the world, which are based on evidence rather than conjecture, and that people who do not hold to his mindset and world view can still look at the natural world in wonder and awe, can still reflect on what is important to them as individuals and as communities, can still take ethical positions, can still love and be loved etc etc.
And I find his tactic of linking to his own articles on the web irritating - somehow he's implying he is some kind of expert, but all that it on those articles is ill-informed and ill thought through conjecture.
-
I don't see that reducing one's ego is particularly relevant. If there is something 'beyond our physical existence', then there needs to be some evidence and rationale for that for it to be convincing. Covid-19 hasn't provided any such thing, it has only provided more evidence as if any were needed that people die when they die. Clearly people miss their dearly departed and would love to think they can be reunited somehow , somewhere, but to entertain such ideas in the absence of evidence is mere delusion brought on by allowing emotions to supervene over reasoning. To seek truth requires a dispassionate mind.
Covid 19 is not going to show us any strange and glorious external reality other than what we have already seen. Why do you keep saying that.....?!
There is an external reality....and there is an inner reality. Once the focus on the external world diminishes, the realization of the inner world grows...at least in many people.
That is what I am talking about.
Most of you people really surprise me with your complete and utter lack of understanding of such matters. You may not agree...but at least you should be able to understand. ::) ::)
-
Most of you people really surprise me ...
You don't surprise me any more, Sriram.
Here's a story for you. If you've heard it before then it will bear repeating, I think.
Once, a long time ago, there was a wise Zen master. People from far and near would seek his counsel and ask for his wisdom. Many would come and ask him to teach them, enlighten them in the way of Zen. He seldom turned any away.
One day an important man, a man used to command and obedience came to visit the master. “I have come today to ask you to teach me about Zen. Open my mind to enlightenment.” The tone of the important man’s voice was one used to getting his own way.
The Zen master smiled and said that they should discuss the matter over a cup of tea. When the tea was served the master poured his visitor a cup. He poured and he poured and the tea rose to the rim and began to spill over the table and finally onto the robes of the wealthy man. Finally the visitor shouted, “Enough. You are spilling the tea all over. Can’t you see the cup is full?”
The master stopped pouring and smiled at his guest. “You are like this tea cup, so full that nothing more can be added. Come back to me when the cup is empty. Come back to me with an empty mind.”
-
Covid 19 is not going to show us any strange and glorious external reality other than what we have already seen. Why do you keep saying that.....?!
There is an external reality....and there is an inner reality. Once the focus on the external world diminishes, the realization of the inner world grows...at least in many people.
But the issue here is your mumbo-jumbo phraseology - external reality, internal reality and the like, which implies some kind of accepted spiritual purpose. I don't accept that, but I am perfectly willing to accept (as I did in a previous post) that the current situation has made a lot of people reassess what is important and what is not. But that doesn't seem to be enough for you, Sriram - you seem only satisfied if people buy into your spiritual, Ego (with a capital E), purpose - nonsense.
Most of you people really surprise me with your complete and utter lack of understanding of such matters. You may not agree...but at least you should be able to understand. ::) ::)
I'm sorry Sriram - it is you who seems to have a complete failure to understand, and indeed a profound lack of empathy. You seem completely unable to see that people can see the same world as you but in a different way and that their way might just actually have some semblance of evidence-base to it and therefore not to be very impressed with your completely unevidenced assertions and conjecture.
-
Covid 19 is not going to show us any strange and glorious external reality other than what we have already seen. Why do you keep saying that.....?!
There is an external reality....and there is an inner reality. Once the focus on the external world diminishes, the realization of the inner world grows...at least in many people.
That is what I am talking about.
Most of you people really surprise me with your complete and utter lack of understanding of such matters. You may not agree...but at least you should be able to understand. ::) ::)
How do you know that what you call the 'inner reality' isn't known to me? How do you know that it is not you who are so fixated by your own interpretation of your own 'inner reality' that you don't actually recognise, appreciate or understand that others can have an 'inner reality' which they relate to the 'external reality' in a different way to you?
Let's take an example, the idea of an afterlife giving purpose and meaning to what we do in this life. I've met plenty of people who believe in such a thing and if you walk into any cemetery you are surrounded by such hopes and wishes impressed upon the gravestones. I'm not knocking it at all. For me, it is instantly appealing and understandable. However when I relate it to what the external world has to tell me, I find no evidence at all that this afterlife exists, (which includes NDEs, by the way, for reasons that I have given you in the past). Hence I refute your idea that I have no understanding of the idea and the need felt by some people for an afterlife. I simply find it highly improbable because there is no valid evidence to support it. That is not to say that I am right, of course, but that doesn't necessarily make me incapable of understanding the ideas that might flow from it, such as the idea of a some intrinsic purpose to everything.
It seems to me you presume too much.
-
How do you know that what you call the 'inner reality' isn't known to me? How do you know that it is not you who are so fixated by your own interpretation of your own 'inner reality' that you don't actually recognise, appreciate or understand that others can have an 'inner reality' which they relate to the 'external reality' in a different way to you?
Let's take an example, the idea of an afterlife giving purpose and meaning to what we do in this life. I've met plenty of people who believe in such a thing and if you walk into any cemetery you are surrounded by such hopes and wishes impressed upon the gravestones. I'm not knocking it at all. For me, it is instantly appealing and understandable. However when I relate it to what the external world has to tell me, I find no evidence at all that this afterlife exists, (which includes NDEs, by the way, for reasons that I have given you in the past). Hence I refute your idea that I have no understanding of the idea and the need felt by some people for an afterlife. I simply find it highly improbable because there is no valid evidence to support it. That is not to say that I am right, of course, but that doesn't necessarily make me incapable of understanding the ideas that might flow from it, such as the idea of a some intrinsic purpose to everything.
I am a Pagan and one of my beliefs, one to which I hold dearly, is in a cycle of lfe - life - birth - life - death - re-birth. So yes I do believe in an after-life and a re-birth after the after-life.
However. in contradiction to some other religion's beliefs, that is all it is in my belief - a matter of faith. I have no proof that it exists, but I strongly believe that it does and I do not demand that others believe as I do and I do not consider that those who do not agree with my belief are wrong.
-
I am a Pagan and one of my beliefs, one to which I hold dearly, is in a cycle of lfe - life - birth - life - death - re-birth. So yes I do believe in an after-life and a re-birth after the after-life.
However. in contradiction to some other religion's beliefs, that is all it is in my belief - a matter of faith. I have no proof that it exists, but I strongly believe that it does and I do not demand that others believe as I do and I do not consider that those who do not agree with my belief are wrong.
But why do you think your beliefs are right?
-
I am a Pagan and one of my beliefs, one to which I hold dearly, is in a cycle of lfe - life - birth - life - death - re-birth. So yes I do believe in an after-life and a re-birth after the after-life.
However. in contradiction to some other religion's beliefs, that is all it is in my belief - a matter of faith. I have no proof that it exists, but I strongly believe that it does and I do not demand that others believe as I do and I do not consider that those who do not agree with my belief are wrong.
People can believe what they like, but unless they can back those beliefs up with evidence then all that is left is a subjective opinion. And I agree that you don't ram your opinion down other's throats.
But I think the issue with Sriram which is so infuriating isn't claiming his beliefs to be true (that's easy to bat away) - no it is his smug superiority that anyone who doesn't accept his unevidenced mumbo-jumbo is somehow lesser than him - that somehow he is more worthy for believing in reincarnation, karma and Ego (with a capital E).
-
But why do you think your beliefs are right?
Because, I suppose, I want to! I have had experiences which suggest to me that it is so.
I do not have any proof that it is fact. I have faith that it is, but no proof, hence why I ask no-one else to believe as I do.
Paganism is, in a lot of ways, a very personal and not a public religion. Both the lady Rhannoni and I are Pagans, but we each follow our own oath, two paths which may never again, after her departure from the torum ever cross again, until, possibly, the Summerlands.
Thus it will have to remain faith until I enter the Summerlands or do not!
-
Because, I suppose, I want to! I have had experiences which suggest to me that it is so.
I do not have any proof that it is fact. I have faith that it is, but no proof, hence why I ask no-one else to believe as I do.
Paganism is, in a lot of ways, a very personal and not a public religion. Both the lady Rhannoni and I are Pagans, but we each follow our own oath, two paths which may never again, after her departure from the torum ever cross again, until, possibly, the Summerlands.
Thus it will have to remain faith until I enter the Summerlands or do not!
But why do you 'want' to believe it. What is the reason for your belief?
-
Because, I suppose, I want to!
We might want something to be true so much it hurts - that has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
-
But why do you 'want' to believe it. What is the reason for your belief?
Because it is part of a religious belief that has seen me through some seriously bad times! Horrendously bad in some cases.
Times when people I know who follow various paths of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, have interpreted scripture to inform me that whatever is happening to me or has happened to me or those dear to me is (and I quote) my own bloody fault for having given up on Christ when I was 15! And those were the polite ones.
It is a path that I can embrace wholeheartedly because everyone, bar one, who I have met as members of that path have been prepared to give everything that they could to help any other member who was in any sort of trouble, big or small, even if it WAS their, or even MY own fault, and would frequently help those who were not getting help from their co-religionists!
The deities connected with the belief path are not superperfect without a blemish on their character. They do not demand that I speak to them on my knees. They have all the foibles of humaity, they did not inflict diseases on humanity and then tell humanity that it should get down on its knees and thank them for inflicting horrendous suffering and loss upon them and thir families.
I am sorry if that is not enough of an explanation for you, it is all that I can give you. If you have specific questiuons then please piost them on the Pagan Topic and I will do my best to answer them within the bounds of my limited intellexct.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light!
-
We might want something to be true so much it hurts - that has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
It is true for me. I don't give a donkey's fart it it is not true for anyone outside the Craft!
-
It is true for me. I don't give a donkey's fart it it is not true for anyone outside the Craft!
So it is a subjective opinion about something which is either objectively true or not objectively true.
I have no issues with subjective (true for me) claims for things which are just an opinion, in other words subjective - e.g. I love Mozart's music. But it doesn't really work for something which is a true for everyone claim - e.g. god either exists or does not exist or ... err ... or life after death either exists or doesn't exist. It isn't a subjective claim, but an objective one. So I'm sorry the notion that life after death is just true for you is meaningless - it is either true or it isn't true, as it isn't a subjective claim.
Life after death exists as a claim isn't the equivalent of I like Mozart.
-
It is true for me. I don't give a donkey's fart it it is not true for anyone outside the Craft!
True for me though is just giving validation to anyone claiming truth. What value is 'true for you' as a claim?
-
But the issue here is your mumbo-jumbo phraseology - external reality, internal reality and the like, which implies some kind of accepted spiritual purpose. I don't accept that, but I am perfectly willing to accept (as I did in a previous post) that the current situation has made a lot of people reassess what is important and what is not. But that doesn't seem to be enough for you, Sriram - you seem only satisfied if people buy into your spiritual, Ego (with a capital E), purpose - nonsense.
I'm sorry Sriram - it is you who seems to have a complete failure to understand, and indeed a profound lack of empathy. You seem completely unable to see that people can see the same world as you but in a different way and that their way might just actually have some semblance of evidence-base to it and therefore not to be very impressed with your completely unevidenced assertions and conjecture.
There is plenty of evidence if you know where to look. One should also have the faculties that enable such observation. One should also have an open mind...and relevant background. Please read my article about Evidence, at my site.
-
There is plenty of evidence if you know where to look.
No there isn't - there may be belief, there may be wishful thinking but there is no evidence.
One should also have the faculties that enable such observation. One should also have an open mind...and relevant background.
Which pretty well perfects defines scientists using the scientific method, which requires scientists to design experiments with an open mind that does not assume a particular claim to be true or not until or unless supported by evidence. Scientist change their minds all the time as new evidence emerges - that is surely the key element of an open mind - that you are prepared to change you mind.
Do you have an open mind Sriram - are you prepared to change your mind as new evidence emerges, for example the neuroscience on consciousness and NDEs.
Please read my article about Evidence, at my site.
Sure - I will.
In the interests of reciprocity Sriram - will you acquaint yourself with the science on the subjects you spout about - go to the original papers (most of which are completely open access) as that's where you'll find the original evidence. Unless perhaps you aren't open-minded enough or perhaps you don't have the relevant background ;)
-
There is plenty of evidence if you know where to look. One should also have the faculties that enable such observation. One should also have an open mind...and relevant background. Please read my article about Evidence, at my site.
You might have a belief which convinces you is 'evidence', but it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
-
ProfessorDavey
« Reply #189 on: 24-05-2020, 23:22:16 »
Quote from: Owlswing on 24-05-2020, 23:09:27
It is true for me. I don't give a donkey's fart if it is not true for anyone outside the Craft!
Response from ProfessorDavey
So it is a subjective opinion about something which is either objectively true or not objectively true.
I have no issues with subjective (true for me) claims for things which are just an opinion, in other words subjective - e.g. I love Mozart's music. But it doesn't really work for something which is a true for everyone claim - e.g. god either exists or does not exist or ... err ... or life after death either exists or doesn't exist. It isn't a subjective claim, but an objective one. So I'm sorry the notion that life after death is just true for you is meaningless - it is either true or it isn't true, as it isn't a subjective claim.
Life after death exists as a claim isn't the equivalent of I like Mozart.
Response from Nearly Sane
True for me though is just giving validation to anyone claiming truth. What value is 'true for you' as a claim?
I really am not interested in what meaning, deep or otherwise, that anyone else puts on my beliefs!
I am not interested in the deep philosophical (sic) meanings others care to put upon what I say.
They are MY beliefs! I have said I don't care if anyone outside the Carft believes them or not or what objections they put on my beliefs.
I am not asking anyone else to believe as I do! So WTF does it matter what you think of my beliefs. Am I asking anyone to believe as I do, am I telling anyone that if they do not believe as I that they are going to roast in Hell for all eterninty if they are gay, that if they don't baptise their children those are going to Hell for all eternity.
Do I say that my deities are deities of Love who allows children to be born with diseases that will kill them in weeks but you must kneel to the deity or you will go as well?
I am saying others beliefs hold no value for me - and I will argue that the Bible is bollocks purely because of the claims made for it WHEN HELD UP AS THE ONLY WAY FOR OTHERS TO BELIEVE IO OBTAIN AN AFTERLIFE.
I do not understand half of the -isms mentioned by other posters, I am not a mental giant like some here, I am not as educated as some here, but I do know when I am being taken the piss out of and when my beliefs, which hardly anyone on here knows the first idea about but which have helped me when others were too interested in sending me to Hell for my beliefs before offering any help, are being dismissed as bollocks.
I only question the beliefs of others when those others tell me that their beliefs are the only ones that matter or are true for EVERYONE
OK - Rant over.
Apologies to anyone to whom I have caused serious or unwarranted offence.
-
ProfessorDavey
« Reply #189 on: 24-05-2020, 23:22:16 »
Quote from: Owlswing on 24-05-2020, 23:09:27
It is true for me. I don't give a donkey's fart if it is not true for anyone outside the Craft!
Response from ProfessorDavey
Response from Nearly Sane
I really am not interested in what meaning, deep or otherwise, that anyone else puts on my beliefs!
I am not interested in the deep philosophical (sic) meanings others care to put upon what I say.
They are MY beliefs! I have said I don't care if anyone outside the Carft believes them or not or what objections they put on my beliefs.
I am not asking anyone else to believe as I do! So WTF does it matter what you think of my beliefs. Am I asking anyone to believe as I do, am I telling anyone that if they do not believe as I that they are going to roast in Hell for all eterninty if they are gay, that if they don't baptise their children those are going to Hell for all eternity.
Do I say that my deities are deities of Love who allows children to be born with diseases that will kill them in weeks but you must kneel to the deity or you will go as well?
I am saying others beliefs hold no value for me - and I will argue that the Bible is bollocks purely because of the claims made for it WHEN HELD UP AS THE ONLY WAY FOR OTHERS TO BELIEVE IO OBTAIN AN AFTERLIFE.
I do not understand half of the -isms mentioned by other posters, I am not a mental giant like some here, I am not as educated as some here, but I do know when I am being taken the piss out of and when my beliefs, which hardly anyone on here knows the first idea about but which have helped me when others were too interested in sending me to Hell for my beliefs before offering any help, are being dismissed as bollocks.
I only question the beliefs of others when those others tell me that their beliefs are the only ones that matter or are true for EVERYONE
OK - Rant over.
Apologies to anyone to whom I have caused serious or unwarranted offence.
The craft?
Craft suggests that something is being fashioned into something else.
What would you say that "something" is? And what would you say it is being fashioned into?
May I say that defensiveness here could well be construed as reinforcing the suspicion that secrecy surrounds your belief system.
-
I think I understand what sririam is trying to convey and don't find anything arrogant about it. It could be misunderstanding over how he phrases things, seems clear enough to me.
My beliefs haven't changed because of covid-19 but hope at the end of it we emerge to a world that is kinder. There's not much evidence of that at the moment but we've a way to go.
-
The craft?
Craft suggests that something is being fashioned into something else.
What would you say that "something" is? And what would you say it is being fashioned into?
May I say that defensiveness here could well be construed as reinforcing the suspicion that secrecy surrounds your belief system.
When you can write a post without the sneer ibn your words I might bother to answer you until then . . .
You are very good at sneering, but the likes of HS and Professor D soon show up your sometimes huge deficiencies (sic) on subjects that require logical thinking instead of an ability to look down what is probably a very long nose on those posting their views and/or beliefs.
In the context of my beliefs craft is written with a capital 'C'! If I put it in the lower case it was yet another of my multiplicity of accidental typo's. Yet another demonstration of the fact that, when it comes to the Craft, you don't know what you are talking about.
Hint - Craft as in 'crafting'.
-
I think I understand what sririam is trying to convey and don't find anything arrogant about it. It could be misunderstanding over how he phrases things, seems clear enough to me.
I think that any view that considers that the universe revolves around humans and their attributes is inherently arrogant. It is, effectively, claiming that humans are the most important thing in the universe - it is 'all about me' - me in this case being human-kind.
It seems to lack both perspective and humility.
-
May I say that defensiveness here could well be construed as reinforcing the suspicion that secrecy surrounds your belief system.
You can say just whatever you like! And you usually do.
Anything that happens in Circle IS covered by an Oath of Secrecy taken by every member of my Coven upon Initiation.
And every other Coven that I have ever had any interaction with.
Just like the Freemason's in that respect.
)O(
-
The craft?
Craft suggests that something is being fashioned into something else.
What would you say that "something" is? And what would you say it is being fashioned into?
May I say that defensiveness here could well be construed as reinforcing the suspicion that secrecy surrounds your belief system.
Incidentallly you are very good at commenting, usually negatively, on the beliefs of others, yet you rarely seem to express any beliefs of your own, except, of course, your obvious belief that your place is sat on the right hand of God - but never mentioning which God!
)O(
-
I think I understand what sririam is trying to convey and don't find anything arrogant about it. It could be misunderstanding over how he phrases things, seems clear enough to me.
My beliefs haven't changed because of covid-19 but hope at the end of it we emerge to a world that is kinder. There's not much evidence of that at the moment but we've a way to go.
Thanks Robbie. :D Brave of you to post your opinion against the tide.... ;)
Leave alone philosophy and spirituality....most people are unlikely to understand all that. What I am surprised is that people here claim to be knowledgeable in science but seem to be stuck to the mid 20th century science. Very old school..... :(
There are many insights offered by science in recent years that clearly point to a shift away from physicalism that has been so much a fundamental part of early science.
Try this...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/consciousness-self-organization-and-neuroscience/201912/what-is-reality-interview-donald
or this video if you want....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY
Cheers.
Sriram
-
When you can write a post without the sneer ibn your words I might bother to answer you until then . . .
I rather think that sneer is in your head rather than my words.
-
You can say just whatever you like! And you usually do.
Anything that happens in Circle IS covered by an Oath of Secrecy taken by every member of my Coven upon Initiation.
And every other Coven that I have ever had any interaction with.
Just like the Freemason's in that respect.
)O(
That would explain why, when I came across a football match between the Wiccans and the Freemasons no one could tell me what the score was.
-
I rather think that sneer is in your head rather than my words.
Of that I have no doubt, but have you never considered that the words that you use tend to carefull camouflage that sneer.
If you use other words maybe there would be no sneer to recognise. There again, over the years I have come to recognise that your words are carefully chosen to ensure that the sneer is there.
When it is my beliefs that you are commenting on your contempt for those beliefs is obvious. That my beliefs are not alone in attracting your contempt is acknowledged.
-
That would explain why, when I came across a football match between the Wiccans and the Freemasons no one could tell me what the score was.
See my response to your post immediately prior to this one!
Your sense of humour lacks only one thing - humour! Especially when it is aimed to take the piss out of someome else or their comments.
Please, however, don't stop trying to be humourous, I wait with bated breath for the day that you achieve it! I have a bottle of Napoleon brandy waiting for that day, I just hope that I live long enough to open it!
-
Leave alone philosophy and spirituality....most people are unlikely to understand all that. What I am surprised is that people here claim to be knowledgeable in science but seem to be stuck to the mid 20th century science. Very old school..... :(
There are many insights offered by science in recent years that clearly point to a shift away from physicalism that has been so much a fundamental part of early science.
Do you have some actual evidence of this shift? Given that you cite 20th century sources yourself and all you've done is provide more recent (mutually contradictory, which for some reason doesn't seem to bother you) examples of views that seem (to you, at least) to support your even older belief system, if you can't provide evidence that there is a general shift (say, statistics about the proportion of published papers), this just looks like playground level name-calling.
-
You do seem rather fixated with issues of money, both in terms of expected payment and fines. I'm not sure this is what we are really considering in terms of right and wrong.
Parking charges are simply one of a range of ways to raise money - so people agree with them, others don't. Some feel the costs are too high. But the decision whether to charge for parking and what level to charge is a purely arbitrary one, not a matter or morality I don't think. I think there is also an issue of justice - I think many people may look to fiddle tax not just because it might provide personal gain, but because there is a feeling of injustice - the little person has to pay their tax, yet the rich guys and gals, and companies get off scot free.
I was thinking more about punishments for parking on double and single yellow lines and parking fines rather than car parks.
Regarding taxes, I think there are multiple reasons and one of them is that it is sometimes difficult for a business to generate enough income for a business-owner to manage their lifestyle and pay their taxes, so some people consider they will take the risk of not declaring all their income or put in false expense claims until the penalties for doing so are pointed out to them.
However I was thinking about more specifically moral issues - so in effect whether the threat of punishment is sufficient to prevent someone doing something they know to be wrong but which would provide personal gain for the perpetrator, or mere fun.
I think it depends on the individual - some people's behaviour is more influenced by the threat of an unpleasant punishment.
And there are countless examples of minor misdemeanours where the chances of being caught are pretty well zero - e.g. petty theft (like the bike example I used upthread) - yet people by and large still don't commit the misdemeanours - why, well I think because they recognise it to be wrong, not because the threat of punishment has any effect.
Yes a lot of people would recognise something is wrong such as stealing from a person and therefore not do it. Some of those people might be more inclined to steal from a shop as they cannot identify an individual that they are hurting. Some people may be deterred by the idea of getting caught and getting more than a slap on the wrist - a criminal record could result in unemployment, inability to get a visa to travel etc. Difficult to generalise that punishment has no deterrent effect.
There is also a really good example where you can compare punishment with rehabilitation - speeding offences. Punishment with a fine and point on the licence is much less effective in preventing repeat offences than going on a speed awareness course (the rehabilitation option).
Maybe - I have not seen the stats. But you would get a lot less people on the course if you did not threaten them with a fine and points on their licence if they did not attend.
-
I was thinking more about punishments for parking on double and single yellow lines and parking fines rather than car parks.
Blimey, we really are in the word of dancing on minute pin-heads. I was thinking more about major moral issues and what it is that influences people to take actions they consider to be correct and not engage in activities they consider not to be correct, even if that might provide personal gain to them. I don't think distinctions between car park fines and on-street parking fines is really what I was considering here. And once again I don't think most people consider parking restrictions etc to be a moral issue, do they.
Yes a lot of people would recognise something is wrong such as stealing from a person and therefore not do it. Some of those people might be more inclined to steal from a shop as they cannot identify an individual that they are hurting. Some people may be deterred by the idea of getting caught and getting more than a slap on the wrist - a criminal record could result in unemployment, inability to get a visa to travel etc.
Some people might - but then if that is the case why is repeat offending after being caught so prevalent - if it were a deterrent, in theory, surely it must be a much greater deterrent in practice - in other words if you have been caught and punished. But it doesn't seem to be.
Difficult to generalise that punishment has no deterrent effect.
I think it is pretty easy to take a view, as there is amply research to show that punishment has very little effect on reoffending and indeed more severe punishment seems to increase, rather than decrease, reoffending rates.
Maybe - I have not seen the stats. But you would get a lot less people on the course if you did not threaten them with a fine and points on their licence if they did not attend.
The reoffending rates for people having attended the course are I think 25% lower than for people who were punished. Not sure if you've been on one of the courses - but it was brilliant - really interesting, informative and thought provoking. Taught me things I thought I knew but didn't really. As with many such courses there is a lot of interactive group work and a key thing that came out from those discussions is how we wish the course was available to everyone, not just those caught speeding (and then only in certain limits). In a bizarre way it is so good that you almost want to recommend that people speed, get caught, and get to go on it. I don't really mean that but you know what I means. There is no doubt in my mind (and the stats back it up) that going on the course has affected my behaviour when driving far more than the threat of a fine or even the one previous time I got a speeding fine, about 12 years ago.
-
Blimey, we really are in the word of dancing on minute pin-heads. I was thinking more about major moral issues and what it is that influences people to take actions they consider to be correct and not engage in activities they consider not to be correct, even if that might provide personal gain to them. I don't think distinctions between car park fines and on-street parking fines is really what I was considering here. And once again I don't think most people consider parking restrictions etc to be a moral issue, do they.
I think it is a moral issue if I thought I might cause an accident or block traffic flow.
Some people might - but then if that is the case why is repeat offending after being caught so prevalent - if it were a deterrent, in theory, surely it must be a much greater deterrent in practice - in other words if you have been caught and punished. But it doesn't seem to be.
I think it's complex - people could be stealing for all sorts of reasons e.g. because austerity/ cuts to public services and benefits means they have developed a view that no one cares about them so they do not need to care about other people.
I think it is pretty easy to take a view, as there is amply research to show that punishment has very little effect on reoffending and indeed more severe punishment seems to increase, rather than decrease, reoffending rates.
I am not arguing that punishment is a quick fix to all the inequalities in society. I was arguing that punishment serves a purpose e.g. sending a message that an action is disapproved of but other measures would be needed to change behaviour.
The reoffending rates for people having attended the course are I think 25% lower than for people who were punished. Not sure if you've been on one of the courses - but it was brilliant - really interesting, informative and thought provoking. Taught me things I thought I knew but didn't really. As with many such courses there is a lot of interactive group work and a key thing that came out from those discussions is how we wish the course was available to everyone, not just those caught speeding (and then only in certain limits). In a bizarre way it is so good that you almost want to recommend that people speed, get caught, and get to go on it. I don't really mean that but you know what I means. There is no doubt in my mind (and the stats back it up) that going on the course has affected my behaviour when driving far more than the threat of a fine or even the one previous time I got a speeding fine, about 12 years ago.
No - I have not been required to go on a course yet but yes would like to. I have received speeding fines after being captured on speeding cameras on local roads going less than 10 mph above speed limit, but I have not been threatened with penalty points.
-
I have received speeding fines after being captured on speeding cameras on local roads going less than 10 mph above speed limit, but I have not been threatened with penalty points.
I note the plural on fines - so presume you have had more than one fine. In which case why did the punishment (the fine) deter you from reoffending.
No - I have not been required to go on a course yet but yes would like to.
I really do think it should be made available to everyone and certainly to those who have committed any speeding offence. I think you'd certainly benefit from the course if, as you've implied, you've been fined for being less that 10 miles an hour above (I presume) a 30mph limit if these are local roads. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I think the most starling information that I gained from the course is the kind of corollary of stopping distance, but much more starling. It is the speed that you are travelling when driving above the speed limit when you reach a point that you'd have been able to stop if traveling at the speed limit. It is shocking.
-
I note the plural on fines - so presume you have had more than one fine. In which case why did the punishment (the fine) deter you from reoffending.
It did - I have never been caught by the same camera twice. Once I become aware of the camera because I have got a fine, it reminds me to pay attention to my speed when I am in the area of that camera. Other times, I did not spot the road sign for a temporary speed limit reduction and assumed the speed limit was the same it had always been on that road. Cameras work for me in keeping me sticking to the limit even when there is a clear road - because I don't want a fine. I enjoy driving and it's easy to drive faster than the speed limit if the car you are driving is quite smooth to drive and the road is clear.
I really do think it should be made available to everyone and certainly to those who have committed any speeding offence. I think you'd certainly benefit from the course if, as you've implied, you've been fined for being less that 10 miles an hour above (I presume) a 30mph limit if these are local roads. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I was doing maybe 45 on a fairly empty 40mph road (dual carriageway) once. Another time I was driving my daughter to swimming around 5am - again doing about 45 in a 40 mph zone as we were running late. And one time a 30mph speed limit round the corner from my house had dropped to 20mph due to road works while I had been out of the country so the camera went off on my drive home from the airport.
But yes I would benefit from a course. My natural inclination is to drive fast on motorways as it is enjoyable in a powerful car - you don't really feel it - and if it seemed safe I would do it more often if I thought I wouldn't get caught. So maybe a course would reduce that tendency.
I think the most starling information that I gained from the course is the kind of corollary of stopping distance, but much more starling. It is the speed that you are travelling when driving above the speed limit when you reach a point that you'd have been able to stop if traveling at the speed limit. It is shocking.
Yes - I think about stopping distances when driving fast on the motorway and even though the roads are clear when I do it, anything unexpected could materialise that I could not anticipate and the laws of physics would determine my ability to stop. So you're right. And possibly a course would tip me over into curbing my speeding. My husband has been on a course and it worked for a while and it still does work sometimes but then are also times when he still speeds - maybe because he sometimes perceives that he is unlikely to get caught but I don't know what causes this change in perception.
-
It did - I have never been caught by the same camera twice.
This isn't about the punishment preventing you from being caught by the same camera again, but preventing you offending again - in other words not speeding. ;)
-
I was doing maybe 45 on a fairly empty 40mph road (dual carriageway) once. Another time I was driving my daughter to swimming around 5am - again doing about 45 in a 40 mph zone as we were running late. And one time a 30mph speed limit round the corner from my house had dropped to 20mph due to road works while I had been out of the country so the camera went off on my drive home from the airport.
But yes I would benefit from a course. My natural inclination is to drive fast on motorways as it is enjoyable in a powerful car - you don't really feel it - and if it seemed safe I would do it more often if I thought I wouldn't get caught. So maybe a course would reduce that tendency.
Yes - I think about stopping distances when driving fast on the motorway and even though the roads are clear when I do it, anything unexpected could materialise that I could not anticipate and the laws of physics would determine my ability to stop. So you're right. And possibly a course would tip me over into curbing my speeding. My husband has been on a course and it worked for a while and it still does work sometimes but then are also times when he still speeds - maybe because he sometimes perceives that he is unlikely to get caught but I don't know what causes this change in perception.
I think many of us understand stopping distances, as we get taught that in the theory test. But I think impact speed to more chilling.
So (don't google it please) - imagine the following:
30mph area - you are driving at 30mph - a child steps out and you are just able to stop in time before hitting her. If you are driving faster than 30mph you will certainly hit her - but at what speed.
If you were driving at 35mph (rather than 30mph) and you try to stop as quickly as you can, how fast will you be traveling when you hit her.
How about at 40mph?
-
This isn't about the punishment preventing you from being caught by the same camera again, but preventing you offending again - in other words not speeding. ;)
If there were cameras everywhere combined with a hefty fine for getting caught I would stop offending completely because I would weigh up the thought of the fine against the reason why I was considering speeding, and would pretty much conclude the only good reason to incur the fine would be some kind of emergency.
Getting back to religious punishments - I think many times the thought of being held accountable for your choices works for some people in helping modify their behaviour but I can't generalise. I know it helped me stop drinking alcohol - it wasn't the only reason but it was one reason that combined with other reasons added up to me stopping. And no I don't mean that I am expecting to be hit with a bolt of lightening if I drink alcohol,
ETA: There would also be occasions where even though I know I will be held accountable I would still do something wrong to prove a point or to show I did not care or that I won't be controlled or because I was acting on emotion. There are occasions where people are prepared to suffer pain and death to stand up for a point of principle especially if they feel there is a grave injustice - some people consider people like that martyrs. I am thinking of the women in Saudi who drove even though it was illegal. Or the Jewish kids who go to prison rather than serve in the IDF in the Occupied Territories.