Post Covid 19 beliefs

[Nearly Sane]

On facts presented - or statements presented as facts? On oath, of course.

not a clue what you are saying here.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except you have to, else you can't have a value to judge.

I think you are muddling judgement with opinion NS.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[ProfessorDavey]

But how do choose values without emotions?

In the same way as judgement - through careful consideration and rational thought - ever heard of ethics NS?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

And night night to all

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Owlswing]

I cannot help but feel that this has got quite a long way off-topic.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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...