Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:46 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Religion and philosophy 
Author Message
User avatar
Master Debater


Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 22
Location: Southern United States
Thanks: 5
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
I thought the mythicists crap died years ago.....Its only advocator passed away some time ago.



Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:18 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Master Debater


Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 22
Location: Southern United States
Thanks: 5
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
I thought the mythicists crap died years ago.....Its only advocator passed away some time ago.



Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:18 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Master Debater


Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 22
Location: Southern United States
Thanks: 5
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Crap! Can some one delete one of those posts!



Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:32 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
So Awesome

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1061
Thanks: 951
Thanked: 465 times in 387 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Robert Tulip wrote:
Considering your point about the dangers of artifice in psychology, there is good reason to see the dangers of climate change as a direct result of our all too human tendency to place comfort above evidence as a guide to action, creating an artificial world that is not sustainable.

That heedless attitude involves a resort to artificial subterfuge, and raises the biggest question of the relation between culture and physical requirements. If our duty is to maximise the good of the future, then this problem of climate indifference shows how undutiful our species has become, a problem traditionally explained in the categories of salvation and damnation.

On your point about the balance between carbon removal and emission reduction, I think that emission reduction is a pointless wild goose chase, a distraction from the real duty of carbon removal.
So let's see, those who refuse to engage climate change, presumably because of comfort, or at least the prospect of re-election paid for by the fossil fuel industry, are undutiful in the extreme, equivalent to the old language of damnation. But you, in your wisdom, see that emission reduction is a mere distraction and should not be bothered with.
:slap:
Well, that certainly illustrates my point that it is possible to have diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive ideas about the way to the good, and yet both (e.g. yours and mine) be offered in good faith.
As always, my question is "Why not both?" I already know your answer, but you don't mind repeating your other points about the subject, so go for it if you feel so motivated.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Harry Marks wrote:
Duty is a partial, fragmented part of the life of faith.
Fragmented? Surely that would imply that duty can be avoided with good conscience? I see it differently, that duty is fundamental.
Well, me and most mainstream economists would agree that you are avoiding your duty, and you seem to be doing it in good conscience. So where does that leave our question?

Duty is fragmented in that we have essentially unlimited duties. We have a duty to feed any person who is starving to death, as long as our own needs are met. To simply let them starve is heartless. Yet I do. Some duties are to people who matter very much to me, and so, in typical non-rational fashion, I see to it that I meet those duties. As the social distance between me and others increases, I pay less attention to them.

Duty is partial in that its potential to bring salvation is related more to the spirit in which it is met than to the act itself. If I meet every duty I can, divesting myself of every luxury to save the lives of those who need the money more than me, and when they thank me I look embarrassed and say, "Nonsense, it was simply my duty, so how could I not?" they are unlikely to perceive the opportunity of a meaningful life in helping others.

Robert Tulip wrote:
So Jesus says take up your cross and follow me. That is a very hard teaching of duty to God, as the rich young man reflected. My sense is that we are on a species trajectory to extinction, and our Christian duty is to reverse this trajectory through a resolute focus on facts and values.
Harry Marks wrote:
A person of faithfulness will shudder at the possibility that they have failed in meeting a duty.
Conventional faith provides ample escape hatches to avoid Christian duty, through the cheap grace of kicking Jesus upstairs from earth into heaven. The costly grace of planetary transformation implied by the incarnation can be ignored in favour of supernatural nonsense.
Or in favor of political fatalism, or whatever label explains your escape hatch. Look, that is the nature of society. People are going to perceive different paths to the good. If dialogue can occur in good faith, we have some chance of meeting our collective obligations. If not, then the chips will fall where they fall.
Harry Marks wrote:
In traditional, supernaturally-explained religion, our duty to God represents to us the opportunity to participate in eternity by working for shalom, which is the harmony of all things. When face-to-face with duty, our obligation to it is inescapable.

Robert Tulip wrote:
My experience of traditional religion is rather different, that it avoids discussion of shalom because this union of peace and justice implies a messianic transformation of the earth. The traditional goal is more to claim God’s blessing upon existing society and its stability, putting off all thought of shalom to the second coming. The way faith escapes obligations in this realm of social transformation is to sow confusion so duties are never encountered directly, and so that duty is conceived in a primarily individual moral way, concerning personal moral conduct rather than shared vision of the world.
Oh, it's worse than that, believe me. I recently saw a discussion at length of the way evangelical churches have taken to telling leaders that when they have sexually abused members of the flock, they have only sinned against God and they have no obligation to reconciliation with the victim (as long as they pronounce the words "I'm sorry" to her.) Not only are most churches completely unwilling to take on transformation of the earth as a moral issue, but they continue in the tradition of the last 1800 or so years of finding the sins of the powerful much less grave than those of the weak. Of course, other institutions behave similarly, but then, those don't claim to be followers of Christ.
Robert Tulip wrote:
That need for change is essentially what is meant by your phrase “the great and terrible Day of Reckoning.”
My view is that such a transformation need not involve collapse. If there is clear headed strategic planning, a managed gradual transition is possible, seeing the allegorical language of the Bible as a coherent and helpful warning message.
Well, it lacks something in coherence but maybe makes up for it in drama.
Harry Marks wrote:

The entrepreneurial class sees individual (or corporate) competition for money as the ultimate source of all benefit in society, but I am sorry to say we must drop the curtain on them. They are now a distant third to social processes of empowering the excluded and integrating the costs of externalities into monetary incentives. That's not to say I am in favor of disempowering competition and enterprise. But the movement for selling governmental power to the donor class has to stop. It has gone too far already.

Robert Tulip wrote:
So encouraging entrepreneurs will lead to more money that can then trickle down for inclusion and externalities
Addressing externalities is not a process of confiscation or any other form of redistribution. It can be accomplished, for example, by permits given out to the former polluters who can then make money by selling them to other polluters who are less able to figure out how to reduce pollution. It can also be accomplished by a revenue-neutral carbon tax, (which even Charlie Koch as accepted in principle,) so that other taxes are reduced as money from a carbon tax becomes available. Neither is a matter of burdening the creative powers of the market, and in fact both empower the more dynamic sectors which emerge in response to appropriate incentives.

Empowerment of the excluded is also very different from the money-grubbing image of freeloaders. Public school, probably the first large-scale example of such empowerment, was and remains a triumph for investment through the public sector. It began when resources were much less than today's and the transformations achieved by it are unimaginable in a society leaving all such investment to entrepreneurs. One need only look at the backward sectors which remain in India and South America due to social exclusion to see that economic capacity does not spread by itself, and tremendous potential is wasted by acting as if it does.
Robert Tulip wrote:
While the impetus for care may emerge more from constructed values than from described facts, care is also usually most effective when it is grounded in fact rather than fantasy, meaning our relationships are honest and open.
Exceptions to the primacy of fact include the placebo effect in medicine, or the healing power of faith and prayer. A comforting constructed fantasy can have more healing power than cold descriptive facts delivered with no bedside manner, although the best healing and care comes from the combination of faith and evidence.
Leadership is mostly a matter of bedside manner and placebo effects. I am all for grounding the decisions of care in fact, and opposed to giving any place to fantasy in the process, but there is a larger dialogue which constructs the setting for policy-making in a democracy, and that one needs plenty of mastery of the yin and yang of people's willingness to place their trust.

Robert Tulip wrote:
It is not right to say that search for objective evidence “sabotages” care, although it is important to note care cannot be held hostage to evidence.
I only said the latter. Insisting on the methods of objectivity as absolutes in the process is one way of holding care hostage to evidence.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Someone recently said to me that we should only care about the possible extinction of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef when we can prove it is definitely happening.
Good example.
Robert Tulip wrote:
facts are often not adequate to overcome the power of money.
Ya think?
Robert Tulip wrote:
Restorative justice, finding unity through forgiveness and dialogue, sees an intimate connection between truth and reconciliation, with shared acceptance of objective facts seen as having an important spiritual power for peace with justice.
That's an interesting example. I think it puts the dynamic on display - facts in a context which does not allow the requirements of caring to be blocked.
Robert Tulip wrote:
I have heard that frogs are actually smart enough to jump out of a pot when it starts to warm up, putting that popular illusion story into the class of myth.
Smarter than Americans, then.
Robert Tulip wrote:
illustrating the urgency of removing dangerous carbon from the air and sea as a global security priority. The problem is that the climate lobby claims the writing on the wall says we have to shut down fossil fuels, whereas the better science is saying we should remove carbon, and this is generating a debate about moral hazard, while the climate burns.
The logical answer is that both can be used. Not shutting down fossil fuels, but recognizing their full costs so as to shift the mix of energy sources. Which would, at the same time, recognize the full benefits of removing carbon. The climate lobby should not be opposed to geo-engineering, but can legitimately complain about relying on it alone, without giving markets any incentive to respond to diffuse costs and benefits.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Harry Marks wrote:
you are in denial about externalities
No, I am not in denial about externalities. The debate is whether carbon should be removed before or after it is added to the air. The IPCC say before, and the climate removal geoengineers say after, on the model of sanitation.
That's a false dichotomy, and both sides need to recognize it.
Robert Tulip wrote:
The externalities of random shitting are obvious, but no one says that the cure is to induce mass constipation instead of sewered toilets, which is what emission reduction equates to.
Not at all. We have used incentives to combat acid rain and have used command and control methods to block CFC manufacture, neither of which amounts to imposing undue costs to prevent externalities. Emission reduction happens quite naturally when you simply recognize the costs imposed on others and charge for them. Or, if you prefer a law saying only shit in the toilet, that works too.

Robert Tulip wrote:
You are saying that government regulation of air pollution at point of source provides the model to address climate change.
Only an engineer would say such a thing. I am saying that costs and benefits need to be properly compared to each other, and leaving externalities unregulated means we will go right on ignoring the cost. That is all. If you want to get the IPCC fixed, use the simple approach of staffing it with economists. Even Geoffrey Heal would not be so dense as to cast the whole subject of addressing external costs as "favoring point of source regulation as a model."
Robert Tulip wrote:
It requires that we physically remove the dangerous carbon, and find profitable ways to do so, preferably in cooperation with major industries such as insurance and energy.
Look, no one insists that removing toxic chemicals, e.g. from the Love Canal dump sites, be profitable. Fine if they are, but the problem is bigger than any one solution, and failing to provide market incentives is the one most likely way to make sure the problem does not get solved.

Just to make sure you don't think I am ignoring your point, let me connect the dots: the amount of carbon which needs to be removed is inversely related to the urgency with which we begin charging for the externality costs of the carbon. As a result, the chances of finding profitable methods capable of removing the necessary amounts of carbon are directly related to the urgency with which we begin charging for the externality costs of the carbon.
Robert Tulip wrote:
the goal should be a win-win answer, forgetting about emission reduction and focussing on carbon removal.
It is to find a win-win answer, which is why incentive methods are a priority to get both approaches focused on by massive industrial-scale processes.



Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:39 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
So Awesome

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1061
Thanks: 951
Thanked: 465 times in 387 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Under_Taker wrote:
I thought the mythicists crap died years ago.....Its only advocator passed away some time ago.

No, there are many vocal and highly educated advocates of mythicism. There are entire websites devoted to Christ-myth material. Robert knows way more about it than me since he is an actual mythicist of sorts, but I have seen lots of their stuff and it is far from worthless.



Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:53 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Master Debater


Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 22
Location: Southern United States
Thanks: 5
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Harry Marks wrote:
Under_Taker wrote:
I thought the mythicists crap died years ago.....Its only advocator passed away some time ago.

No, there are many vocal and highly educated advocates of mythicism. There are entire websites devoted to Christ-myth material. Robert knows way more about it than me since he is an actual mythicist of sorts, but I have seen lots of their stuff and it is far from worthless.


Good to know....I use to be on the Christ Myth train but fell off some years ago when the educated ***holes began claiming layman had no voice in the matter...That they knew nothing..I quite frankly look back at it now and realize its really a useless argument...I don't guess it really matters weather he lived or not its not going to change things either way.

When you get a 2000 year head start the way christianity has you have plenty of time to cover your lies....



The following user would like to thank Under_Taker for this post:
Robert Tulip
Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:39 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5568
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2067
Thanked: 1981 times in 1509 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Under_Taker wrote:
Harry Marks wrote:
Under_Taker wrote:
I thought the mythicists crap died years ago.....Its only advocator passed away some time ago.
No, there are many vocal and highly educated advocates of mythicism. There are entire websites devoted to Christ-myth material. Robert knows way more about it than me since he is an actual mythicist of sorts, but I have seen lots of their stuff and it is far from worthless.
Good to know....I use to be on the Christ Myth train but fell off some years ago when the educated ***holes began claiming layman had no voice in the matter...That they knew nothing..I quite frankly look back at it now and realize its really a useless argument...I don't guess it really matters weather he lived or not its not going to change things either way. When you get a 2000 year head start the way christianity has you have plenty of time to cover your lies....

Hello Undertaker, welcome to Booktalk and thank you for engaging on this thread.

What you rather indelicately term “crap” is easily the most credible scholarly explanation of Christian origins, that Jesus Christ was entirely fictional. This is not yet accepted widely, which may account for your dismissive attitude. On mythicist scholars, further to the work of the heavily marginalised Acharya S, who died far too young in 2015, you may care to read the work of Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and Kenneth Humphries, all of whom are readily accessible, although not all will share their atheist goals.

Mythicism has not yet provided a fully coherent alternative explanation of how and why Christianity emerged, although its critique of orthodoxy shows that the traditional “Christ Existence Hypothesis” is lamentably weak, and far better explained by political deception by the church than by originating from an actual single person called Jesus Christ.

On your comment about lay voice, the charge of rejecting other voices is exactly what mythicism says about the guild of theology, which assumes Jesus existed and casts any discussion of this into the outer darkness as rank heresy. As someone somewhere said, the stone the builder refused will become the head of the corner.

It matters immensely whether Jesus Christ actually lived or died. If he was made up, that tells us an immense amount about human credulity, gullibility, willingness to believe comforting fantasy, and inability to engage in rigorous analysis of facts. What John Calvin called “total depravity” in his TULIP theology is exemplified by the ability of the early Christian church to invent a historical backstory for the Son of God and have this belief foisted upon the world with such spectacular impact.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:21 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Master Debater


Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 22
Location: Southern United States
Thanks: 5
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Hi ya Robert..Thanks for the welcome..I am actually a big fan of Ken's.....I ran a forum for Ken some years ago. Carrier I don't care much for because he's one of the people that belittled layman in this issue. Earl Doherty I like his work on the issue as well. I am well aware that Acharya S passed away, she was the one I was speaking of in my first post...To me she was the leading voice in this christ myth issue.



The following user would like to thank Under_Taker for this post:
Robert Tulip
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:05 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5568
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2067
Thanked: 1981 times in 1509 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Under_Taker wrote:
Hi ya Robert..Thanks for the welcome..I am actually a big fan of Ken's.....I ran a forum for Ken some years ago. Carrier I don't care much for because he's one of the people that belittled layman in this issue. Earl Doherty I like his work on the issue as well. I am well aware that Acharya S passed away, she was the one I was speaking of in my first post...To me she was the leading voice in this christ myth issue.


We had a member called Starburst/Azrael a few years ago who your comments remind me of. Maybe just the avatar.

I broadly agree with your comments here. I worked closely with Acharya S and miss her. Carrier is very smart, but also very arrogant, lacking emotional understanding of the psychology of religion. But that is a common problem for atheists, a failure to recognise the symbolic meaning of mythology. Even so, Carrier's On The Historicity of Jesus is a brilliant book that deserves wide readership.

The belittling of laypeople is more often a charge directed at theologians who reject mythicists as uninformed.

I don't get why you are now saying you like Kenneth Humphries when in your earlier comment you described "the mythicist stuff" as "crap".


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Last edited by Robert Tulip on Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:31 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Master Debater


Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 22
Location: Southern United States
Thanks: 5
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Well I was a member here years ago and went by the name Starburst...I just re-registered because I could not recall my user name....Thanks for reminding me of it.



Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:35 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5568
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2067
Thanked: 1981 times in 1509 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Harry Marks wrote:
the "coherent vision" of Christianity recognizes that any good work is done for Christ, and that the coherent strategic vision sees such works operating like the mustard seed, starting small but generating wider and more empowering flows of compassion.
And who is Christ? The stable durable rational order of the cosmos, reflected in connection to human life as a pure ideal of love and truth.
Harry Marks wrote:
"Faith" in NT usage should be seen as "trust" and "faithfulness" and as such, does not really function as a coherent strategic vision.
That separation between faith and coherence is a contestable assertion. Jesus pointed to a coherent strategic vision when he told Pilate he was a martyr for truth. The subsequent Christian religion lost coherence, by taking symbolic ideas as literal. The underlying coherence can be restored by seeing symbol as symbol, not as fact.
Harry Marks wrote:
The triumph of markets over central planning was a gradual, long-haul response to incentives. That is the kind of thorough-going, comprehensive response we need to GHG's.
An incentive-based approach to climate change is too slow. The melting of the Arctic, and the death of the Great Barrier Reef, to take just two extreme risks, have feedback loops that become impossible to reverse as they get worse. I just read a book called Fighting Cancer. It makes the excellent point that any delay only means the cancer will get worse. The same applies to global warming, the urgent need is to apply all resources to remove dangerous carbon before the cancer kills us.
Harry Marks wrote:
Even if all your favorite notions of the effect of sea-life cultivation were to prove out, the Malthusian process of unregulated GHG production is still capable of overwhelming that removal.
No, that “Malthusian” spectre of exponential growth in greenhouse gasses is entirely false. Humans add ten cubic kilometres of carbon to the air every year, and any change to that amount will be arithmetical, not geometric. Marine carbon removal can aim to remove twenty cubic kilometres of carbon per year, double total emissions, so the ‘overwhelming’ can be in the reverse direction from your claim, with removal overwhelming emissions. But if we just concentrate on reducing emissions we will fail, since that is only a marginal approach, addressing less than one cubic kilometre of carbon per year, that ignores the main task of research, development and deployment of carbon removal technology.
Harry Marks wrote:
I grant you that humanity faces an emergency, and even that it may take more than just government action to create market-like incentives against GHG emissions, but refusing to use both approaches (private innovation and incentives against external costs) is almost as foolish as refusing to use either one.
My attitude is not “refusing” incentives, as I actually welcome them to some extent as a helpful adjunct to carbon removal, serving to shift the tax burden to more effective economic and environmental objectives.

But incentives for emission reduction are only incidental to addressing climate change. What is needed is a Manhattan Project scale of deliberate intervention, testing large scale practical methods to restore the climate to Holocene stability. We are too close to the edge to mess around with incidental methods, which are like imagining meditation can cure cancer.
Harry Marks wrote:
If our ego, or consciously aware thinking mind, is constituted by objectivity, that is if it is committed as a matter of self-protection to the illusion that mattering is objective, then it will suffer by attachment.
Believing that “mattering is objective” need not be an illusory source of suffering.

To construct a moral position as an objective matter of good or evil is often the only way to inspire social momentum. The uncertainty involved in an advocate of a position saying “I might be wrong” displays a lack of faith, confidence and trust, destroying prospects of cohesion.

Analysis of global warming provides a factual case study on this theoretical problem for philosophy and religion of the relation between objectivity, values and detachment. Climate science indicates that the Arctic will melt and the world’s coral reefs will largely die in our lifetimes, generating irreversible damaging impacts. Such predictions need to be treated with proper scientific caution given errors in past predictions about sea level rise and warming.

However, such claims of objective knowledge, when they are backed by strong science, are far from being a source of delusion and suffering. Scientific certainty can serve as a mobilising incentive by claiming that the evidence is objectively important. Such certainty can be open to falsification, but that is not the same as accepting doubt about central abundantly verified observations.

The idea that we could be detached from the collapsing climate system that sustains us is a great delusion, constructing an alienated fantasy world separate from nature. Such detachment produces inevitable suffering. Failure to respond to objective evidence is a dangerous relativising result of the attitude that mattering is only subjective. “Its only your opinion” is a great excuse for inaction.

But that detachment is what happens when we say that the claim ‘mattering is objective’ always involves ego-based delusion. That attitude of detachment means there can be no objective values. Rejecting objectivity in values sits uncomfortably close to nihilism, the belief that nothing matters, and to relativism, the belief that values cannot be objectively ranked.

We can consider that set of ideas – objectivity, nihilism and relativism - against what I have argued is a fundamental moral axiom, that human flourishing is good. Some might say that the claim 'human flourishing is good' can only seem objective to those deluded by attachment. At one level, rejecting objectivity in values may seem to reflect a serene detachment. But at another level, detachment involves an assertion that it does not matter to the universe if humans continue to exist. While that might seem to have an austere logic, it also involves a failure to care. Against the argument that we cannot be logically certain either way if it ultimately matters if humans go extinct, we can say that accepting doubt on such a fundamental moral concern can only reflect an inhuman lack of existential commitment and care.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
Litwitlou
Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:29 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
So Awesome

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1061
Thanks: 951
Thanked: 465 times in 387 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Robert Tulip wrote:
And who is Christ? The stable durable rational order of the cosmos, reflected in connection to human life as a pure ideal of love and truth.

Yes, I recognize that the cosmic significance (which we historicists see as having evolved from his martyrdom) operates to some extent independently of any particular historical events and choices. That is what we call "transcendence". One of my first reactions, on hearing a good faith, reasonable presentation of mythicism, was that in my view the mythological significance is what really mattered, so that to a great extent it doesn't matter to me whether Jesus really lived and died. My interest in that part is mainly intellectual.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Harry Marks wrote:
The triumph of markets over central planning was a gradual, long-haul response to incentives. That is the kind of thorough-going, comprehensive response we need to GHG's.
An incentive-based approach to climate change is too slow. The melting of the Arctic, and the death of the Great Barrier Reef, to take just two extreme risks, have feedback loops that become impossible to reverse as they get worse.
Well, I tend to agree with you. I was aware of an urgent deadline by the time of the woefully inadequate Kyoto Protocol, and if I remember right the point at which the ice caps would probably be safe without removing carbon from the atmosphere was passed by about 2005, before China really got revved up. And that was before anyone had really measured the amount of methane being released by permafrost melting.

On the other hand, free markets without incentives to improve are as inexorable as, well, a glacier melting.

Robert Tulip wrote:
any delay only means the cancer will get worse. The same applies to global warming, the urgent need is to apply all resources to remove dangerous carbon before the cancer kills us.

Robert Tulip wrote:
Harry Marks wrote:
Even if all your favorite notions of the effect of sea-life cultivation were to prove out, the Malthusian process of unregulated GHG production is still capable of overwhelming that removal.
No, that “Malthusian” spectre of exponential growth in greenhouse gasses is entirely false. Humans add ten cubic kilometres of carbon to the air every year, and any change to that amount will be arithmetical, not geometric.
I beg to differ. First, because even arithmetic growth can turn that 10 into 20 before many decades pass - the increase in automobile use in the last 20 years in India and China, for example, is expected to continue apace for a tripling of auto use in 10 years. And second, because experience suggests that economic variables continue to grow exponentially even when growth slows due to market saturation. We are now talking about being able to send our own private driverless car to the market, where they would put our order of groceries in and send it back. Do you really think that the historical pattern of exponential growth will slow without any signals to do so from the market? Well, you answered below that you are fine with incentives, so hopefully we will not find out.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Marine carbon removal can aim to remove twenty cubic kilometres of carbon per year, double total emissions, so the ‘overwhelming’ can be in the reverse direction from your claim, with removal overwhelming emissions.
Well, I certainly hope that it does.
Robert Tulip wrote:
But if we just concentrate on reducing emissions we will fail, since that is only a marginal approach, addressing less than one cubic kilometre of carbon per year, that ignores the main task of research, development and deployment of carbon removal technology.
I think the policy community is moving toward acceptance of the need for negative emissions technology, even if the IPCC is not yet on board.
Robert Tulip wrote:
My attitude is not “refusing” incentives, as I actually welcome them to some extent as a helpful adjunct to carbon removal, serving to shift the tax burden to more effective economic and environmental objectives.

But incentives for emission reduction are only incidental to addressing climate change. What is needed is a Manhattan Project scale of deliberate intervention, testing large scale practical methods to restore the climate to Holocene stability. We are too close to the edge to mess around with incidental methods, which are like imagining meditation can cure cancer.
I promise you that robust anti-GHG incentives would rapidly accelerate both public and private interest in the crash R&D program you advocate, and make its point of demonstrable practicality arrive much sooner than simply arguing before boards and committees. There are investors willing to pay for space launches, of all things, which have much less prospect for earning returns than would carbon-removal with earnings from payments for carbon-saving.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Harry Marks wrote:
If our ego, or consciously aware thinking mind, is constituted by objectivity, that is if it is committed as a matter of self-protection to the illusion that mattering is objective, then it will suffer by attachment.
Believing that “mattering is objective” need not be an illusory source of suffering.
To construct a moral position as an objective matter of good or evil is often the only way to inspire social momentum. The uncertainty involved in an advocate of a position saying “I might be wrong” displays a lack of faith, confidence and trust, destroying prospects of cohesion.
It's an interesting quandary, this notion of refusing to admit the possible flaws in one's argument as a rhetorical strategy. Reminds me of the Grand Inquisitor in the Brothers Karamazov. I won't get started on all the others it reminds me of.

Look, in matters of morality the first step is always agreement that morality is the goal. As long as people are in "well, how much will it cost me?" mode, they are suffering from attachment (and begging to be deceived and manipulated).

That's not to say that moral issues never admit cost-benefit calculation as part of the decision process. As you are no doubt aware there are many economists (I mentioned Geoffrey Heal in an earlier post - he is the standard bearer for this argument) who still maintain that the costs of adjusting GHG levels now are bigger than the (discounted) damages down the road of inundating all the world's coasts. Essentially this is an argument that investing the money now can create so much future value that the world can well afford to relocate a quarter of humanity, with their fixed capital, out of the proceeds, and that the biodiversity losses, etc. can't possibly matter enough economically to outweigh adding 15% to people's living costs (i.e. recognizing the costs of that magnitude that they are inflicting without paying for it).

Personally I think this is a serious distortion of the actual cost-benefit calculation, and will lead to some interesting modifications in economic analysis. But for the moment I just want to make the point that moral conclusions do not have to be independent of practicalities to be aimed at answering the moral question (as opposed to a merely practical one.)

Secondly, there is a kind of suffering that remains invisible because it occurs by the refusal to admit the reality of one's situation. Refusing to acknowledge one's mortality is the classic example - the person in that situation will still suffer from the knowledge of mortality, but by refusing to admit it will decrease the overt experience of suffering while increasing the pervasive anxiety that leads to so many other problems. People who refuse to come to grips with the things that are bothering them inevitably inflict pain on others, not just themselves.

Robert Tulip wrote:
Analysis of global warming provides a factual case study on this theoretical problem for philosophy and religion of the relation between objectivity, values and detachment. Climate science indicates that the Arctic will melt and the world’s coral reefs will largely die in our lifetimes, generating irreversible damaging impacts. Such predictions need to be treated with proper scientific caution given errors in past predictions about sea level rise and warming.

However, such claims of objective knowledge, when they are backed by strong science, are far from being a source of delusion and suffering. Scientific certainty can serve as a mobilising incentive by claiming that the evidence is objectively important. Such certainty can be open to falsification, but that is not the same as accepting doubt about central abundantly verified observations.
Well, the issue I was commenting on is very different. I think we can both agree that science needs to be properly circumspect about its analysis, pointing out both the chances that the risk is much larger and the chances that the risk is much less, and explaining the basis for these estimates of probabilities.

The issue I was commenting on is whether things that we think matter, like whether life has meaning, or whether we care about the inundation of Miami, New York City, London, Amsterdam, Venice, Bangkok, Kolkat and all the rest, are "objective" values about which there can be no meaningful dissent. If a person says, "I am going to die in a year and I don't care about anything that happens beyond that," there is no objective refutation for it. To imagine that there is is to invite the suffering of denial: to deliberately play "let's pretend" and then face the psychological costs of such a fantasy. Among other costs is the damage to myself of saying I can retreat in my rightness and ignore the consequences of not engaging to persuade such a person.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Failure to respond to objective evidence is a dangerous relativising result of the attitude that mattering is only subjective. “Its only your opinion” is a great excuse for inaction.
Well, a person heaps moral guilt upon themselves when they take such excuses to avoid serious engagement with the consequences. There are signs at demonstrations around the country in the U.S. now, saying, "Hey, hey, NRA, how many kids did you kill today?" The NRA might have taken a decision not to care about the morality, but they can't change it.

And likewise, we can't change the fact that there is a subjective process in deciding on what matters, and that we cannot get closer and closer to an accurate model of the "truth" about what matters by simply knowing more about the workings of the world.

I agree that moral relativism is mainly an attitude adopted for rhetorical purposes of covering the evasion of responsibility. I am not averse to engaging relativists in persuasively oriented discussion. But what is added to the persuasion with a claim of the objectivity of the values involved? I can tell our "I will be dead in a year" person that they should care, and explain my reasons why, but they still may not be persuaded and no objective claim of the should will change that.

Robert Tulip wrote:
But that detachment is what happens when we say that the claim ‘mattering is objective’ always involves ego-based delusion. That attitude of detachment means there can be no objective values. Rejecting objectivity in values sits uncomfortably close to nihilism, the belief that nothing matters, and to relativism, the belief that values cannot be objectively ranked.
My claim is that the epistemology of moral truths is fundamentally connected to subjectivity. I believe there are objective wrongs, in the sense that the meaning of the term implies the wrongness of some acts, but that there are many undecidable propositions within the process of trying to find the right or best path. As a corollary, the discomfort of sitting uncomfortably close to nihilism and rationalization by claims of relativism is just part of being honest to ourselves about the process.

Robert Tulip wrote:
We can consider that set of ideas – objectivity, nihilism and relativism - against what I have argued is a fundamental moral axiom, that human flourishing is good. Some might say that the claim 'human flourishing is good' can only seem objective to those deluded by attachment. At one level, rejecting objectivity in values may seem to reflect a serene detachment. But at another level, detachment involves an assertion that it does not matter to the universe if humans continue to exist. While that might seem to have an austere logic, it also involves a failure to care. Against the argument that we cannot be logically certain either way if it ultimately matters if humans go extinct, we can say that accepting doubt on such a fundamental moral concern can only reflect an inhuman lack of existential commitment and care.
One doesn't reject objectivity in values, one merely accepts its absence. The persuasiveness of "human flourishing is good" does not rest on its intrinsic, verifiable correspondence to an external, objective nature. Rather, its persuasiveness grows out of the failure to care which is involved if one says, "What is that to me?" in response to it. Because others do care, they can be persuaded to focus on that and its implications. Their nihilism or rationalization is at odds with their own caring, and the persuasion rests on a process of appealing to that.

Needless to say, appealing to people's caring, to enlist them in a common project of doing something about the things that matter, requires first that they can find a way to step out of the mode of treating others as instruments of their own selfishness. They have to overcome their fear (of being taken advantage of, for example) to access their caring.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
Litwitlou
Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:16 am
Profile Email
Intern

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 152
Location: New Jersey
Thanks: 57
Thanked: 63 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Robert Tulip wrote:

But incentives for emission reduction are only incidental to addressing climate change. What is needed is a Manhattan Project scale of deliberate intervention, testing large scale practical methods to restore the climate to Holocene stability. We are too close to the edge to mess around with incidental methods, which are like imagining meditation can cure cancer.


Speaking of the Manhattan Project, Roosevelt established the Briggs Advisory Committee (forerunner of the Manhattan Project) in response to Einstein's letter about the possibilities of
atomic bomb production using uranium. And stating that Germany might well be studying practical methods of creating such a bomb.

Why do I hear so little from today's scientific community concerning climate change? Should our scientists not be up in arms about this clear and present danger? I know they've warned us and written books and papers about it, but I think this is not enough. They need to change the perception, still held by many, that we have no climate change problem, that is merely a leftist scare tactic. They really need to get it in gear on this issue (IMHO).


_________________
Hate has no home here.


Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:56 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
So Awesome

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1061
Thanks: 951
Thanked: 465 times in 387 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Litwitlou wrote:
Should our scientists not be up in arms about this clear and present danger? I know they've warned us and written books and papers about it, but I think this is not enough.

I think scientists have done what they can in the way of advocacy. Not that they have stopped or will stop, but it is time for a different approach. Citizen's Climate Lobby is on the cutting edge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/opin ... .html?_r=0



Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:54 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5568
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2067
Thanked: 1981 times in 1509 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Religion and philosophy
Harry Marks wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
And who is Christ? The stable durable rational order of the cosmos, reflected in connection to human life as a pure ideal of love and truth.

Yes, I recognize that the cosmic significance (which we historicists see as having evolved from his martyrdom) operates to some extent independently of any particular historical events and choices. That is what we call "transcendence".
Hello Harry, I got somewhat overwhelmed by this discussion and other things, so am just returning to your last substantive comment here.

The nature of Jesus Christ is a central question for the overall problem of the relation between religion and philosophy. Liberal Christians today reject the miraculous and often say that what the Bible stories mean for us today in moral terms is more important than what really happened. So stories of the holy birth and the passion function as parables, as moral lessons about the meaning of existence.

That means the cosmic significance of Jesus Christ, which is where any ultimate meaning resides, is all about how we imagine Jesus connects us to God, or in Jung’s terms, to an ultimate archetypal reality of the collective unconscious. This theme you raise of transcendence is central to the meaning of Jesus for the world, in raising the problem of how our world deals with absolute truth.

The assertion of the Gospels is that the world responds to truth with denial, based on the story of the cross, but then truth asserts its priority, as expressed in the story of resurrection.
Harry Marks wrote:
One of my first reactions, on hearing a good faith, reasonable presentation of mythicism, was that in my view the mythological significance is what really mattered, so that to a great extent it doesn't matter to me whether Jesus really lived and died. My interest in that part is mainly intellectual.
Some intellectual points of interest about the existence of Jesus:
There is no more real evidence for Jesus than for Adam, Noah, Abraham or Moses. Given how cultural beliefs have shifted to accept that these patriarchs are basically fictional, the template was in place in ancient Israel for the invention of characters who were widely believed to be real. For all these major figures from the Bible, one of their central mythological attributes was historical existence. Like Jesus, the myth was the claim that they actually existed historically, even though they didn’t.

If Jesus was real, it is unbelievable that neither Philo nor Josephus nor anyone else noticed enough to write him up, until Mark decades later, who is the only source for the whole Nazareth and Jerusalem and Pilate setting. The lines in Josephus about Jesus were only added in the fourth century when their absence appeared too embarrassing. If Jesus was real then Josephus would have covered him in much more depth, in view of his obvious significance in Jewish history, and Josephus would not have used anachronistic fourth century language to do so.

Paul says almost nothing to place Jesus in space or time, and his epistles make much more sense against the invention hypothesis.

If in fact Jesus Christ is a fictional character, how is it possible that he came to be venerated by Christians as the greatest man in history? The reason is we need a psychological connection to the absolute, and the belief in the existence of Jesus provides this connection, with the comforting message that belief will confer eternal life.

One of the greatest modern philosophers of religion, Voltaire, said if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. The same applies to Jesus Christ, that if he did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.

Jesus anthropomorphised the religious functions hitherto attributed to the sun, such as providing light, life, power, stability and glory, and enabling shared mythology in the Common Era.

The Greek and Hebrew versions of the prophet Amos combine at verse 4:13 to define Christ as the mind of God. So the existence of a Christ had been on the mind of the Jews for the eight centuries between Amos and Christ’s alleged advent, or at least since the Greek translation of Amos from Hebrew. Carl Jung argues in Answer to Job that the function of Jesus was to make God conscious.
Harry Marks wrote:
It's an interesting quandary, this notion of refusing to admit the possible flaws in one's argument as a rhetorical strategy.
Jumping now to the related discussion of how these themes in religion and philosophy impact on political, economic and moral issues around climate change.

The sad reality of politics is that as soon as a partisan expressed doubt about the cause, their ability to function as a public advocate is compromised. Faking certainty is central to political success.

Napoleon’s advice to never admit mistakes, to never retract or retreat in politics, is unfortunately central to the practical activity of building mass movements, since followers easily lose faith in leaders who appear weak or uncertain.

That problem of popular leadership is a big part of why the literal historical story of the Gospel, with its simple truths, defeated the complex philosophy of Gnosticism in the ancient world.

The same psychology applies today to climate change. Polarisation means people must express certainty about their beliefs. The transference of the actual certainty of global warming to an equal certainty about the strategy of emission reduction is a dangerous modern myth driven by the Napoleon Syndrome.
Harry Marks wrote:
many economists maintain that the costs of adjusting GHG levels now [by cutting CO2] are bigger than the (discounted) damages down the road of inundating all the world's coasts. Personally I think this is a serious distortion of the actual cost-benefit calculation, and will lead to some interesting modifications in economic analysis.
With all due respect, that discounting argument about climate risk is moronic and corrupt. It is a main area in which I differ from Lomborg. The problem of climate change is all about risk, but the idea that we can quantify those risks accurately is incredibly stupid.

For example, as I mentioned earlier, a repeat of the Permian Great Dying due to change to ocean currents looks to be a low risk, but if it occurred it would be utterly catastrophic in impact, making the sanguine calculations of economists about coping with higher seas incredibly foolish.

The precautionary principle means that we should look at all the high impact-low likelihood scenarios like the Permian Dying, such as outgassing of Arctic methane, melting of Antarctic glaciers, albedo feedbacks, etc, as a basis to move immediately to remove the dangerous carbon from the air. And even higher seas could have unforeseen impacts on conflict beyond the economic calculations.

Preventing these risks is the only sane course. Inaction leaves the world in a situation like the tarot fool dawdling on the edge of the precipice while the wise dog tells him to wake up.
Attachment:
Climate Fool.png
Climate Fool.png [ 150.94 KiB | Viewed 768 times ]
Harry Marks wrote:
People who refuse to come to grips with the things that are bothering them inevitably inflict pain on others, not just themselves.
That is a key principle of Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths are pain, its cause, end and removal. Buddhism teaches that the cause of pain and suffering and stress for the self and others is delusional attachment and desire.
Harry Marks wrote:
science needs to be properly circumspect about its analysis, pointing out both the chances that the risk is much larger and the chances that the risk is much less, and explaining the basis for these estimates of probabilities.
Yet with climate change, given the politics, critics will leap on any admission of doubt or error, despite the complexity, just in order to sow public confusion and delay action. That method of promoting uncertainty, using the meme that ‘the jury is out’, comes straight from the nicotine poisoner's playbook.

Advocates of climate action respond by presenting the case for emission reduction in simplistic polarised terms on the popular front model, in response to the monolithic partisan attack. Unfortunately that simplification of debate is fertile ground for myths, which can even infest science, crowding out space for the cooperation across enemy lines that is needed to stop global warming.
Harry Marks wrote:
whether things that we think matter… are "objective" values about which there can be no meaningful dissent.
The view that humans should go extinct in order to save the planet is an example of what many would consider meaningless dissent. If that view is an unstated corollary or implication of other views, then those views become equally meaningless. It illustrates that any claim of objectivity in values rests on axioms, in this case the axiom that human existence is good.

Whether emission reduction alone could prevent dangerous warming is a different sort of question, primarily a matter of scientific probability, not values, although the value proposition that fossil fuel extraction should stop tends to turn advocacy of emission reduction into a moral crusade rather than a question of scientific facts.
Harry Marks wrote:
If a person says, "I am going to die in a year and I don't care about anything that happens beyond that," there is no objective refutation for it. To imagine that there is is to invite the suffering of denial: to deliberately play "let's pretend" and then face the psychological costs of such a fantasy. Among other costs is the damage to myself of saying I can retreat in my rightness and ignore the consequences of not engaging to persuade such a person.
That is actually a really complex psychological problem. If a pathologist says to you, “just keep smoking, your results show you will die anyway so you might as well enjoy yourself”, then the prophecy of death in a year becomes self-fulfilling, snuffing out even a small chance of life.

The placebo effect of faith is central to healing. Only people with an attitude of focus on recovery actually tend to recover, while people who want to die tend to die.

Framing an expectation of death against “objective refutation” is the wrong way to see this problem. We cannot know when we will die, and the quality of our remaining time is a function of attitude. This role of attitude in health also illustrates the healing power of faith and prayer, not as a cause of miraculous intervention, but as a focusing of deliberate intention of mind in a positive direction.
Harry Marks wrote:
we can't change the fact that there is a subjective process in deciding on what matters, and that we cannot get closer and closer to an accurate model of the "truth" about what matters by simply knowing more about the workings of the world.
That claim assumes the truth of the positivist beliefs that we can never derive an ought from an is, and that values cannot be based on facts. And yet, continuing with the example of climate change, if a scientific model were universally accepted by experts as showing that four degrees of warming would cause ten metres of sea level rise and stop the main ocean currents this century, then saying this knowledge of the workings of the world does not get us any close to the truth about what matters seems an overly academic theory.

Here is an example from the Second World War. Stalin held that knowledge of German troop movements in mid-1941 did not shift his ‘model of the truth about what matters’, which was based on his agreement with Hitler. No wonder Stalin went into such a funk of betrayal and despair and gloom when Operation Barbarossa started and his faith and trust were shown to be empty.
Harry Marks wrote:
moral relativism is mainly an attitude adopted for rhetorical purposes of covering the evasion of responsibility.
Really? I see relativism as more an expression of post-colonial guilt, an emotional self-hatred by westerners who feel politically obliged to reject any assertion of western superiority over other cultures.
Harry Marks wrote:
I am not averse to engaging relativists in persuasively oriented discussion. But what is added to the persuasion with a claim of the objectivity of the values involved? I can tell our "I will be dead in a year" person that they should care, and explain my reasons why, but they still may not be persuaded and no objective claim of the should will change that.
Back to the example of the person who would like to see humans go extinct. What happens in practice with such views is they encounter widespread public repugnance. So the philosophical argument about objectivity is subsumed beneath realities of generally held sentiment.

And you might be surprised by the value of talk in stopping people from killing themselves. Often suicidal ideation is a cry for help from people who feel that nobody cares about them, and it can be cured by pastoral attention from friends and family.
Harry Marks wrote:
The persuasiveness of "human flourishing is good" does not rest on its intrinsic, verifiable correspondence to an external, objective nature. Rather, its persuasiveness grows out of the failure to care which is involved if one says, "What is that to me?" in response to it. Because others do care, they can be persuaded to focus on that and its implications. Their nihilism or rationalization is at odds with their own caring, and the persuasion rests on a process of appealing to that.
Here we see that care is an intrinsically relational activity, and the emotional connection arising from care is morally prior to any merely intellectual theory about what is good. We only get a sense of what is good from the intuitive emotional values arising from relationships of care.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:42 am
Profile Email WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm

• What's next on our Short Story menu?
Mon May 22, 2017 8:29 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2018. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank