Simon Paynton

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Simon, the problem with JD Vance isn’t that he “respects” his wife’s atheism — it’s that he doesn’t respect her Hinduism. He’s implying she’s an atheist simply because she isn’t a Christian, which is a rather offensive way to erase a faith practiced by hundreds of millions in India. It’s disingenuous.

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
What you’re describing isn’t moral realism but moral function: why we act morally, not whether morality exists as some external reality.

Thanks @Reg, that’s it in a nutshell.  Talking about morality is like talking about the middle east – the answer is always complicated.  The remit was to figure out morality so th…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
People on social media are very vexed indeed.

JD Vance respects his wife’s atheism.  That’s good.  But they bring up their kids as Christians.  Surely the kids should be allowed to make their own minds up.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Simon, you are still redefining “faith” to make it appear intellectually respectable. You are using the religious version, which explicitly praises belief without evidence, and you are stretching it to also mean rational expectations grounded in observation.

Yet, any day of the week, faith has a dual meaning of rel…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Simon, I think you are trying to rescue the word “faith” by redefining it. You are taking a specifically religious term that means believing in something without sufficient evidence and trying to stretch it until it becomes a synonym for “hope” or “general trust in life.” It sounds warm but it is sleight of hand.

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
The nonreligious might not be as spiritual as was assumed which helps counter the narrative that the non-religious need some form of spirituality (whatever that is). I know hundreds of atheists and not one has ever mentioned being ‘spiritual’.

If nearly half of the nonreligious report high life satisfaction, the bel…

[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
As though a lack of ideological diversity isn’t the sine qua non of indoctrination! As though that lack of ideological diversity isn’t in part a reflection of show me the money.

I think that progressive values have a momentum of their own, especially with the young.  The human race has a doctrine of helping the needy and vuln…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
The problem in colleges isn’t indoctrination. It’s a lack of ideological diversity.

The right seems to be on a mission to expose universities as centers of leftist indoctrination. Too often we professors waved away the charge. We called these assertions naive at best, Trumpy at worst. Students, we rightly noted, are…

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
It sounds plausible, even scientific, but it doesn’t predict, measure, or model anything.

But surely the behaviour of flocks of birds – organisation – emerges from the behaviour of single birds, following a few simple behavioural rules, and the organised behaviour of ant colonies emerge from ants, which have a l…[Read more]

@Reg – I can view the link, but there’s no “youtube” image on the AZ page.

No

Will it work if you Share it?  https://youtube.com/shorts/lVpaaTCAetw?si=_gv1RpU3rNqNubvC

Unseen wrote:
The “cafeteria Christian” picks and chooses what to believe. The problem is that there is actual scripture.

The problem is, there’s “something for everyone” in the scripture.  God is both vengeful and merciful.  Now, in real life, that is what is required to enforce proper behaviour.  It’s just that some people love the “venge…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
One embodies an irrational belief with no need to support it in any way

I think there’s more to it than that.  Religious people usually have a strong “conscience” – whether that means humble self-guidance on one hand, or entitled, authoritarian meddling in the affairs of the rest of us, on the other extreme.  They have strongly h…[Read more]

TheEncogitationer wrote:
You do bring up a great point, albeit in a different thread. What is meant by “good faith” and “bad faith?”. And how can you tell who has which?

That is a good point.  I think that good faith debate follows the charitable rules of fair play and doesn’t use underhand or aggressive tactics to try to win an argument…[Read more]