Richard Dawkins says trans activists 'bullied' JK Rowling for standing up for women's rights

John Gray's 'seven types of atheism' seems like it might be relevant here, if slightly tangential.

https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/seven-types-of-atheism-book-review

This is such an interesting discussion.

Stream of consciousness warning! (Just off to work so wanting to quickly add this to come back to later)

I am interested in thinking about love, belief, faith in terms of whether they are active or passive. Felt or chosen.
There is falling in love- as passive- something out of our control. always biological? And attachment bonding with our children and family. And then there is active love- or loving as work.
In a long term relationship, when the passion has dissipated, or with parenting, (or any kind of close relationship really) we have to extend ourselves- to be loving even if we are not passively feeling it. In effect then, there is a conscious choice to love.

I've heard theologians talk about faith in the same way- that it can sometimes be an active choice to have faith- rather than the passive experience of feeling it innately, or having the experience of being called. So, some could choose to believe in God or Jesus, or any religious idea or entity, and to live 'as if' it is true- as a valid form of faith.

Similar to in therapy; where people are sometimes encouraged to practicing behaviours from an 'as if' place.

So, to what extent are beliefs passive or active, chosen or felt?

I'm pointing out that the fact that a belief is unprovable metaphysics doesn't automatically make it wrong, unlikely to exist, or an unreasonable belief.

Not sure you chose the best example tbh,
Scientists of course tend to work on disprovability rather than provability - and your example of the world only existing inside my consciousness may not be formally disprovable but it's extremely unlikely and unreasonable.

https://mobile.twitter.com/claireainsworth/status/888365994577735680?lang=zh

Going back to the nature article, the person who wrote it thinks there are only two sexes.

I mean world outside of your field of consciousness, which virtually everyone believes in, but which is an unprovable metaphysical belief.

I don’t think this is the same kind of “belief” as having belief in a deity. It doesn’t involve any mental gymnastics or convoluted reasoning. People just operate as though the world is there, and their experience proves them right.
Also, we have lots of evidence of the world we don’t have immediate experience of, such as over the horizon or under the ground, if that’s what you mean, so that world is not unprovable at all. Unless you don’t believe in the existence of anyone or anything outwith your own consciousness, which is a bit silly.

I suspect that many non-binary people are experiencing the same thing as GC women, in that they don't "feel" they have a gender identity/identify strongly with gender stereotypes.

But instead of extrapolating that as a common experience shared by the majority of people who are not trans (or everyone) they are working within the mental framework they have been taught by their friends/stonewalled schools/social media. That everyone has a gender identity so if they don't experience one then they must have an extra special hard to feel one like non-binary.

It's interesting that it a (mis) understanding or reinterpretation of how other people experience the world that could define someone rather than their own lived experience (of say being gender non conforming) that impacts how they perceive themselves.

I am finding the religious and philosophical arguments interesting to read.

The discussion about love has made me think about something I have always found interesting which is that when looking at the behaviour of animals, especially mammals the idea of interpreting them as having emotions and intelligence has often been seen as anthropomorphic/unscientific/naive.

That we ought to start from the assumption that they do not and prove each aspect such as having the same hormones etc as humans. As if animals are a completely separate thing from humans. And nature documentaries describe animals as doing things as survival/reproduction machines that react to sensory input. Like that is why the animal is doing something, rather than because they love their young but what else would the mechanism be? How else did we develop it?

We are animals too, and if you set aside idea of us being apart from the animal kingdom a la God/s then surely it shouldn't be a surprise to us that mammals at least have emotional individual experiences of the world. As indeed science continues to discover things like animals having cultures and complex social relationships.

Sorry, rambling now, but the discussion on how we experience the "outside" world and rationalise things based upon our limited sensory inputs reminded me of how we see animals from the outside rather than assume some degree of commonality with our internal experiences.

I was reading a piece by a young person who described themself as gender neutral and how all of us who feel that sex is binary have it all wrong. The idiot/non binary 'them' was waffling on and on and I realised how they tangled themselves in knots trying to categorise everyone. There are so many different genders apparently, I think even those that go along with the rubbish confuse themselves.

I’m not sure that I “believe” in mind. I do “believe” in the material world, though I have no idea of how my mind (if it exists) interacts with it, other than being a manifestation/reflection of my brain processes as part of my body processes within the material world.

Depends what you mean by a 'world outside of mind'. We can certainly test for anything unknown to us but existing in the real world. We can test for our ability to see the world as it is. https://neurosciencenews.com/philosophy-see-world-16511/

There are experiments regarding both th way we experience the outside world and regarding the extent to which we have free will. They are part of the purview of science. The existence and nature of anything you could describe as god isn't subject to experimental verification.

I believe my wife loves me. I can’t prove it. I don’t ask her to prove it. Likewise with God?

But she tangibly exists, and provably does things which are consistent with her loving you. The same doesn't apply to gods.

I believe my wife loves me. I can’t prove it. I don’t ask her to prove it. Likewise with God?

Only some religions suggest anything about 'god/s' is about 'love'.

Yes it would, because love is a real thing. I never said it wasn't.

However my partner could be tested to see if my love is reciprocated, the same can't be said for any god.

I swear it's a government plot to keep us confused. <eye twitches>

If that's true of any love, then love of God would turn up there, too.

I'm sure it can be rationalised fwiw. Reproduction, mainly.

*based on a rational belief

Love is a feeling or emotion that has a big basis in the physical as well. Brain scans can measure the different patterns when people think about their loved ones, hormones can be measured.

That's measuring the effect of love on physiology. I'm talking about whether the reason for feeling love is a rational belief.

But as I said, no coffee as yet.

I know you have dialed it back, but this is a common one that some religious people use to suggest that people who don't believe in a god are just as irrational as they are.

Love is a feeling or emotion that has a big basis in the physical as well. Brain scans can measure the different patterns when people think about their loved ones, hormones can be measured.

It really isn't the argument some people think it is.

I suppose it could be argued that belief that your partner loves you may be a faith position, however I would disagree. You have a real live person telling you they love you and acting in a loving way.