As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/america-politics-religion/618072/
817 comments
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Not all secular beliefs are ideologies. I think there are two key common factors between religious beliefs and ideologies that call themselves "secular":
First, people don't acquire the beliefs by considering and weighing evidence; they acquire them by being told them, usually at a young age, by people they trust, and making them part of their identity. That's why people are so resistant to changing such beliefs.
Second, the set of beliefs acquired in this way is not just a few isolated ones, but a whole network of beliefs that cover every aspect of life and are all asserted as justification for each other in what amounts to a logical circle. That's why it's so hard to penetrate such a belief system and get people to doubt it, even if it flies in the face of easily obtainable evidence.
Not all secular beliefs are ideologies. I think there are two key common factors between religious beliefs and ideologies that call themselves "secular":
First, people don't acquire the beliefs by considering and weighing evidence; they acquire them by being told them, usually at a young age, by people they trust, and making them part of their identity. That's why people are so resistant to changing such beliefs.
Second, the set of beliefs acquired in this way is not just a few isolated ones, but a whole network of beliefs that cover every aspect of life and are all asserted as justification for each other in what amounts to a logical circle. That's why it's so hard to penetrate such a belief system and get people to doubt it, even if it flies in the face of easily obtainable evidence.
Let’s be honest, most people don’t have the time to weigh the evidence of say 90% of their beliefs. They go to school & watch television, and generally adopt the beliefs of their surroundings.
And believing that religious believers accept 100% of religious belief without reasoning about them is a misunderstanding.
And believing that religious believers accept 100% of religious belief without reasoning about them is a misunderstanding.
> believing that religious believers accept 100% of religious belief without reasoning about them is a misunderstanding.
I didn't say anything about religions and ideologies not using reasoning. Anyone who has read, say, Thomas Aquinas is perfectly aware that religious people can use all kinds of complicated reasoning to justify their beliefs.
What I did say is that the set of beliefs in question are "all asserted as justification for each other in what amounts to a logical circle". For example, Thomas Aquinas spent a lot of time building up a huge edifice of interlocking propositions about God, all logically related to each other--but they don't connect to anything else. They're just a free-standing, self-consistent logical structure that can't be justified in any way except by claiming that it justifies itself. It's not that Aquinas didn't use reasoning; as noted above, he did--lots of it.
I didn't say anything about religions and ideologies not using reasoning. Anyone who has read, say, Thomas Aquinas is perfectly aware that religious people can use all kinds of complicated reasoning to justify their beliefs.
What I did say is that the set of beliefs in question are "all asserted as justification for each other in what amounts to a logical circle". For example, Thomas Aquinas spent a lot of time building up a huge edifice of interlocking propositions about God, all logically related to each other--but they don't connect to anything else. They're just a free-standing, self-consistent logical structure that can't be justified in any way except by claiming that it justifies itself. It's not that Aquinas didn't use reasoning; as noted above, he did--lots of it.
“ They're just a free-standing, self-consistent logical structure that can't be justified in any way except by claiming that it justifies itself. It's not that Aquinas didn't use reasoning; as noted above, he did--lots of it.”
Interestingly, this also describes all of math, logic, and philosophy.
One of the more interesting axioms or assertions is whether there exists free will, which is, by any interesting definition, a supernatural entity.
Interestingly, this also describes all of math, logic, and philosophy.
One of the more interesting axioms or assertions is whether there exists free will, which is, by any interesting definition, a supernatural entity.
> Interestingly, this also describes all of math, logic, and philosophy.
Which is totally fine, as long as people accept that God exists the same way math exists.
Which is totally fine, as long as people accept that God exists the same way math exists.
Yes, and ancient Christians asserted that God is love.
Many do accept that love exists in the same way math exists.
Many do accept that love exists in the same way math exists.
Omnipotent. Omniscient. Omnibenevolent.
Like the CAP theorem, you can only have two without substantial compromise.
Like the CAP theorem, you can only have two without substantial compromise.
Compromise depends on the understanding of the hierarchy.
When ancient texts list God as Love, they note that Love is an act of (free) will (free will being considered a supernatural entity, even today).
Free will is placed high on the hierarchy, which has interesting consequences. E.g. humans are free to do horrible things, and are free to choose not to love. If humans had no free will and were all instinct, there would be no love.
When ancient texts list God as Love, they note that Love is an act of (free) will (free will being considered a supernatural entity, even today).
Free will is placed high on the hierarchy, which has interesting consequences. E.g. humans are free to do horrible things, and are free to choose not to love. If humans had no free will and were all instinct, there would be no love.
So you're saying there's evil and suffering in the world, but God can't prevent it because he created free will? Sounds like a limit on his omnipotence.
Your explanation makes it out that free will is inherently prone to evil and suffering. If so, that would make free will somewhat inherently evil even though it arises from God. Strikes at the heart of omnibenevolence.
Either there's a limit to his ability or a limit to his goodness. No amount of hand waving can remove that.
If He is all good but can create creatures that corrupt his good works… You see the logical conundrum there, right?
I would understand if you don't WANT to see it. It feels wrong to see it. But it's there if you're being honest. You can ignore it. Many do. It's still there despite any aversion to it.
Your explanation makes it out that free will is inherently prone to evil and suffering. If so, that would make free will somewhat inherently evil even though it arises from God. Strikes at the heart of omnibenevolence.
Either there's a limit to his ability or a limit to his goodness. No amount of hand waving can remove that.
If He is all good but can create creatures that corrupt his good works… You see the logical conundrum there, right?
I would understand if you don't WANT to see it. It feels wrong to see it. But it's there if you're being honest. You can ignore it. Many do. It's still there despite any aversion to it.
> free will, which is, by any interesting definition, a supernatural entity
How so? I can think of at least one interesting definition by which free will is a perfectly good physical process going on in human brains, not supernatural at all.
How so? I can think of at least one interesting definition by which free will is a perfectly good physical process going on in human brains, not supernatural at all.
Free will implies non determinism, that is the important part.
> Free will implies non determinism
Depends on which definition of free will you are using. Some definitions are compatible with determinism.
Also, even if we go with a non-deterministic definition of free will, "non-deterministic" is not the same as "supernatural". Quantum mechanics is not deterministic.
Depends on which definition of free will you are using. Some definitions are compatible with determinism.
Also, even if we go with a non-deterministic definition of free will, "non-deterministic" is not the same as "supernatural". Quantum mechanics is not deterministic.
Thats not true for math / science.
Math is based on fundamental global laws which exist and can be checked from everyone and they can come up all with the same math.
We could isolate a baby and it could create the same math while it couldn't create the same religion.
Math is based on fundamental global laws which exist and can be checked from everyone and they can come up all with the same math.
We could isolate a baby and it could create the same math while it couldn't create the same religion.
That's a very shallow statement.
An isolated baby could derive simple math but also similarly deduce there is a greater entity out there.
An isolated baby could derive simple math but also similarly deduce there is a greater entity out there.
Yes, but the stories and abilities regarding that greater entity will be as varied and inconsistent as those found all over the world. And most importantly will not be the same as any of them. How many wildly different stories are there regarding the creation of the world?
Whereas the axioms of math will be substantially similar to the point that any modern mathematician would recognize it. We see this on ancient tablets where folks were calculating the square root of 2. Or any of the cultures all around the world that had no significant contact with one another that deal with pi. Sure we'll see base-12 number systems as with the Babylonians or base-20 as with the Maya, but the underlying principles and lessons are largely IDENTICAL.
The worlds of math and the metaphysical could not be more different in that regard. Rather than being a very shallow statement, it is one of the most all-encompassing and profound in all of human history. It gave rise to the principles of the scientific method: humans are biased, so multiple people performing the same steps should come to the same results and predictions made based on those results should yield their own repeatable consistent results.
Whereas the axioms of math will be substantially similar to the point that any modern mathematician would recognize it. We see this on ancient tablets where folks were calculating the square root of 2. Or any of the cultures all around the world that had no significant contact with one another that deal with pi. Sure we'll see base-12 number systems as with the Babylonians or base-20 as with the Maya, but the underlying principles and lessons are largely IDENTICAL.
The worlds of math and the metaphysical could not be more different in that regard. Rather than being a very shallow statement, it is one of the most all-encompassing and profound in all of human history. It gave rise to the principles of the scientific method: humans are biased, so multiple people performing the same steps should come to the same results and predictions made based on those results should yield their own repeatable consistent results.
Funny enough we discuss in such religious discussions often being religious vs. not being and ignoring the huge difference of existing religons.
I had a discussion about this topic with a more hard core christian: I said 'look if it is a good god, it doesn't even matter if i worship her right?' and he said 'nope, its written that you have to worshop'.
So one believe doesn't equal to another believe.
Your underlying base changes based on your believe.
"An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments." this is not true for two religions being created independently from each other while this is very well true for science.
I had a discussion about this topic with a more hard core christian: I said 'look if it is a good god, it doesn't even matter if i worship her right?' and he said 'nope, its written that you have to worshop'.
So one believe doesn't equal to another believe.
Your underlying base changes based on your believe.
"An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments." this is not true for two religions being created independently from each other while this is very well true for science.
Math is based on human chosen axioms. Actually, there are a lot of different sub fields of math that have different subsets of axioms to solve different types of problems. The axioms can never be proven though, they are just grounding.
Isolating a human is analogous to removing oxygen. Few would argue that someone brain dead could create anything.
Isolating a human is analogous to removing oxygen. Few would argue that someone brain dead could create anything.
I'm really not sure how you can missread my example to come up with 'isoalting a human is analogous to removing oxygen'.
My comparison is based on sciencse vs. fiction. 1+1 = 2 is a reality which works in german, africa, usa and everywhere else. There might be a difference on how those symbols (1, 2...) look like but the axiom is true and valid and is discoverable.
In religion its not.
Concept of god exists but it looks different depending on your believe. Multiply gods, one god, good god, bad god...
Even the stuff written down is based on someone who wrote it down and still people interpretate it totally different.
Never seen someone implying they are right that 1+1=3 if the interpretation of 3 is not 'next after one'.
My comparison is based on sciencse vs. fiction. 1+1 = 2 is a reality which works in german, africa, usa and everywhere else. There might be a difference on how those symbols (1, 2...) look like but the axiom is true and valid and is discoverable.
In religion its not.
Concept of god exists but it looks different depending on your believe. Multiply gods, one god, good god, bad god...
Even the stuff written down is based on someone who wrote it down and still people interpretate it totally different.
Never seen someone implying they are right that 1+1=3 if the interpretation of 3 is not 'next after one'.
1+1=2 is not really an axiom. There's a set of axioms that lead to that. They are even more primordial statements like "1 is a number" and "x=x" and "all numbers n have a successor number S(n) such that m=n if and only if S(m)=S(n)". Even if it seems clear (to most of us, at least) that these axioms represent some part of reality, they are still human-chosen -- and they have to be agreed upon. At some point, nearly everyone would have agreed that Euclid's 5th postulate was obviously true, and anyone alive could verify this for themself. Well, sometimes it's "true" and sometimes it isn't.
That said, the Peano axioms seem less nebulous that the varying axioms relating to the existence of god, as that concept can change so much from person to person.
That said, the Peano axioms seem less nebulous that the varying axioms relating to the existence of god, as that concept can change so much from person to person.
The case for the existence of free will can be analyzed from several bodies of evidence (it is a bias)
https://m-g-h.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf80...
https://m-g-h.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf80...
The munchausen trilemma undermines the concept of “weighing the evidence”. Everything anybody believes to be true is either founded upon circular reasoning, a reasoning of infinite regression, or an arbitrary set of unprovable axioms. The consequence is that any level of belief in any truth can only be based upon faith. People who believe that their world view is based entirely upon facts and universal truths tend to have a very hard time accepting this. They will often say that scrutinizing something to that level is a pointless waste of time for things that are so obviously true, which is perhaps ironically the exact behaviour also exhibited by the most closed minded of the true believers that they often find themselves so frustrated by.
While your first statement is correct, you may want to acknowledge that "faith" in ideas can be seen as a continuum from completely subjective to mostly objective. For instance: believing in QAnon conspiracies isn't the same as believing in, say, climate change. Yes, both require your definition of "faith", but the former requires you to suspend your belief in reality while the latter is congruent with your observations of reality.
This isn’t true at all. I would characterize faith as being a belief in any truth that you cannot prove. There is no such thing as a truth that can be proven (or at least none has been discovered so far). All truths are equally non-probable.
Your stance seems to be that a set of unprovable axioms you prefer to have faith are somehow superior to some other set of unprovable axioms that some other people may choose to have faith in. You might have all sorts of perfectly reasonable justifications for the axioms you have faith in, but if you want to claim your beliefs transcend faith then you’ll have to present a logical proof that survives the munchausen trilemma.
Your stance seems to be that a set of unprovable axioms you prefer to have faith are somehow superior to some other set of unprovable axioms that some other people may choose to have faith in. You might have all sorts of perfectly reasonable justifications for the axioms you have faith in, but if you want to claim your beliefs transcend faith then you’ll have to present a logical proof that survives the munchausen trilemma.
I see the example you related, and by using it as a proxy... It seems that you are saying that religious beliefs aren't really valid because they aren't based in reality.
> It seems that you are saying that religious beliefs aren't really valid because they aren't based in reality.
For the specific example I gave (Thomas Aquinas), it's not really a question of the beliefs being "valid" or not; it's just that they have no practical impact at all, which means it doesn't really matter whether you believe them or not, at least not if the beliefs are taken in isolation.
However, it is a problem if people then try to use such beliefs to justify actions that do have practical impact. For example, consider the split between different branches of Christianity after the Council of Chalcedon over "homoousios" vs. "homoiousios", which caused several wars over the next few centuries.
For the specific example I gave (Thomas Aquinas), it's not really a question of the beliefs being "valid" or not; it's just that they have no practical impact at all, which means it doesn't really matter whether you believe them or not, at least not if the beliefs are taken in isolation.
However, it is a problem if people then try to use such beliefs to justify actions that do have practical impact. For example, consider the split between different branches of Christianity after the Council of Chalcedon over "homoousios" vs. "homoiousios", which caused several wars over the next few centuries.
> it's just that they have no practical impact at all,
That's funny because a system that kept a civilization together for 1000 years is being claimed to have "no value" by someone who has no idea how to keep any society together and is mimicking the conventional wisdom of those overseeing a disintegrating society as a result of this ignorance.
Not only does the work of Aquinas have value, it has more value over the long run than anything being produced today, as no ethical system that we hold dear has a chance of keeping anything going for even three generations, let alone 100. Modern society is suffering from collapsing birthrates and social disintegration at an alarming rate, and we are pretending to be smarter than those who set the rules of a civilization that was far more stable and productive than our own, with far more profound accomplishments.
That's funny because a system that kept a civilization together for 1000 years is being claimed to have "no value" by someone who has no idea how to keep any society together and is mimicking the conventional wisdom of those overseeing a disintegrating society as a result of this ignorance.
Not only does the work of Aquinas have value, it has more value over the long run than anything being produced today, as no ethical system that we hold dear has a chance of keeping anything going for even three generations, let alone 100. Modern society is suffering from collapsing birthrates and social disintegration at an alarming rate, and we are pretending to be smarter than those who set the rules of a civilization that was far more stable and productive than our own, with far more profound accomplishments.
> a system that kept a civilization together for 1000 years
The fact that most people in a given civilization were Christians does not mean that the particular religious beliefs I was talking about were the ones that kept the civilization together. In fact, as the example I gave of religious wars over "homoousios" vs. "homoiousios" illustrates, those particular beliefs often caused problems that created huge rifts in the civilization.
> someone who has no idea how to keep any society together
If you are referring to me, I have no idea what you are talking about.
> Not only does the work of Aquinas have value
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that, at least as far as the particular beliefs I was referring to are concerned, since that's the particular work of Aquinas that I was discussing.
> no ethical system that we hold dear has a chance of keeping anything going for even three generations, let alone 100
Ethical systems are not the same as the kinds of religious beliefs I was talking about. Ethical systems have practical consequences that can be tested. I agree with you that many people today appear to have ethical systems that don't work well; we know that because they have bad practical consequences.
However, when you talk about keeping things going for 100 generations, we don't have any single ethical system that has done that. Ethical systems have changed many times over the course of human history.
The fact that most people in a given civilization were Christians does not mean that the particular religious beliefs I was talking about were the ones that kept the civilization together. In fact, as the example I gave of religious wars over "homoousios" vs. "homoiousios" illustrates, those particular beliefs often caused problems that created huge rifts in the civilization.
> someone who has no idea how to keep any society together
If you are referring to me, I have no idea what you are talking about.
> Not only does the work of Aquinas have value
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that, at least as far as the particular beliefs I was referring to are concerned, since that's the particular work of Aquinas that I was discussing.
> no ethical system that we hold dear has a chance of keeping anything going for even three generations, let alone 100
Ethical systems are not the same as the kinds of religious beliefs I was talking about. Ethical systems have practical consequences that can be tested. I agree with you that many people today appear to have ethical systems that don't work well; we know that because they have bad practical consequences.
However, when you talk about keeping things going for 100 generations, we don't have any single ethical system that has done that. Ethical systems have changed many times over the course of human history.
> Ethical systems are not the same as the kinds of religious beliefs I was talking about. Ethical systems have practical consequences that can be tested.
Good luck testing one of the currently accepted "ethical system"-type religious beliefs.
The only kind of outcome of such a test that is "allowed" is full agreement with the ethical system. A lot of these systems are just as self-reinforcing and barely based in reality as Christian apologetics of Aquinas or Chesterton. The people holding these beliefs know this on some subconscious level and will viciously attack anyone who disagrees. It is only over time with many such "attacks" that a mass belief will die and be replaced by another one.
In fact, every one of these "ethical" religious beliefs came about the same way: it defeated another commonly agreed upon dogma.
This mechanism by the way is what runs civilization. One meme fighting another.
Good luck testing one of the currently accepted "ethical system"-type religious beliefs.
The only kind of outcome of such a test that is "allowed" is full agreement with the ethical system. A lot of these systems are just as self-reinforcing and barely based in reality as Christian apologetics of Aquinas or Chesterton. The people holding these beliefs know this on some subconscious level and will viciously attack anyone who disagrees. It is only over time with many such "attacks" that a mass belief will die and be replaced by another one.
In fact, every one of these "ethical" religious beliefs came about the same way: it defeated another commonly agreed upon dogma.
This mechanism by the way is what runs civilization. One meme fighting another.
In my experience having been near many church splits I still feel this simply isn’t true. Churches operate like git forks and merges of ideas.
This is actually a really good analogy that applies to some other argument, but not the one I was trying to make :)
Git forks and merges still share a common ancestral history and are basically an evolution of the same idea. This is true of a real Git repo (it's one software project after all) and the kind of churches you are likely talking about (it's all just a theist religion after all). Christianity is a branch in the same repo as the ancient Roman gods. The Saturnalia feature is even there still :)
I was thinking more about ideas like: - can people be property? - is it a good thing to kill "infidels"? - can women vote? - can a 10 year old get married?
These are "religious" questions because there is no objective truth to the answer either way. It's all based on beliefs and consensus.
Before you downvote me into oblivion: the answers to all of these have historically been different than they are today. People in both times (past and present) would attack you if you disagreed with the status quo (there was even a certain civil war fought about the people=property one). I am not actually disagreeing with the status quo on any of the above.
However, it would be naive to think that we do not presently collectively believe some things that would be appalling to a future human. A good heuristic for these is: would I get attacked or mocked for questioning this?
See also: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Git forks and merges still share a common ancestral history and are basically an evolution of the same idea. This is true of a real Git repo (it's one software project after all) and the kind of churches you are likely talking about (it's all just a theist religion after all). Christianity is a branch in the same repo as the ancient Roman gods. The Saturnalia feature is even there still :)
I was thinking more about ideas like: - can people be property? - is it a good thing to kill "infidels"? - can women vote? - can a 10 year old get married?
These are "religious" questions because there is no objective truth to the answer either way. It's all based on beliefs and consensus.
Before you downvote me into oblivion: the answers to all of these have historically been different than they are today. People in both times (past and present) would attack you if you disagreed with the status quo (there was even a certain civil war fought about the people=property one). I am not actually disagreeing with the status quo on any of the above.
However, it would be naive to think that we do not presently collectively believe some things that would be appalling to a future human. A good heuristic for these is: would I get attacked or mocked for questioning this?
See also: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
>The fact that most people in a given civilization were Christians //
It's somewhat orthogonal to your argument, but I'd doubt that most people in "Christian countries" (which is a heterodox notion) are/were Christians. Mostly people in the past seem to have followed a societal model, largely imposed as a firm of control.
Where I grew up in the UK the village vicar was not a Christian according to most definitions (they didn't believe in central tenets of the faith as espoused in all the main creeds).
Catholicism has a lot of things that are contradictory to biblical Christianity from basic things like having "special" people, to indulgences which are so contradictory to biblical teachings the only possibly way they were accepted is because most people were ignorant to Scripture. And of course those in power keenly maintained that ignorance.
It's somewhat orthogonal to your argument, but I'd doubt that most people in "Christian countries" (which is a heterodox notion) are/were Christians. Mostly people in the past seem to have followed a societal model, largely imposed as a firm of control.
Where I grew up in the UK the village vicar was not a Christian according to most definitions (they didn't believe in central tenets of the faith as espoused in all the main creeds).
Catholicism has a lot of things that are contradictory to biblical Christianity from basic things like having "special" people, to indulgences which are so contradictory to biblical teachings the only possibly way they were accepted is because most people were ignorant to Scripture. And of course those in power keenly maintained that ignorance.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/primer-on-indulgences
The powerful hoping to keep people ignorant seems like conspiracy/folklore.
The powerful hoping to keep people ignorant seems like conspiracy/folklore.
Protest-ant publication of non-Latin Bible seems to disagree?
> Catholicism has a lot of things that are contradictory to biblical Christianity
That's only true if you consider the Bible as the only source of revelation, which is not the case for Catholics, where Tradition is equally important.
That's only true if you consider the Bible as the only source of revelation, which is not the case for Catholics, where Tradition is equally important.
Not only is it true for sola scriptura but also under prima scriptura (followed by Anglicans and Methodists amongst others) -- so under an "Anglican triad" this position is still valid.
Catholicism still has things that are contradictory to biblical Christianity, such as priesthood of all believers, even if you accept other sources of revelation those sources would still be contradictory.
Catholicism still has things that are contradictory to biblical Christianity, such as priesthood of all believers, even if you accept other sources of revelation those sources would still be contradictory.
Indeed ethical systems have changed throughout the lifespan of a religion. Religions are not set in stone and change more than what most religious people are willing to admit.
For example, people used to believe the Book of Genesis literally, and now (I believe) most denominations take it allegorically. I wonder how many similar stories like that will we have in the future.
For me, it always felt like the interpretation of the Holy Books are changing through time as we understand science more and more. And it feels ironic to me.
For me, it always felt like the interpretation of the Holy Books are changing through time as we understand science more and more. And it feels ironic to me.
Literal interpretation of Genesis is a fairly recent phenomenon. Fundamentalism is a modern religion.
> Literal interpretation of Genesis is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Um, no, it isn't. It's how Genesis was interpreted by most people of the Jewish and Christian religions throughout most of the time since it was written. What is a fairly recent phenomenon is people of those religions not interpreting Genesis (and the Bible in general) literally.
Um, no, it isn't. It's how Genesis was interpreted by most people of the Jewish and Christian religions throughout most of the time since it was written. What is a fairly recent phenomenon is people of those religions not interpreting Genesis (and the Bible in general) literally.
That's true. But even leaving science aside, and focusing only on non-falsifiable aspects of human ethics, there are many examples such as slavery where Christianity for example has changed over time quite radically (and not even linearly)
I asked about slavery in Reddit's DebateAChristian forum. Most Christians say that those part of the Bible needs to be understood in the context of those times where debt slavery was quite common and not considered evil. So we can't apply today's morality there. Well, at least these were the most common answers I got. There were also a person who told me that what "moral"/"good" means is _completely_ subjective (which is true to some extent), so I should not judge Exodus 21.
Jewish Old Testament scholars haven’t taken Genesis literally for more than 2 millennia.
Indeed they change more than their zealous detractors, whose rigid mindsets cannot update priors despite abundant evidence contradicting their sacred beliefs, namely that the pious and meek are to be looked down upon, either pitied or scorned.
Good old "the world is going to shit".
The simple reality is that it's always been this way and will likely be this way for a long time.
The simple reality is that it's always been this way and will likely be this way for a long time.
I've been fascinated listening to a podcast on the History of Rome (highly recommend). Rome wasn't built in a day, but also the fall of the empire was a period of about 300 years during which Rome itself was still called the "eternal city".
Not saying this as proof that the world is definitely going to shit, the point is that it I don't think we've achieved some new level of eternal civilisation that couldn't possibly fail. Every civilisation believed that right up until the point it stopped being true, so we should be on the look out for threats and not assume it will all end up OK.
Not saying this as proof that the world is definitely going to shit, the point is that it I don't think we've achieved some new level of eternal civilisation that couldn't possibly fail. Every civilisation believed that right up until the point it stopped being true, so we should be on the look out for threats and not assume it will all end up OK.
> That's funny because a system that kept a civilization together for 1000 years is being claimed to have "no value" by someone who has no idea how to keep any society together and is mimicking the conventional wisdom of those overseeing a disintegrating society as a result of this ignorance.
Value changes with time. Horse whips had a lot of value at one time. Now, not so much.
Religion is prevalent in many societies, and it isn't the same religion. This talk of the value of aquinas ignores the fact that all his reasoning only really applied to christian religions. Yet other religions without deities or with many of them provided the same social structures christianity has.
Consider, for example, China. Just as old and grand as European civilization with a religion mostly focused on the mandate of heaven given to their leaders.
Now consider modern China, which is an atheist state that's been thriving. Certainly, not without problems, but it's hard to argue their civilization hasn't become a major world power.
Value changes with time. Horse whips had a lot of value at one time. Now, not so much.
Religion is prevalent in many societies, and it isn't the same religion. This talk of the value of aquinas ignores the fact that all his reasoning only really applied to christian religions. Yet other religions without deities or with many of them provided the same social structures christianity has.
Consider, for example, China. Just as old and grand as European civilization with a religion mostly focused on the mandate of heaven given to their leaders.
Now consider modern China, which is an atheist state that's been thriving. Certainly, not without problems, but it's hard to argue their civilization hasn't become a major world power.
This shows you lack understanding of the fundamental philosophical system by which his arguments are built, espcially Aristotle. Dispute what many think, Aristotle did a lot of experimentation. He was not an arm chair philosopher. St Thomas' arguments are anything but circular.
> most people don’t have the time to weigh the evidence of say 90% of their beliefs.
Most of the "beliefs" you refer to actually don't have to be beliefs at all. They have no practical consequences; they don't change anything about what the person who claims to have them actually does. Such beliefs don't have to have their evidence weighed because they make no practical difference. When people say they "believe" them, they don't mean they're actually using them to decide their actions; they are just signaling.
For most beliefs that do have practical consequences, people do weigh evidence for them. However, this does suggest a clarification to the characteristics I gave for religions and ideologies: that they start from beliefs that are in the "don't have practical consequences, so saying you believe them is just signaling" category, but then use them to justify beliefs that are in the "do have practical consequences, so should be judged by weighing evidence" category.
Most of the "beliefs" you refer to actually don't have to be beliefs at all. They have no practical consequences; they don't change anything about what the person who claims to have them actually does. Such beliefs don't have to have their evidence weighed because they make no practical difference. When people say they "believe" them, they don't mean they're actually using them to decide their actions; they are just signaling.
For most beliefs that do have practical consequences, people do weigh evidence for them. However, this does suggest a clarification to the characteristics I gave for religions and ideologies: that they start from beliefs that are in the "don't have practical consequences, so saying you believe them is just signaling" category, but then use them to justify beliefs that are in the "do have practical consequences, so should be judged by weighing evidence" category.
This was interesting, but also somewhat paradoxical.
A belief that does not affect your actions, but implies or causes a belief that does affect your actions. Well, that does affect your actions. :)
But serioulsly, joke aside, that was an interesting concept
A belief that does not affect your actions, but implies or causes a belief that does affect your actions. Well, that does affect your actions. :)
But serioulsly, joke aside, that was an interesting concept
This 90% figure includes core beliefs of the world, right and wrong, history, epistemology and so on.
The difference is that there is usually at least the presumption or expectation of evidence, even though many don't know all the details. Don't expect me to be able to explain all of cosmology or evolutionary history either, but I do know enough to know that it's based on the best available evidence available today. Mistakes do happen, and are corrected.
With religion, there is no such presumption or expectation.
These are vastly different situations.
With religion, there is no such presumption or expectation.
These are vastly different situations.
I've been told bad things would happen to me if I stick my head in a hungry lion's mouth. I've never tried it to verify. Is not-sticking-my-head-into-the-mouth-of-a-hungry-lionism a religion?
There is a difference between belief and faith.
There is a difference between belief and faith.
> And believing that religious believers accept 100% of religious belief without reasoning about them is a misunderstanding.
Had they reasoned about them, most 2000 year old customs would have hardly survived.
Had they reasoned about them, most 2000 year old customs would have hardly survived.
They reason within the framework of those ideas. If you accept a religious text is accurate and find an obvious contradiction then rather than rejecting the religious text you’re going to try and justify both statements as true.
So if Osiris was said to have red hair in one passage and was blond in another then they may have been referring to different people, one statement was a metaphor, he has hair of both colors at the same time, he had each at different ages, he dyes his hair at some point, etc. And of course people feel such ideas are worth fighting over.
So if Osiris was said to have red hair in one passage and was blond in another then they may have been referring to different people, one statement was a metaphor, he has hair of both colors at the same time, he had each at different ages, he dyes his hair at some point, etc. And of course people feel such ideas are worth fighting over.
[deleted]
People have plenty of time, they just don't have the motivation.
>First, people don't acquire the beliefs by considering and weighing evidence; they acquire them by being told them, usually at a young age, by people they trust, and making them part of their identity. That's why people are so resistant to changing such beliefs.
Second, the set of beliefs acquired in this way is not just a few isolated ones, but a whole network of beliefs that cover every aspect of life and are all asserted as justification for each other in what amounts to a logical circle.
Those two hold for, say roughly, 90% of what most people believe, secular or not.
Even most scientific theories people believe, they haven't examined and are incapable of following their theories and experiements personally - they were just being told they are truth and they trust it to be so.
(Heck, most people are even incapable of deriving the math answers somebody like Archimedes or Pythagoras arrived at 2.5 milenia ago, and all they know of a work as basic as Newton's is that there was some falling apple involved, or, if they really paid attention at school, that f=ma).
Second, the set of beliefs acquired in this way is not just a few isolated ones, but a whole network of beliefs that cover every aspect of life and are all asserted as justification for each other in what amounts to a logical circle.
Those two hold for, say roughly, 90% of what most people believe, secular or not.
Even most scientific theories people believe, they haven't examined and are incapable of following their theories and experiements personally - they were just being told they are truth and they trust it to be so.
(Heck, most people are even incapable of deriving the math answers somebody like Archimedes or Pythagoras arrived at 2.5 milenia ago, and all they know of a work as basic as Newton's is that there was some falling apple involved, or, if they really paid attention at school, that f=ma).
This idea that science and technology is just another random religion is so frustrating, but I encounter it online way more often than I would expect. I don’t need to personally review and understand the details of why electricity and the internet work, because I am literally typing this message on an electronic device and sending it via the internet. No faith needed, and anyway.. I can go build a simple computer and prove it all out myself. The nature of the trinity, or sorting out whether hell exists or not and which religions are going there for which behaviors, is just a totally different endeavor.
Which is not to say that philosophy or religion are pursuits that should be banned or are worthless. I am just tired of the overused rhetorical trick of muddying the waters between them to confuse people and win arguments on the internet.
Which is not to say that philosophy or religion are pursuits that should be banned or are worthless. I am just tired of the overused rhetorical trick of muddying the waters between them to confuse people and win arguments on the internet.
The argument is not that the science is same as religion.
The argument is that individuals dont rationally objectively verify or figure out every experiment and scientific claim. I stead, we all rely on trust to institutions and processes to tell us how it is.
Which is how it is. Most people dont even know how science actually work beyond elementary school level of simplification. And even if you actually do science as a job, you know only small part of it relying on trust everywhere else.
The argument is that individuals dont rationally objectively verify or figure out every experiment and scientific claim. I stead, we all rely on trust to institutions and processes to tell us how it is.
Which is how it is. Most people dont even know how science actually work beyond elementary school level of simplification. And even if you actually do science as a job, you know only small part of it relying on trust everywhere else.
Yes, and my response is that the average person doesn’t rationally need to intellectually revalidate every scientific and technological fact from first principles because we are surrounded by overwhelming evidence, and that highlighting that not everyone has done that is not actually all that clever or relevant if you think about it. No faith in shadowy institutions is required to see the facts of technological and scientific progress all around me.
the person of faith would also counter you with 'overwhelming evidence' of what God is doing for him...
sometimes, this evidence is just subjective, at other times, it is clear and can be measured.
Another analogy that I have heard is that 'magic' is when one is just wowed by what they see without being able to understand how it happens. Apple products bring that 'magic' though it can all be explained away in technical terms if one tried.
sometimes, this evidence is just subjective, at other times, it is clear and can be measured.
Another analogy that I have heard is that 'magic' is when one is just wowed by what they see without being able to understand how it happens. Apple products bring that 'magic' though it can all be explained away in technical terms if one tried.
What is the (sometimes) clear and measurable evidence of what god has done for someone?
For some, it is clear that this brief moment of consciousness is an amazing gift.
Soon our bodies will go back to the dust that we began as:)
Soon our bodies will go back to the dust that we began as:)
I agree, but how do you measure that though? Or prove that it isn’t an incredible thing regardless of if it was given to you by god?
Well, things I think about:
-this ‘Universe’ (seems to me) is so incredibly intelligible and information rich (information theory rise, e.g. entropy timeline of the observable universe).
-there seems to be something rather than nothing
-there doesn’t seem to be anything that happens without a cause (except, it seems to me, our will).
These seem to be important data points… :)
-this ‘Universe’ (seems to me) is so incredibly intelligible and information rich (information theory rise, e.g. entropy timeline of the observable universe).
-there seems to be something rather than nothing
-there doesn’t seem to be anything that happens without a cause (except, it seems to me, our will).
These seem to be important data points… :)
The problem is your clear and measurable points don't actually point to a god. If you see some meaning in them that enriches your life that's great but they don't really count as evidence to those outside your religion (except perhaps when they also claim it as 'evidence' of their flavour of goddess).
1. Your brain/body evolved to interpret this richness in a universe that is unintelligible to us a conscious brain that evolved in that universe would almost certainly view those unintelligible to us rules as intelligible lest there be no purpose to that consciousness. Our brains also quite demonstrably processes unintelligible (to us) things as intelligible when they are not.
2. This is true in any universe where someone is around to point out that something exists and is a priori with or without creator beings.
3. Our will is either deterministic (happens with a cause) or it is not. In the case that it is deterministic we can ignore this example (which personally is my view). In the case it is not then the non deterministic part is reduced to the result of quantum coin flips altering the result in the larger scale world. Assuming so there are two possibilities either everything else is also happening at that level without a cause (which is counter to your point that it is only will that behaves this way) or the quantum coin flips are in some way deterministic which means so is will.
1. Your brain/body evolved to interpret this richness in a universe that is unintelligible to us a conscious brain that evolved in that universe would almost certainly view those unintelligible to us rules as intelligible lest there be no purpose to that consciousness. Our brains also quite demonstrably processes unintelligible (to us) things as intelligible when they are not.
2. This is true in any universe where someone is around to point out that something exists and is a priori with or without creator beings.
3. Our will is either deterministic (happens with a cause) or it is not. In the case that it is deterministic we can ignore this example (which personally is my view). In the case it is not then the non deterministic part is reduced to the result of quantum coin flips altering the result in the larger scale world. Assuming so there are two possibilities either everything else is also happening at that level without a cause (which is counter to your point that it is only will that behaves this way) or the quantum coin flips are in some way deterministic which means so is will.
And then you have done validation of some of the proposition of modern science and technology.
But quite a lot "science" can not verified in the same manner as some physics, math, chemistry and biology can.
And to go from the fact that some science is verifiable and then conclude that everything which tries to take on the label science or follow similar rituals to the verifiable sciences, also deserves the same respect is quite a long jump.
In fact "science" or scientism seems to be one of the more dangerous religions nowadays, as the rituals of peer-review, papers and conferences, holy institutions like universities and sacraments of tenure and ph.d are very easy to adopt without being even remotely verifiable (or even slightly rational).
But quite a lot "science" can not verified in the same manner as some physics, math, chemistry and biology can.
And to go from the fact that some science is verifiable and then conclude that everything which tries to take on the label science or follow similar rituals to the verifiable sciences, also deserves the same respect is quite a long jump.
In fact "science" or scientism seems to be one of the more dangerous religions nowadays, as the rituals of peer-review, papers and conferences, holy institutions like universities and sacraments of tenure and ph.d are very easy to adopt without being even remotely verifiable (or even slightly rational).
Some (most even that is relevant day to day?) is quite easy to validate and yet we still have flat-Earthers.
Note that a lot of the flat earth stuff is a large troll to make people mad, crazy stuff comes out of 4chan…
Trust develops over time. We can trust scientific institutions because of past successes and how their construction promotes future successes. Scientific institutions are also constrained in their function. It is not the case that all forms of trusting institutions are intellectually equal.
> We can trust scientific institutions because of past successes
For those that have them, yes. Not all institutions that are called "scientific" have them, though.
> and how their construction promotes future successes.
For those for which this is true, yes. It's not true for all institutions that are called "scientific".
> Scientific institutions are also constrained in their function.
I'm not sure how true this actually is. Top tier universities like Harvard call themselves "scientific institutions", but they're really just hedge funds that happen to do research and teaching as a side gig. And the fact that almost all university research is funded by governments means that along with the expansion of government into more and more areas of our lives, comes the expansion of what is called "scientific" for purposes of getting government funding.
For those that have them, yes. Not all institutions that are called "scientific" have them, though.
> and how their construction promotes future successes.
For those for which this is true, yes. It's not true for all institutions that are called "scientific".
> Scientific institutions are also constrained in their function.
I'm not sure how true this actually is. Top tier universities like Harvard call themselves "scientific institutions", but they're really just hedge funds that happen to do research and teaching as a side gig. And the fact that almost all university research is funded by governments means that along with the expansion of government into more and more areas of our lives, comes the expansion of what is called "scientific" for purposes of getting government funding.
Which is why the blanket "lying media" and "fake news" rhetoric is so dangerous. It removes that trust—often unjustifiably and usually in total—without specifying what other institutions or processes can be trusted instead for reliable information besides a known orange-tinted salesman with an affection for Mein Kampf.
GANs and other deep fakes are going to be weaponized and absolutely obliterate the foundations of this country if that trust in legitimate journalism cannot be adequately restored in time. All journalism is biased, but we're not talking about bias; we're talking about up is down.
Very soon literally anyone can be shown saying anything… to anyone else… anywhere… wearing anything (or nothing)… with resources akin to a typical gaming computer. As a nation, we are woefully unprepared for that day, and we will pay dearly for that lack of preparation.
GANs and other deep fakes are going to be weaponized and absolutely obliterate the foundations of this country if that trust in legitimate journalism cannot be adequately restored in time. All journalism is biased, but we're not talking about bias; we're talking about up is down.
Very soon literally anyone can be shown saying anything… to anyone else… anywhere… wearing anything (or nothing)… with resources akin to a typical gaming computer. As a nation, we are woefully unprepared for that day, and we will pay dearly for that lack of preparation.
> Which is why the blanket "lying media" and "fake news" rhetoric is so dangerous. It removes that trust—often unjustifiably
No, often justifiably. If the media didn't lie so often and so consistently, they wouldn't have a problem rebutting accusations of lying.
> without specifying what other institutions or processes can be trusted instead for reliable information
That's the problem: there aren't any. Our society has no institutions that can be trusted for reliable information.
No, often justifiably. If the media didn't lie so often and so consistently, they wouldn't have a problem rebutting accusations of lying.
> without specifying what other institutions or processes can be trusted instead for reliable information
That's the problem: there aren't any. Our society has no institutions that can be trusted for reliable information.
Okay, you've made the claim they all lie. It's up to you to provide the evidence since I can't prove a negative. I can't point to a news story that lacks lies and claim they're all true. It's up to you to put up specific examples and demonstrate a pattern of deception.
PBS News Hour Frontline Reuters BBC News NPR's morning and evening news Associated Press
Then papers of record (excluding editorial column or op-ed):
Washington Post Chicago Tribune Miami Herald etc.
Please provide specific examples of their lies. I'll even take honest errors that never received a retraction.
Move on to more opinion-based outlets like:
The Hill The Atlantic Pro Publica Mother Jones
In these, provide examples where what's written goes beyond bias or persuasion into "lie" territory.
While we're here, show where dedicated fact checkers like FactCheck.org have lied or omitted their sources so as to prevent outside verification.
Even Fox News rarely if ever lies. Biased as all hell, but no outright lies at the main news desk. Their opinion shows on the channel on the other hand, it's hard to find an honest hour among them.
And local NBC, CBS, and ABC affiliates? Yeah, I'm gonna need some specific examples where they regularly lie to the American public beyond, "They were mean to Trump."
PBS News Hour Frontline Reuters BBC News NPR's morning and evening news Associated Press
Then papers of record (excluding editorial column or op-ed):
Washington Post Chicago Tribune Miami Herald etc.
Please provide specific examples of their lies. I'll even take honest errors that never received a retraction.
Move on to more opinion-based outlets like:
The Hill The Atlantic Pro Publica Mother Jones
In these, provide examples where what's written goes beyond bias or persuasion into "lie" territory.
While we're here, show where dedicated fact checkers like FactCheck.org have lied or omitted their sources so as to prevent outside verification.
Even Fox News rarely if ever lies. Biased as all hell, but no outright lies at the main news desk. Their opinion shows on the channel on the other hand, it's hard to find an honest hour among them.
And local NBC, CBS, and ABC affiliates? Yeah, I'm gonna need some specific examples where they regularly lie to the American public beyond, "They were mean to Trump."
> It's up to you to provide the evidence since I can't prove a negative.
If you honestly can't come up with a mountain of evidence on your own, then either you have not been paying attention at all, or we live on different planets. Or you have simply not bothered to independently check anything they say. (More on what "independently" means below.)
And if you honestly believe that the sources you cite (and yes, I'm talking about what is billed as straight "news", not opinion) are reliable, then good luck with that. I hope for your sake that it doesn't catch up with you at some point, but I won't be holding my breath.
And btw, my claim is not that everything they say is lies. Much of what they say is true. The problem is that you can't trust them not to lie; given any statement they make, you have to consult independent information (more on that below) to decide whether you can trust it or not. And the more politically charged the topic--in other words, the more that is at stake in terms of power--the less you can trust them not to lie. Whenever the chips are down, they have shown that they will put ideology and spin, to protect their own power and the power of those in government whom they agree with, above truth.
As far as independently checking what they say is concerned, that's the problem I referred to in the GP: there are no "independent" reliable sources you can use. You have to do it entirely on your own, cobbling together what information you can from as close to primary sources as you can get it. (For example, whenever I see, say, a report issued by a government agency, or a scientific paper, mentioned in the media, I don't even bother reading the media article; I go looking for the actual report or paper itself and read that. The report or paper might still be telling me things that are questionable, but at least I'm reading the primary source.) And of course most people don't have the time or the wherewithal to do that, which is why this terrible state of affairs persists. But that doesn't make it any less terrible. At least now, with the Internet, with so many ways for people to post first-hand information about things, we have some ability to collect our own data instead of having to live with whatever the media gives us. We used to have none at all, except for the rare cases where either we ourselves were first-hand witnesses to some event (and btw, pretty much anyone who has had first-hand knowledge of something that got covered in the media will tell you that the media account was nothing at all like what they saw first-hand), or we knew personally someone who was and could evaluate what they told us based on our knowledge of their past track record of reliability.
If you honestly can't come up with a mountain of evidence on your own, then either you have not been paying attention at all, or we live on different planets. Or you have simply not bothered to independently check anything they say. (More on what "independently" means below.)
And if you honestly believe that the sources you cite (and yes, I'm talking about what is billed as straight "news", not opinion) are reliable, then good luck with that. I hope for your sake that it doesn't catch up with you at some point, but I won't be holding my breath.
And btw, my claim is not that everything they say is lies. Much of what they say is true. The problem is that you can't trust them not to lie; given any statement they make, you have to consult independent information (more on that below) to decide whether you can trust it or not. And the more politically charged the topic--in other words, the more that is at stake in terms of power--the less you can trust them not to lie. Whenever the chips are down, they have shown that they will put ideology and spin, to protect their own power and the power of those in government whom they agree with, above truth.
As far as independently checking what they say is concerned, that's the problem I referred to in the GP: there are no "independent" reliable sources you can use. You have to do it entirely on your own, cobbling together what information you can from as close to primary sources as you can get it. (For example, whenever I see, say, a report issued by a government agency, or a scientific paper, mentioned in the media, I don't even bother reading the media article; I go looking for the actual report or paper itself and read that. The report or paper might still be telling me things that are questionable, but at least I'm reading the primary source.) And of course most people don't have the time or the wherewithal to do that, which is why this terrible state of affairs persists. But that doesn't make it any less terrible. At least now, with the Internet, with so many ways for people to post first-hand information about things, we have some ability to collect our own data instead of having to live with whatever the media gives us. We used to have none at all, except for the rare cases where either we ourselves were first-hand witnesses to some event (and btw, pretty much anyone who has had first-hand knowledge of something that got covered in the media will tell you that the media account was nothing at all like what they saw first-hand), or we knew personally someone who was and could evaluate what they told us based on our knowledge of their past track record of reliability.
Asked for specific examples of lying from any of those sources. Show me one. Put just a single link and say why it's a lie. It shouldn't be hard considering the depth of claimed journalistic malfeasance.
You made the claim. Now prove it. My claim is that these news outlets are on the up and up. I have listed the ones I trust.
Don't just say, "They all lie." That's lazy and disingenuous. Put up just a single example of a lie, and I'll be listening to your side of things. Otherwise you're just the crazy guy on the corner with the tin foil hat talking about lizard people. "You can't trust anyone" sounds conspicuously paranoid.
Evidence matters.
You made the claim. Now prove it. My claim is that these news outlets are on the up and up. I have listed the ones I trust.
Don't just say, "They all lie." That's lazy and disingenuous. Put up just a single example of a lie, and I'll be listening to your side of things. Otherwise you're just the crazy guy on the corner with the tin foil hat talking about lizard people. "You can't trust anyone" sounds conspicuously paranoid.
Evidence matters.
I made an account just to respond to this, for that guy. It will be easiest if I just post the original pieces which gathered such information, but you can follow the links within them yourself.
NPR, Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, etc etc "independently confirmed" that Trump had protestors gassed to stage a photo op [1], that the officer in DC was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher [2], that Russia placed bounties on US soldiers [3], absolutely none of which happened, as we now have proof. Few retractions were made. You absolutely cannot trust a single word coming from the media apparatus, about anything, at any point.
[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/yet-another-media-tale-trum...
[2] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-a...
[3] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-learning-they-s...
NPR, Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, etc etc "independently confirmed" that Trump had protestors gassed to stage a photo op [1], that the officer in DC was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher [2], that Russia placed bounties on US soldiers [3], absolutely none of which happened, as we now have proof. Few retractions were made. You absolutely cannot trust a single word coming from the media apparatus, about anything, at any point.
[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/yet-another-media-tale-trum...
[2] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-a...
[3] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-learning-they-s...
You'll notice your one source is Glenn Greenwald. One.
Be a shame if his account of the tear gassing in front of the church were backed up by the pastor of said church. Except the pastor (who was also hit with the tear gas) backs up the accounts of the protestors. Protestors who were still out because the curfew had not begun yet. Details. Details. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867532070/trumps-unannounced-...
This is not to say that journalists are perfect. Far from it. They are after all human. But reputable outlets issue public corrections to errors they've made. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-afghanista...
Looking at Sicknick's death, I see a large number of outlets all noting he died of stroke. https://www.google.com/search?q=Brian+Sicknick%27s+Death
You will hopefully note that CNN (who Greenwald calls out) is NOT on my list of credible sources. Saying that CNN is guilty of airing half-baked stories buys you little in this discussion.
Be a shame if his account of the tear gassing in front of the church were backed up by the pastor of said church. Except the pastor (who was also hit with the tear gas) backs up the accounts of the protestors. Protestors who were still out because the curfew had not begun yet. Details. Details. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867532070/trumps-unannounced-...
This is not to say that journalists are perfect. Far from it. They are after all human. But reputable outlets issue public corrections to errors they've made. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-afghanista...
Looking at Sicknick's death, I see a large number of outlets all noting he died of stroke. https://www.google.com/search?q=Brian+Sicknick%27s+Death
You will hopefully note that CNN (who Greenwald calls out) is NOT on my list of credible sources. Saying that CNN is guilty of airing half-baked stories buys you little in this discussion.
As an alternative, since you brought up primary sources, you could always show a case where one of the news outlets I mentioned took a story from somewhere else, who took it from somewhere else, who either made it up or turned the chain of citations into a self-referencing circle.
That would be a perfectly acceptable demonstration of "fake news" that would draw me in to listen to your side of things.
All it takes is a little evidence.
That would be a perfectly acceptable demonstration of "fake news" that would draw me in to listen to your side of things.
All it takes is a little evidence.
>This idea that science and technology is just another random religion is so frustrating, but I encounter it online way more often than I would expect.
Well, "frustrating" is not a scientific argument itself, it's a subjective feeling. More like what a faithful would feel against blasphemy. Isn't it at least a little ironic?
>I don’t need to personally review and understand the details of why electricity and the internet work, because I am literally typing this message on an electronic device and sending it via the internet.
Which is neither here, nor there. You still need to trust tons of abstractions you can't evaluate and don't control, the claims of experts and snake-oil salesmen, the policy of goverments, the products and initiatives of corporations, advertising, statistical data, etc. all of which are telling you they're "based on science" but nonetheless contain loads of p-hacking, cherry-picking, bad methodology, non-reproducable BS, and downright snake-oil selling, to the point of often doing the opposite of what actual concrete science would advise.
The fact that you have some artifacts you can use just tells you that science can produce concrete things. Doesn't tell you evaluate different courses of action, evaluate science results and scientists, understand science-drive policy decisions, and so on.
>I can go build a simple computer and prove it all out myself.
99.999% of the people can't and never will (practically, not merely potentially). So for them it's more like the junkie saying "I can quit heroin anytime I want, I'm not addicted".
Well, "frustrating" is not a scientific argument itself, it's a subjective feeling. More like what a faithful would feel against blasphemy. Isn't it at least a little ironic?
>I don’t need to personally review and understand the details of why electricity and the internet work, because I am literally typing this message on an electronic device and sending it via the internet.
Which is neither here, nor there. You still need to trust tons of abstractions you can't evaluate and don't control, the claims of experts and snake-oil salesmen, the policy of goverments, the products and initiatives of corporations, advertising, statistical data, etc. all of which are telling you they're "based on science" but nonetheless contain loads of p-hacking, cherry-picking, bad methodology, non-reproducable BS, and downright snake-oil selling, to the point of often doing the opposite of what actual concrete science would advise.
The fact that you have some artifacts you can use just tells you that science can produce concrete things. Doesn't tell you evaluate different courses of action, evaluate science results and scientists, understand science-drive policy decisions, and so on.
>I can go build a simple computer and prove it all out myself.
99.999% of the people can't and never will (practically, not merely potentially). So for them it's more like the junkie saying "I can quit heroin anytime I want, I'm not addicted".
Science and technology would not be able to produce concrete things if understanding it was practically beyond 99.999% of people or if it was remotely nearly as fundamentally corrupt as you are describing.
"Science and technology" are a vague abstraction. What people mean when they describe science as becoming a religion is more specific - they're using "science" as a shorthand for academic institutions specifically and the various maladies that go along with that, maladies like:
- The reproducibility crisis in social sciences
- The floods of BS coming out of public health research, a crisis for which we don't even have a name yet
- The journals who only care about impact and not about scientific integrity
- Politicians who appear to be completely controlled by modellers who never validate their models and whose predictions are always wrong
- People who are instinctively loyal to that whole set of power structures and rituals, such that they dismiss any claim of scientific misconduct as conspiracy theories, as ignorance, etc.
and so on. The fact that certain fields of study and other parts of society have been able to use the scientific method to produce concrete things doesn't automatically imply that all (so-called) scientists do so, and given the proliferation of scientific fields that produce nothing concrete, doesn't even imply the majority do.
- The reproducibility crisis in social sciences
- The floods of BS coming out of public health research, a crisis for which we don't even have a name yet
- The journals who only care about impact and not about scientific integrity
- Politicians who appear to be completely controlled by modellers who never validate their models and whose predictions are always wrong
- People who are instinctively loyal to that whole set of power structures and rituals, such that they dismiss any claim of scientific misconduct as conspiracy theories, as ignorance, etc.
and so on. The fact that certain fields of study and other parts of society have been able to use the scientific method to produce concrete things doesn't automatically imply that all (so-called) scientists do so, and given the proliferation of scientific fields that produce nothing concrete, doesn't even imply the majority do.
> This idea that science and technology is just another random religion is so frustrating
That's not my idea, take it to people who are treating science as such. You know, "believe the science" crowd, that will just take at face value whatever media happens to say at the time.
Electricity and the internet are out of scope for religion. Religion is closer to humanist subjects, sociology, psychology, ethics etc.
That's not my idea, take it to people who are treating science as such. You know, "believe the science" crowd, that will just take at face value whatever media happens to say at the time.
Electricity and the internet are out of scope for religion. Religion is closer to humanist subjects, sociology, psychology, ethics etc.
When Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod, he had to be persuasive enough to get people to believe that electricity wasn't just a parlor trick you do with a glass rod and a silk scarf. It's also how clouds create lightning, and the fundamental forces are the same.
You have to remember in the 18th century, lightning killed a lot of people. The fact that lightning rods did, in fact, do what Franklin said they would do was persuasive evidence.
I'm not an expert on the history of Ben Franklin, so I don't know if he ever had to explain that lightning doesn't exist to provide divine retribution. But he did have to get each local church to allow a lightning rod on the steeple with a proper connection to grounding, so I'm sure there were some interesting conversations.
You have to remember in the 18th century, lightning killed a lot of people. The fact that lightning rods did, in fact, do what Franklin said they would do was persuasive evidence.
I'm not an expert on the history of Ben Franklin, so I don't know if he ever had to explain that lightning doesn't exist to provide divine retribution. But he did have to get each local church to allow a lightning rod on the steeple with a proper connection to grounding, so I'm sure there were some interesting conversations.
I think there’s an important distinction to be made here, as I’ve had a lot of the same frustrations as you. Science itself is genuinely NOT religious, and can truly be used to understand the nature of the world, and make practical use of that understanding.
But, if it’s true that man is a religious animal, it’s going to mean that people will always take a religious bent on any major topic in their lives. And so the way that many people experience and understand science may in fact have religious qualities, but this is actually going to be true of any major topic in people’s lives.
But, if it’s true that man is a religious animal, it’s going to mean that people will always take a religious bent on any major topic in their lives. And so the way that many people experience and understand science may in fact have religious qualities, but this is actually going to be true of any major topic in people’s lives.
I totally agree. My objection is more to things like "my opinions are as good as science because science is all just made up too."
The scientific method is just a tool of thought that encompasses one subset of human interests.
For example, the scientific method has little to no utility about whether your grandma loves you, or what love is even.
Much of a life is built around areas of thought like this. Politics, for example, is mostly preference.
For example, the scientific method has little to no utility about whether your grandma loves you, or what love is even.
Much of a life is built around areas of thought like this. Politics, for example, is mostly preference.
I would highly recommend "A General Theory of Love" as the antidote to belief in the last example you gave. A poetically beautiful book.
It might be an antidote, if one asserts that humans are just chemicals.
Many people believe in the assertion that there is free will though, which is a supernatural belief.
If we are just chemicals, than those that believe there exists free will believe that out of no volition of their own.
E.g. the laws of physics happened to be tuned for the eventual existence of a cloud of atoms seeming to contemplate this on a HN forum ;)
In either case, both seem amazing.
Many people believe in the assertion that there is free will though, which is a supernatural belief.
If we are just chemicals, than those that believe there exists free will believe that out of no volition of their own.
E.g. the laws of physics happened to be tuned for the eventual existence of a cloud of atoms seeming to contemplate this on a HN forum ;)
In either case, both seem amazing.
At the risk of mis-stating the hypothesis, the book is more about the active coupling or entrainment of bio-rhythms between individuals as what 'love' is. That we are able to regulate the bio-rhythms of others with our own, and we do so when we feel 'close' to those people in some way or other.
There is another book “the complete idiot’s guide to chemistry of love”, which talks a lot about chemicals. (Great book too)
> Those two hold for, say roughly, 90% of what most people believe, secular or not
See my response to tonymet upthread.
> Even most scientific theories people believe, they haven't examined and are incapable of following their theories and experiements personally - they were just being told they are truth and they trust it to be so.
For some theories that are called "scientific", yes, this is true--but that's because the scientists themselves don't have a track record of correct experimental predictions to begin with. (String theory, for example.)
But for theories like, say, General Relativity, there is a huge track record of correct experimental predictions, and those predictions include things in our everyday experience now, like GPS. It's true that most people cannot verify for themselves the entire chain of reasoning that leads from the Einstein Field Equation to how their GPS device works, but they know that GPS works from their personal experience, so they know that whatever theory scientists are using to make GPS work, works. They don't have to take that on trust.
In other words, for scientific theories that actually have practical impacts, you don't have to just accept what scientists say on trust; you can look at their track record of correct predictions.
See my response to tonymet upthread.
> Even most scientific theories people believe, they haven't examined and are incapable of following their theories and experiements personally - they were just being told they are truth and they trust it to be so.
For some theories that are called "scientific", yes, this is true--but that's because the scientists themselves don't have a track record of correct experimental predictions to begin with. (String theory, for example.)
But for theories like, say, General Relativity, there is a huge track record of correct experimental predictions, and those predictions include things in our everyday experience now, like GPS. It's true that most people cannot verify for themselves the entire chain of reasoning that leads from the Einstein Field Equation to how their GPS device works, but they know that GPS works from their personal experience, so they know that whatever theory scientists are using to make GPS work, works. They don't have to take that on trust.
In other words, for scientific theories that actually have practical impacts, you don't have to just accept what scientists say on trust; you can look at their track record of correct predictions.
Yep, you are correct. At some point "scientific theories" become practical stuff.
One thing that's missing in a lot of books is: how sure are we about the various statements? How much of it is well tested (Newton, Einstein - though we still had a lot of recent confirmation), how much is still out there (example: BCS theory), how much of it is a "feel good explanation" (hybridization theory) or how much is "the math works out wonderfully if we ignore the skeletons in the closet and the theory sounds a bit crazy" (QFT/QED)
One thing that's missing in a lot of books is: how sure are we about the various statements? How much of it is well tested (Newton, Einstein - though we still had a lot of recent confirmation), how much is still out there (example: BCS theory), how much of it is a "feel good explanation" (hybridization theory) or how much is "the math works out wonderfully if we ignore the skeletons in the closet and the theory sounds a bit crazy" (QFT/QED)
> for scientific theories that actually have practical impacts, you don't have to just accept what scientists say on trust; you can look at their track record of correct predictions
What do you think of economic theories or theories behind psychotherapy? Lot's of real world impact, low confidence in experiments, imo
What do you think of economic theories or theories behind psychotherapy? Lot's of real world impact, low confidence in experiments, imo
> What do you think of economic theories or theories behind psychotherapy?
Not much.
> Lot's of real world impact
Because the theories have influence far out of proportion to their actual track record, yes.
> low confidence in experiments, imo
You can't run controlled experiments in either of those fields, so it's not so much a matter of low confidence in experiments as no ability to do them in the first place. There are some general patterns that can be picked out, but both disciplines deal with non-repeatable human situations that require non-repeatable human judgments to deal with them. Even to call them "sciences" is a stretch, except on a very general usage of the term "science" to basically mean "something people study".
Not much.
> Lot's of real world impact
Because the theories have influence far out of proportion to their actual track record, yes.
> low confidence in experiments, imo
You can't run controlled experiments in either of those fields, so it's not so much a matter of low confidence in experiments as no ability to do them in the first place. There are some general patterns that can be picked out, but both disciplines deal with non-repeatable human situations that require non-repeatable human judgments to deal with them. Even to call them "sciences" is a stretch, except on a very general usage of the term "science" to basically mean "something people study".
A layperson doesn't need to be able to reproduce mathematical proofs to understand something that is obvious and material in front of them that is explained by the proof.
How did you acquire the belief that it is better to consider and weigh evidence? And on what scale are you weighing the evidence? And where did you acquire that scale?
>First, people don't acquire the beliefs by considering and weighing evidence; they acquire them by being told them, usually at a young age, by people they trust, and making them part of their identity. That's why people are so resistant to changing such beliefs.
I've come across countless counter-examples to this in my life. A lot of the socialists/Marxists I've known come from relatively well of conservative families for example.
I've no real evidence for this except personal anecdotes, but I suspect gravitating towards an ideology is often as much motivated by what you are against as it is motivated by what you are for. If there's a hierarchy in power, political, religious, whatever, that you think is corrupt you're going to naturally gravitate towards an ideology that provides a narrative as to why it is corrupt and what can be done about it.
People fed up with corruption in catholicism gravitated to protestantism. People fed up with feudal or capitalist hierarchies gravitate towards Marxism. People in the Muslim world fed up with the economic and military domination of the West gravitate towards islamic fundamentalism. People fed up with Communist totalitarianism gravitate towards democracy. These counter-narratives provide a framework for opposition and an agenda that opposition can rally around and unify on.
I've come across countless counter-examples to this in my life. A lot of the socialists/Marxists I've known come from relatively well of conservative families for example.
I've no real evidence for this except personal anecdotes, but I suspect gravitating towards an ideology is often as much motivated by what you are against as it is motivated by what you are for. If there's a hierarchy in power, political, religious, whatever, that you think is corrupt you're going to naturally gravitate towards an ideology that provides a narrative as to why it is corrupt and what can be done about it.
People fed up with corruption in catholicism gravitated to protestantism. People fed up with feudal or capitalist hierarchies gravitate towards Marxism. People in the Muslim world fed up with the economic and military domination of the West gravitate towards islamic fundamentalism. People fed up with Communist totalitarianism gravitate towards democracy. These counter-narratives provide a framework for opposition and an agenda that opposition can rally around and unify on.
I think all ideologies you list support your thesis. These are all examples of counter-ideologies. All of them have also led to ideological wars, including some of the most bloody conflicts in history.
But there are counterexamples. The Scientific Revolution grew out of Christianity more gradually, and with somewhat less friction. Although the Church did try to fight back, the output of the scientists was simply too valuable to local populations and leaders to be suppressed.
Likewise, many countries saw royalty and nobility gradually be replaced by the burgeoisie in a non-violoent manner. The main exception, France, was a lot less successful in this.
Later on, while Marxism led to revolution in the Russian Empire, the labor movement in northern Europe decided to distance themselves from Marx, and instead work for the proletariat by reform rather than revolution. Not by attacking the burgeoisie, but rather by collaborating with it, and by leveraging capitalism to fund a welfare state.
But then again, neither the burgeoisie or the labor movement represented a fundamentally new ideology. Rather, they both adopted and adapted the ideology already in place, which was carredi by some combination of religion, scientism and patriotism/nationalism. The ideologies DID evolve, but in these cases, not in an abrupt manner, dictated by a few "intellectual" ideologes. And most importantly, they did not treat the pre-existing system as a mortal enemy.
History will show where the new ideologies will lead. At the momement, they seem to be very concerned with identifying enemies and not very interested in compromise. There seems to be more appetetite for conflict than the world has seen since the 1930's, and it may be wise to prepare for some kind of rupture within the next 5-30 years.
But there are counterexamples. The Scientific Revolution grew out of Christianity more gradually, and with somewhat less friction. Although the Church did try to fight back, the output of the scientists was simply too valuable to local populations and leaders to be suppressed.
Likewise, many countries saw royalty and nobility gradually be replaced by the burgeoisie in a non-violoent manner. The main exception, France, was a lot less successful in this.
Later on, while Marxism led to revolution in the Russian Empire, the labor movement in northern Europe decided to distance themselves from Marx, and instead work for the proletariat by reform rather than revolution. Not by attacking the burgeoisie, but rather by collaborating with it, and by leveraging capitalism to fund a welfare state.
But then again, neither the burgeoisie or the labor movement represented a fundamentally new ideology. Rather, they both adopted and adapted the ideology already in place, which was carredi by some combination of religion, scientism and patriotism/nationalism. The ideologies DID evolve, but in these cases, not in an abrupt manner, dictated by a few "intellectual" ideologes. And most importantly, they did not treat the pre-existing system as a mortal enemy.
History will show where the new ideologies will lead. At the momement, they seem to be very concerned with identifying enemies and not very interested in compromise. There seems to be more appetetite for conflict than the world has seen since the 1930's, and it may be wise to prepare for some kind of rupture within the next 5-30 years.
> A lot of the socialists/Marxists I've known come from relatively well of conservative families for example.
That just means they got told about socialism/Marxism by some other authority figure besides their parents. I never said that parents were the only ones that could tell people such beliefs and have them accepted and made part of the person's identity.
> I suspect gravitating towards an ideology is often as much motivated by what you are against as it is motivated by what you are for.
This can quite often explain why people accept beliefs by being told them and making them part of their identity, instead of considering and weighing evidence, yes.
That just means they got told about socialism/Marxism by some other authority figure besides their parents. I never said that parents were the only ones that could tell people such beliefs and have them accepted and made part of the person's identity.
> I suspect gravitating towards an ideology is often as much motivated by what you are against as it is motivated by what you are for.
This can quite often explain why people accept beliefs by being told them and making them part of their identity, instead of considering and weighing evidence, yes.
>Few people understand that most religions e.g. Judaism and Christianity have an apologetic discipline – a deliberate arm open to debate.
Open to talking about it, sure, but the crucial element that separates apologetics from real debate is that one side is forbidden from changing their mind. In religion there is a rule overshadowing the exchange of ideas that says, "no matter how convinced you are, or how weak your own case is, you should stick with it, because it's virtuous to stick with this belief no matter what."
Open to talking about it, sure, but the crucial element that separates apologetics from real debate is that one side is forbidden from changing their mind. In religion there is a rule overshadowing the exchange of ideas that says, "no matter how convinced you are, or how weak your own case is, you should stick with it, because it's virtuous to stick with this belief no matter what."
Swap "religion" for "secular ideology" and you've pretty much arrived at the conclusion of the article.
I am biased as a Hindu but I find that Hinduism stands apart here as a religion in that the emphasis is on one's own and the truths discovered therefrom rather than blindly accepting beliefs.
Hinduism is not a religion in western sense. We don't have a set list of doctrine and rules to follow.
When I say I am allowed to be atheist or agnostic according to Vedas, your typical dumb Purohit also screams and tries to justify it's not that.
It's almost like Vedas or Upanishads or the values they emphasize have no place in preist centered medieval / modern "Hinduism".
When I say I am allowed to be atheist or agnostic according to Vedas, your typical dumb Purohit also screams and tries to justify it's not that.
It's almost like Vedas or Upanishads or the values they emphasize have no place in preist centered medieval / modern "Hinduism".
Your typical dumb purohit is not needed to follow Dharma. No one's going to issue a Fatwa if you do your own research and find your own way. You are free to choose between the Astika or Sramana or any of the heterodox schools. The doctrine is there but not in form of DIY commandments.
This is true but doesn't apply to those of us who have to follow certain traditions for the satisfaction of parents. Given a choice I am an atheist / agnostic.
Edit: And 'Dharma' in texts is used to refer to qualities such as 'dhriti' (courage) and r'ta (truthfulness), much more than its being used to refer to rituals. So I don't necessarily even need to read any of these to follow "dharma".
Edit: And 'Dharma' in texts is used to refer to qualities such as 'dhriti' (courage) and r'ta (truthfulness), much more than its being used to refer to rituals. So I don't necessarily even need to read any of these to follow "dharma".
If that's case, I can hardly take Hinduism as a religion. If the burden is on an individual to discover and accept his/her own truths rather than blindly accepting beliefs, then isn't this the same as any secular belief system? Secular people also emphasize on one's own and discover truths themselves to make up of their own belief system.
This might not be true. Most religious people change their beliefs.
A religion is a set of assertions or axioms that, like any mathematical or logical system, cannot ever be proven or disproven (by their very definition).
When one goes about living one’s life, they require life experiences that guide them one way or the other.
A religion is a set of assertions or axioms that, like any mathematical or logical system, cannot ever be proven or disproven (by their very definition).
When one goes about living one’s life, they require life experiences that guide them one way or the other.
That's not a good definition of religion. It allows one to sneak in a history-laden term with a relatively innocuous definition, have someone accept the given definition, and the introduce the rest of the history without having to prove it.
For prior art see arguments that "something must be the first mover, and that thing we call God". Curiously, the sudden leap to "therefore the Judeo-Christian deity is proven to exist" keeps getting snuck in there without any extra proof.
In other words, you're attempting to define a term of art using an existing word, and this just obscures the argument because most people will use its common definition, and not the meaning you're defining for it.
For prior art see arguments that "something must be the first mover, and that thing we call God". Curiously, the sudden leap to "therefore the Judeo-Christian deity is proven to exist" keeps getting snuck in there without any extra proof.
In other words, you're attempting to define a term of art using an existing word, and this just obscures the argument because most people will use its common definition, and not the meaning you're defining for it.
Mathematics is distinguished by at least two characteristics from religion:
1. Precise definitions
2. Not proven inconsistent
(As for 2, we know we can't prove the bulk of mainstream maths consistent. However, since the crisis triggered after Russell's paradox was discovered and set theory was formalised in a better way, nobody has been able to poke a fundamental hole into current mathematics. Moreover, there are certain subsets of mathematics - say, Presburger Arithmetic - that are provably consistent.)
I have never seen a definition of "God" that is both precise and not self-contradictory.
Conflating mathematics and religion is just disingenuous.
1. Precise definitions
2. Not proven inconsistent
(As for 2, we know we can't prove the bulk of mainstream maths consistent. However, since the crisis triggered after Russell's paradox was discovered and set theory was formalised in a better way, nobody has been able to poke a fundamental hole into current mathematics. Moreover, there are certain subsets of mathematics - say, Presburger Arithmetic - that are provably consistent.)
I have never seen a definition of "God" that is both precise and not self-contradictory.
Conflating mathematics and religion is just disingenuous.
Sorry if it seemed like I was conflating the two, I was just trying to compare one facet of each. My use of the word ‘like’ was supposed to be an allegorical one.
(Assuming, by conflate, it is the combining two into one, per definition).
‘God is Love’ doesn’t seem contradictory.
(Assuming, by conflate, it is the combining two into one, per definition).
‘God is Love’ doesn’t seem contradictory.
> ‘God is Love’ doesn’t seem contradictory
That's because it doesn't mean anything.
That's because it doesn't mean anything.
That’s one assertion certainly :)
Others have been beheaded asserting it. Life is certainly interesting though.
Others have been beheaded asserting it. Life is certainly interesting though.
If you want to have a discussion here you should try harder.
edit: let's just play the game, shall we?
"God is Love", first of all - is this a definition of God or one of love? I have a feeling it's trying to be both, but that is invalid. It's probably trying to tap into some intuitive understanding of what "love" is and to connect it to some other concept, such as God.
In any case, a) we haven't defined what "love" is and that's not gonna be an easy definition - maybe we should start there; b) suppose we know what love is: if you say "God is love", and you use that as a definition for God then... why do we need a concept of God? We can just go and rewrite the entire bible and substitute every occurrence of God with "love"? So, in the beginning, love created the universe? Love died for our sins? Love sent the great flood and told Noah to build an ark? Even if you don't take these stories at face value, the bible clearly ascribes agency to God, but if God is just love, then love supposedly has agency something that... probably doesn't make sense with most people's definition of love. See point a)
I would suggest for you to pick up an introductory textbook to some topic in analytic philosophy and compare the rigour of the explanations therein with "God is love".
edit: let's just play the game, shall we?
"God is Love", first of all - is this a definition of God or one of love? I have a feeling it's trying to be both, but that is invalid. It's probably trying to tap into some intuitive understanding of what "love" is and to connect it to some other concept, such as God.
In any case, a) we haven't defined what "love" is and that's not gonna be an easy definition - maybe we should start there; b) suppose we know what love is: if you say "God is love", and you use that as a definition for God then... why do we need a concept of God? We can just go and rewrite the entire bible and substitute every occurrence of God with "love"? So, in the beginning, love created the universe? Love died for our sins? Love sent the great flood and told Noah to build an ark? Even if you don't take these stories at face value, the bible clearly ascribes agency to God, but if God is just love, then love supposedly has agency something that... probably doesn't make sense with most people's definition of love. See point a)
I would suggest for you to pick up an introductory textbook to some topic in analytic philosophy and compare the rigour of the explanations therein with "God is love".
Do you believe this applies to Taoism? At least by my interpretation, it lacks many of the shortcomings of other religions.
The major religions and also secular ideologies each have their strengths, otherwise they wouldn't have millions of followers.
“Taoism”, the religion, has, as I am given to understand, many of the normal trappings of religion, including formal dresses for priests, and, IIRC, quite a lot of alchemy.
This is probably not the “Taoism” which you read about in western pop-culture paperbacks or hippie-age TV.
This is probably not the “Taoism” which you read about in western pop-culture paperbacks or hippie-age TV.
Perhaps they have priests with costumes, and I am not aware of any alchemy, but are these "shortcomings" in any sort of fundamental, materially important way?
I mean, alchemy is not a really an advantage for a religion to include these days. Most religions have dropped their medical claims long ago.
It's worth noting that modern Daoist alchemy is internal alchemy [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neidan
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neidan
Sure, but I am more interested in this idea of whether alchemy is a fundamental and substantial part of Taoism, and then also the question of whatever negatives may come with that (if it is actually true), is Taoism in the aggregate net beneficial to humanity, or not. I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the matter.
It's 'internal alchemy' [0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neidan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neidan
Ah, thanks for that. These seem fairly harmless to me
but I'm not so knowledgeable, what do you think?
I think they're things best practiced with a guide, and not something to go attempt yourself. Whether there's any actual effect from it or not, who knows. But it's always better safe than sorry.
Individuals, including religious people, frequently change their mind. Have you never met a person who used to be religious, and I am not just talking about raised religiously but actually believing, lose their faith? The idea that religious people are religious just because they don't want to change their views is ridiculous.
Apostasy is a death penalty offence for some religions, and the cause of a fair number of wars in other religions.
Its certainly frowned upon in general
Its certainly frowned upon in general
I am talking about religion in general in the West (since that is what the article is about). People frequently stop being Christian for example.
Yes they do it, but that's clearly against the rules of their religion. You can only decide that a religion is not true while not practicing that religion, because curiously they all have the same virtue-associated principle of never reaching that conclusion.
I would be curious if you could find a rule book that says you must believe this rule book.
> Becoming more religious has helped me identify religious tendencies in the secular world.
Do you believe that becoming religious made you smarter / more aware, or that it made you more eager to seek reassuring comparisons outside your religion?
> The secular world would benefit from adopting more formal definitions of their belief system.
Benefit whom? The 'secular world' is perhaps not as centrally organised as you may believe or wish for. (We meet at the Fox & Hound every second Wednesday.) Whether this is inconvenient for members of the secular world, members of various fantasy clubs, or both - is hard to say.
Personally I don't feel that a codification of my understanding of the universe (I struggle to think of it as a belief system, as that has connotations of faith and rigidity in the absence of evidence) is necessary. I do undeniably like the idea that my understanding of the universe (roughly) aligns, AFAICT, with that of other intelligent people I know, or whose works I see or read - but I'm not sure that's the same thing.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Do you accept that perhaps intentionally non-religious people may not be as dumb as that assertion demands?
Do you believe that becoming religious made you smarter / more aware, or that it made you more eager to seek reassuring comparisons outside your religion?
> The secular world would benefit from adopting more formal definitions of their belief system.
Benefit whom? The 'secular world' is perhaps not as centrally organised as you may believe or wish for. (We meet at the Fox & Hound every second Wednesday.) Whether this is inconvenient for members of the secular world, members of various fantasy clubs, or both - is hard to say.
Personally I don't feel that a codification of my understanding of the universe (I struggle to think of it as a belief system, as that has connotations of faith and rigidity in the absence of evidence) is necessary. I do undeniably like the idea that my understanding of the universe (roughly) aligns, AFAICT, with that of other intelligent people I know, or whose works I see or read - but I'm not sure that's the same thing.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Do you accept that perhaps intentionally non-religious people may not be as dumb as that assertion demands?
> Do you believe that becoming religious made you smarter / more aware
As in it's equipped me with mental models to understand which components of secular life are acts of faith & ritual vs reason.
> 'secular world' is perhaps not as centrally organised as you may believe or wish for
Nor is it uniform. But there are some overt and some covert aspects. the covert forces benefit from being nebulous.
One reason religions are so open to attack is that they have a clear identity and value system (not necessarily good, but at least clearly stated). If you think about it, you can have a healthier relationship with a religious opponent– as long as you have equal power, you can oppose each other in a healthy way.
The secular world is applying all sorts of demands & social pressures on you, and there's no way to oppose them, because secular ideology doesn't have an identity, an institution or value system open to attack. It's like fighting smoke or a swarm of bees.
As in it's equipped me with mental models to understand which components of secular life are acts of faith & ritual vs reason.
> 'secular world' is perhaps not as centrally organised as you may believe or wish for
Nor is it uniform. But there are some overt and some covert aspects. the covert forces benefit from being nebulous.
One reason religions are so open to attack is that they have a clear identity and value system (not necessarily good, but at least clearly stated). If you think about it, you can have a healthier relationship with a religious opponent– as long as you have equal power, you can oppose each other in a healthy way.
The secular world is applying all sorts of demands & social pressures on you, and there's no way to oppose them, because secular ideology doesn't have an identity, an institution or value system open to attack. It's like fighting smoke or a swarm of bees.
> The secular world is applying all sorts of demands & social pressures on you, and there's no way to oppose them, because secular ideology doesn't have an identity, an institution or value system open to attack. It's like fighting smoke or a swarm of bees.
That's because there is no such thing as "secular ideology". It's a meaningless phrase.
That's because there is no such thing as "secular ideology". It's a meaningless phrase.
Correct.
There is no such thing as "secular ideology". There are many. Just as there are many religions.
There is materialism+work ethic, there is materialism without work ethic, there is "wokeism" (to pin a definition, the belief that oppression is a fundamental societal force and clearly directional based on some enumerated characteristics), there is nationalism. There's even "startups" :P
But perhaps you have a grain of truth in that rarely is a "secular ideologist" a "monotheistic" (monoidealistic?) one. Usually one's identity holds a plurality of those identifications.
Also, people can have a strong identification to ideas without a community to back it up (another grain of truth, and the saddest part)
There is no such thing as "secular ideology". There are many. Just as there are many religions.
There is materialism+work ethic, there is materialism without work ethic, there is "wokeism" (to pin a definition, the belief that oppression is a fundamental societal force and clearly directional based on some enumerated characteristics), there is nationalism. There's even "startups" :P
But perhaps you have a grain of truth in that rarely is a "secular ideologist" a "monotheistic" (monoidealistic?) one. Usually one's identity holds a plurality of those identifications.
Also, people can have a strong identification to ideas without a community to back it up (another grain of truth, and the saddest part)
This is academically true but not practically true. sure there are various secular ideologies in the wild, but due to globalized media & culture, you will generally find major and minor dominant ideologies ruling over you personally.
Overall the point isn’t to say that all secular belief is the same. The point is that any secular ideology you follow will have the same characteristics of religious belief despite lacking definition.
Overall the point isn’t to say that all secular belief is the same. The point is that any secular ideology you follow will have the same characteristics of religious belief despite lacking definition.
> That's because there is no such thing as "secular ideology". It's a meaningless phrase.
Yes, there is no such thing, but it does not become meaningless, and so such be called 'something'
It is the opposite, the repudiation of 'religious ideology'
just like there is no such thing as 'cold' - it is the opposite of 'heat' which is measured, but 'cold' as such, holds some value in dialogue, so it is for 'secular ideology'
Yes, there is no such thing, but it does not become meaningless, and so such be called 'something'
It is the opposite, the repudiation of 'religious ideology'
just like there is no such thing as 'cold' - it is the opposite of 'heat' which is measured, but 'cold' as such, holds some value in dialogue, so it is for 'secular ideology'
There is such a thing if one delves into definition of ideology. Depending on the definition, there either is or is not such a thing.
"Few people understand that most religions e.g. Judaism and Christianity have an apologetic discipline – a deliberate arm open to debate."
Just want to point out that Jewish apologetics is not the same as Christian apologetics. Christian apologists are working in furtherance of the Christian goal of converting everyone to Christianity. Jewish apologists are working only to prevent other Jews from being swayed by the arguments made by other religions (primarily those from Christian missionaries, who often target Jews specifically).
That aside, what makes you think apologetics represents an openness to debate? I cannot speak for Christians, but Jewish apologetics only exists because other groups are trying to lead Jews to conversion to another faith, and apologetics holds little value within the framework of Judaism itself. What non-Jews think of Judaism is irrelevant because proselytizing is not a requirement (it is not forbidden, but it is also not encouraged and conversion is a deliberately difficult process). Judaism certainly has an openness to debate, but the debate is within Judaism itself -- what is the right way to practice the Jewish religion? What is the right way to interpret and understand Jewish holy books? Judaism is not open to debates about the need for Jews to practice Judaism; the covenant between Jews and God is an axiom.
Just want to point out that Jewish apologetics is not the same as Christian apologetics. Christian apologists are working in furtherance of the Christian goal of converting everyone to Christianity. Jewish apologists are working only to prevent other Jews from being swayed by the arguments made by other religions (primarily those from Christian missionaries, who often target Jews specifically).
That aside, what makes you think apologetics represents an openness to debate? I cannot speak for Christians, but Jewish apologetics only exists because other groups are trying to lead Jews to conversion to another faith, and apologetics holds little value within the framework of Judaism itself. What non-Jews think of Judaism is irrelevant because proselytizing is not a requirement (it is not forbidden, but it is also not encouraged and conversion is a deliberately difficult process). Judaism certainly has an openness to debate, but the debate is within Judaism itself -- what is the right way to practice the Jewish religion? What is the right way to interpret and understand Jewish holy books? Judaism is not open to debates about the need for Jews to practice Judaism; the covenant between Jews and God is an axiom.
> Jewish apologists are working only to prevent other Jews from being swayed by the arguments made by other religions (primarily those from Christian missionaries, who often target Jews specifically).
The Judaism when the Talmud was written was a fanatically proselytizing sect, as is clear if you read the talmud. They created seed outposts all over the Roman empire of new converts, as they sought (and obtained) special dispensation to be the only religion allowed to proselytize in ancient Rome and they had an active missionary service travelling all over the world seeking converts. These missionary efforts were quite successful, spreading judaism to the far reaches of the Roman Empire, creating enclaves of newly converted Jews in the major cities of the Western world. It is these enclaves that were most receptive to Christianity during its initial expansion, and in that period when Christianty was considered another sect of Judaism, the Christians also used the special dispensation given to Jews to gain converts. This created tension, where some of the Jews complained to the Roman authorities that these Christian Jews were not real jews and thus should not be allowed to proselytize under the dispensation alloted to jews. This information also forms the backdrop that helps understand early Christian history. For example, in the first apostolic council recorded in acts, what was meant by saying "Moses is preached in all the synagogues" when referring to new converts in Corinth, Rome, and Ephesus. It is because those new converts were either fully converted jews, themselves converted a few generations previously by Pharisee missionaries, or they were in some other stage of the conversion process, and so they, too, met in Synagogues, even in places like Ephesus, and thus the early Christian missionaries just went from Synagogue to Synagogue all over the Roman Empire, winning over the descendents of converts in communities that were previously won over to judaism.
The Pharisee missionary work is also mentioned in the New Testament, when Christ accuses the Pharisees, saying "You travel over land and sea to make one convert and when you do, he is twice the son of hell that you are."
This missionary program was so successful that much of the Talmud was written by the children of new converts, in new communities all over the Roman Empire. Rabbi Hillel's famous retort to a man demanding to know the meaning of the Talmud while standing on one leg was in a debate that was attempting to convert his (gentile) questionner to judaism. In fact the background to many of the famous passages in the talmud were attempts at conversion and evangelization. Knowing that is an important part of understanding these passages. These jewish communities also provided sancturary to fleeing Jews after the Romans expelled them from Palestine in the wake of the third revolt - they were taken in by the descendents of new converts created by Pharisees, and these cities became the seed communities of jews in Europe and North Africa.
But it is true that modern Judaism does not try to convert others and has become a racial identity as much or moreso than a religious identity, however this was not the case for those rabbis when the mishna was compiled or when the oldest portions of the Gemara were first written.
The Judaism when the Talmud was written was a fanatically proselytizing sect, as is clear if you read the talmud. They created seed outposts all over the Roman empire of new converts, as they sought (and obtained) special dispensation to be the only religion allowed to proselytize in ancient Rome and they had an active missionary service travelling all over the world seeking converts. These missionary efforts were quite successful, spreading judaism to the far reaches of the Roman Empire, creating enclaves of newly converted Jews in the major cities of the Western world. It is these enclaves that were most receptive to Christianity during its initial expansion, and in that period when Christianty was considered another sect of Judaism, the Christians also used the special dispensation given to Jews to gain converts. This created tension, where some of the Jews complained to the Roman authorities that these Christian Jews were not real jews and thus should not be allowed to proselytize under the dispensation alloted to jews. This information also forms the backdrop that helps understand early Christian history. For example, in the first apostolic council recorded in acts, what was meant by saying "Moses is preached in all the synagogues" when referring to new converts in Corinth, Rome, and Ephesus. It is because those new converts were either fully converted jews, themselves converted a few generations previously by Pharisee missionaries, or they were in some other stage of the conversion process, and so they, too, met in Synagogues, even in places like Ephesus, and thus the early Christian missionaries just went from Synagogue to Synagogue all over the Roman Empire, winning over the descendents of converts in communities that were previously won over to judaism.
The Pharisee missionary work is also mentioned in the New Testament, when Christ accuses the Pharisees, saying "You travel over land and sea to make one convert and when you do, he is twice the son of hell that you are."
This missionary program was so successful that much of the Talmud was written by the children of new converts, in new communities all over the Roman Empire. Rabbi Hillel's famous retort to a man demanding to know the meaning of the Talmud while standing on one leg was in a debate that was attempting to convert his (gentile) questionner to judaism. In fact the background to many of the famous passages in the talmud were attempts at conversion and evangelization. Knowing that is an important part of understanding these passages. These jewish communities also provided sancturary to fleeing Jews after the Romans expelled them from Palestine in the wake of the third revolt - they were taken in by the descendents of new converts created by Pharisees, and these cities became the seed communities of jews in Europe and North Africa.
But it is true that modern Judaism does not try to convert others and has become a racial identity as much or moreso than a religious identity, however this was not the case for those rabbis when the mishna was compiled or when the oldest portions of the Gemara were first written.
As a jew who has studied the talmud extensively I would love to know where the sources for this whole comment are. I've never seen anything even close to this anywhere in the talmud or any history book on the roman empire or jewish history.
> Palestine in the wake of the third revolt
Oh... now I see you're gaslighting and re-writing history. Your sources will be the same ones Mahmoud Abbas used for his "thesis"
> Palestine in the wake of the third revolt
Oh... now I see you're gaslighting and re-writing history. Your sources will be the same ones Mahmoud Abbas used for his "thesis"
Proselytizing is not forbidden. It is also not required, and for all that proselytizing activity of the ancient rabbis there is very little in the Talmud that actually discusses seeking out converts and Jews are not actually required to do so. The New Testament makes proselytizing a requirement for every Christian (the Great Commission). Likewise, Christians are called on by the New Testament to engage in apologetics; the Talmud only suggests that Jews should know how to answer a "heretic" (which, as I said, means the debate is only meant to be between Jews) and only (to my knowledge) in Pirkei Avot which does not even have a Gemara.
In any case, what difference does it make if Jews in the first and second centuries were proselytizing? The religion changed since then and everyone knows it. Traditions we take for granted today like the Passover Seder had only just started to develop in the second century. There was no Jewish Calendar at that time and there was no canon of scripture (there was a collection of holy writings that overlapped with the Tanakh, but what was actually in that collection depended on who you asked).
In this century, and for at least the ten centuries prior (likely longer), Jewish apologetics has only been in response to efforts by non-Jews to convert Jews to other religions, and that is very different from Christian apologetics.
In any case, what difference does it make if Jews in the first and second centuries were proselytizing? The religion changed since then and everyone knows it. Traditions we take for granted today like the Passover Seder had only just started to develop in the second century. There was no Jewish Calendar at that time and there was no canon of scripture (there was a collection of holy writings that overlapped with the Tanakh, but what was actually in that collection depended on who you asked).
In this century, and for at least the ten centuries prior (likely longer), Jewish apologetics has only been in response to efforts by non-Jews to convert Jews to other religions, and that is very different from Christian apologetics.
> Proselytizing is not forbidden. It is also not required,
Very few religions require proselytizing. I think Mormons are expected to go on missionary trips, but that's all I'm familiar with. In most religions, missionaries are selected from the group and sent out, so the job of proselytizing is a corporate, not personal job, and the role of "missionary" can mean anything from establishing universities and hospitals in Africa to preaching on a street corner in Atlanta. But no churches I'm aware of require some type of missionary effort from all of their members - maybe I missed one.
> In any case, what difference does it make if Jews in the first and second centuries were proselytizing?
It continued up through the middle ages, so this is over 1000 years. Pope Gregory famously complained about jews proselytizing, but perhaps he was making it all up. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/24659643 and also https://repository.yu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12202/6076...
In terms of what difference does it make, it's up to you to decide how much you care, I was only pointing out that rabbinical judaism, at least in the past, had similar missionary efforts to Christianity today. You can take that for whatever you want - I don't want to get into a debate as to whether judaism in the 20th Century is the "true" judaism versus judaism in the 10th Century or 5th Century. There are different sects with different beliefs as to what is authentic and what is not.
> The New Testament makes proselytizing a requirement for every Christian (the Great Commission).
Woah. Even in evangelical churches, the commission applies to corporate bodies and the verb "go" is passive, not active. "Make disciples" is active, e.g. . E.g. "make disciples as you go into the world". Now there are many passages where Paul asks for help to be bold and open his mouth, so it depends on how you define missionary efforts or proselytization. In the early church, would be converts were turned away three times before being admitted in some places, even as there was public preaching and mass baptisms in other places. But there was no general requirement that everyone do these things, rather there were special roles of evangelists who do them, again modelled on the Pharisees and their system. The notion of being "born again" and water baptism - john the baptist for example, these all came from jewish practices.
Now today, some evangelical churches have come to interpret a casual relationship in the great commission, in the sense that once there are Christians in every tribe, the end will come, and so to hasten that end they are trying to convert some from every tribe, but I don't think this is a mainstream view or a view that was part of historical Christianity.
But I agree there is certainly a practical difference in that there are evangelical churches that actively proselytize and send missionaries out which are funded by church members, but for example Orthodox churches don't do this and they don't interpret the Matthew in the same way as evangelical churches.
> There was no Jewish Calendar at that time and there was no canon of scripture
There was absolutely a jewish calendar that predates the Babylonian captivity. Most of the content of the book of leviticus is concerned with special feast days and observances, and these must occur at certain times of the year. That requires a calendar. Now regardless of whether you believe the law dates to Jeremiah or Moses, at whatever point in time the law was observed a calendar needed to exist before then.
Very few religions require proselytizing. I think Mormons are expected to go on missionary trips, but that's all I'm familiar with. In most religions, missionaries are selected from the group and sent out, so the job of proselytizing is a corporate, not personal job, and the role of "missionary" can mean anything from establishing universities and hospitals in Africa to preaching on a street corner in Atlanta. But no churches I'm aware of require some type of missionary effort from all of their members - maybe I missed one.
> In any case, what difference does it make if Jews in the first and second centuries were proselytizing?
It continued up through the middle ages, so this is over 1000 years. Pope Gregory famously complained about jews proselytizing, but perhaps he was making it all up. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/24659643 and also https://repository.yu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12202/6076...
In terms of what difference does it make, it's up to you to decide how much you care, I was only pointing out that rabbinical judaism, at least in the past, had similar missionary efforts to Christianity today. You can take that for whatever you want - I don't want to get into a debate as to whether judaism in the 20th Century is the "true" judaism versus judaism in the 10th Century or 5th Century. There are different sects with different beliefs as to what is authentic and what is not.
> The New Testament makes proselytizing a requirement for every Christian (the Great Commission).
Woah. Even in evangelical churches, the commission applies to corporate bodies and the verb "go" is passive, not active. "Make disciples" is active, e.g. . E.g. "make disciples as you go into the world". Now there are many passages where Paul asks for help to be bold and open his mouth, so it depends on how you define missionary efforts or proselytization. In the early church, would be converts were turned away three times before being admitted in some places, even as there was public preaching and mass baptisms in other places. But there was no general requirement that everyone do these things, rather there were special roles of evangelists who do them, again modelled on the Pharisees and their system. The notion of being "born again" and water baptism - john the baptist for example, these all came from jewish practices.
Now today, some evangelical churches have come to interpret a casual relationship in the great commission, in the sense that once there are Christians in every tribe, the end will come, and so to hasten that end they are trying to convert some from every tribe, but I don't think this is a mainstream view or a view that was part of historical Christianity.
But I agree there is certainly a practical difference in that there are evangelical churches that actively proselytize and send missionaries out which are funded by church members, but for example Orthodox churches don't do this and they don't interpret the Matthew in the same way as evangelical churches.
> There was no Jewish Calendar at that time and there was no canon of scripture
There was absolutely a jewish calendar that predates the Babylonian captivity. Most of the content of the book of leviticus is concerned with special feast days and observances, and these must occur at certain times of the year. That requires a calendar. Now regardless of whether you believe the law dates to Jeremiah or Moses, at whatever point in time the law was observed a calendar needed to exist before then.
I do think that Jehova's Witnesses requires it of their members. At least previously I believe they were required to do X hours every Y period.
Maybe I misunderstood the great commission, or maybe I am only familiar with the kind of Christianity practiced by the Christians I have known in my lifetime. Perhaps saying that the great commission calls on every Christian to proselytize is not universally accepted among Christians. As I said, I cannot really comment on Christian perspectives because I am not a Christian. I do not think there is much doubt that Christianity is a religion that actively seeks converts, and Eastern Orthodox churches are not an exception (they have missionaries too). It may not be the central motivation of every church, and it may not be required of every individual Christian, but proselytizing of some kind is a requirement of Christianity.
It is doubtful that Jewish proselytizing occurred to any significant degree under Christian or Muslim rule, which would have been the majority of the lands where Jews lived during the medieval period. It was made illegal by various emperors, kings, and councils. Jews were already suffering the persecution of Christian rule toward the end of the classical period -- among other things, the Sanhedrin was abolished (its last act was the creation of a fixed Jewish calendar; the biblical system you mentioned was based on observing the moon and having religious authorities make announcements of those observations, which could not continue without the Sanhedrin). Judaism remains open to conversion by people who want to convert, but there have be no active efforts to find or win converts for at least 1000 years, and I suspect even longer than that.
It is doubtful that Jewish proselytizing occurred to any significant degree under Christian or Muslim rule, which would have been the majority of the lands where Jews lived during the medieval period. It was made illegal by various emperors, kings, and councils. Jews were already suffering the persecution of Christian rule toward the end of the classical period -- among other things, the Sanhedrin was abolished (its last act was the creation of a fixed Jewish calendar; the biblical system you mentioned was based on observing the moon and having religious authorities make announcements of those observations, which could not continue without the Sanhedrin). Judaism remains open to conversion by people who want to convert, but there have be no active efforts to find or win converts for at least 1000 years, and I suspect even longer than that.
I am curious to know what part in the Talmud refer to proselytizing.
The passage you cite refers to a gentile that wants to convert , not a tentative at active pproselytizing
The passage you cite refers to a gentile that wants to convert , not a tentative at active pproselytizing
Not only that, he was previously rejected by another Rabbi.
>This missionary program was so successful that much of the Talmud was written by the children of new converts, in new communities all over the Roman Empire
Demonstrably nonsense. They were clearly written in Israel and Persia (latterly). Little is mentioned of communities elsewhere.
Demonstrably nonsense. They were clearly written in Israel and Persia (latterly). Little is mentioned of communities elsewhere.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
This is a poisonous reversal of reality, to the extent that I wonder if you're just trolling.
Fact is, more religious people, especially the evangelical Christian sect that is most vocal and influential in America, is not about examining implicit beliefs, nor is it open to debate. It's about falling into line, and adopting a strict set of ideological beliefs that are not negotiable. In fact, religion is often explained in terms of faith as an opposition to analysis: after all, if your first principle is that you believe in something, why question further?
In contrast, modern secular culture, although not immune to tribalism and ideological blindness, is much more open to building belief through analysis and understanding, i.e. the scientific method.
This is a poisonous reversal of reality, to the extent that I wonder if you're just trolling.
Fact is, more religious people, especially the evangelical Christian sect that is most vocal and influential in America, is not about examining implicit beliefs, nor is it open to debate. It's about falling into line, and adopting a strict set of ideological beliefs that are not negotiable. In fact, religion is often explained in terms of faith as an opposition to analysis: after all, if your first principle is that you believe in something, why question further?
In contrast, modern secular culture, although not immune to tribalism and ideological blindness, is much more open to building belief through analysis and understanding, i.e. the scientific method.
Did not intend to troll. The “cognitive tools” are the ability to discern which beliefs are religious in nature: taken on faith, ritualistic, ethical , etc.
Again I’m not saying that religion is better or worse. Actually this is a defense of religion as a framework for defining belief.
I’m arguing that secularism when taken on face value lacks the tools to recognize it’s own belief system.
Again I’m not saying that religion is better or worse. Actually this is a defense of religion as a framework for defining belief.
I’m arguing that secularism when taken on face value lacks the tools to recognize it’s own belief system.
I agree with the parent, you’re argument almost appears disingenuous to the point of looking like a troll or bait. This perspective is substituting any belief with a religious belief which is a false equivalency. It’s unfortunate that the grandparent is the top comment right now.
Can you share profound beliefs that you don't believe are religious in nature?
I know trivial beliefs e.g. today was 85º – we can agree that calling those religious would not be useful.
I know trivial beliefs e.g. today was 85º – we can agree that calling those religious would not be useful.
Check your original comment. You did not qualify that only “profound secular beliefs” are religious in nature. Rather, you speak in general saying “secular beliefs are religious.” So now you’re moving the goal posts.
Using your original logic, -any- belief can be religious in nature. “Today was 85” -is- religious from your original position because perhaps people ritualistically check the weather every morning like a prayer. The weathermen are like priests disseminating knowledge, and small talk is used to find other weather checker cultists.
It does not matter what belief Id offer up, because it will match your original definition because your original definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Other comments have already said this in fewer words. If you are unable to identify what it would look like if you were mistaken, then you shouldn’t be confident that you are correct. So how could someone identify the difference between a secular belief and a religious belief?
Using your original logic, -any- belief can be religious in nature. “Today was 85” -is- religious from your original position because perhaps people ritualistically check the weather every morning like a prayer. The weathermen are like priests disseminating knowledge, and small talk is used to find other weather checker cultists.
It does not matter what belief Id offer up, because it will match your original definition because your original definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Other comments have already said this in fewer words. If you are unable to identify what it would look like if you were mistaken, then you shouldn’t be confident that you are correct. So how could someone identify the difference between a secular belief and a religious belief?
The Church-Turing thesis? That ZFC is consistent? That the driving force of history is primarily material relations between groups?
"I’m arguing that secularism when taken on face value lacks the tools to recognize it’s own belief system."
Truly a bonkers assertion when secularism includes enormous institutions to fund and perform tasks as various as the hard sciences to the most abstract philosophical investigations and the entire gamut of cultural production around and between.
The average person doesn't much participate in these institutions but the average Catholic hasn't read Humanea Vitae either.
Truly a bonkers assertion when secularism includes enormous institutions to fund and perform tasks as various as the hard sciences to the most abstract philosophical investigations and the entire gamut of cultural production around and between.
The average person doesn't much participate in these institutions but the average Catholic hasn't read Humanea Vitae either.
It decidedly does not generally lack these tools. A main point of many popular secular(ist) believe systems, e.g. such represented by humanist societies, is to question implicit assumptions and understand what fundamental philosophical believes one has, and they are built around how to do this.
People are often not secularist because they don't reflect, usually they have specific reasons that they are aware of and that they might question in the future.
People are often not secularist because they don't reflect, usually they have specific reasons that they are aware of and that they might question in the future.
>In contrast, modern secular culture, although not immune to tribalism and ideological blindness, is much more open to building belief through analysis and understanding, i.e. the scientific method.
I think this was true, at a certain point in or for a window of time, but it certainly isn't true today. There are well known axioms that are not-to-be-challenged, and doing so risks expulsion (i.e. Excommunication). So maybe what's happening is Secularism is going through its own phase of Fundamentalist Revival.
I think this was true, at a certain point in or for a window of time, but it certainly isn't true today. There are well known axioms that are not-to-be-challenged, and doing so risks expulsion (i.e. Excommunication). So maybe what's happening is Secularism is going through its own phase of Fundamentalist Revival.
That's certainly the way Fox News tries to portray secularism. In my experience, it has no basis in reality.
There has to be a name for the rhetorical strategy that goes something like "your opinions or observations are sufficiently similar to media_influencer_I_dont_like regardless of their actual origin, and thus I'm able to discount what you are saying outright". Every time this topic comes up, even when it's in a more interesting and philosophical thread like this one, the Fox News bogyman always gets trotted out. TFA is from ... The Atlantic, if you haven't noticed.
You are misinterpreting my comment. I am discounting their comment because it does not correspond to my experience at all, not because it comes from Fox News. I am, instead, using Fox News to possibly explain the origin of that opinion, since it certainly cannot come from observation of reality.
It's so funny when people intentionally define anything as kind of religion in order to fit their worldview. Take it this way, scientific thinking/method is about a system to analyze. It can be used analyze anything(yourself, math, religion). It's like a function, where you put input data and try your best analyze critically to get an reasonable output. And it can even be used to analyze itself!(like higher order function). And sometimes u produce solid results(maths, physics), sometimes u don't (whether god exists). You start to learn what's scientifically provable, what's not provable. There is a difference between the process of analysis and analyzed results.
And that's where so called 'atheism is just a religion' got it wrong. No, it's not about getting a result. Scientific method is a way of processing information. It's about the process, not the result. It's not about believe the god exist or not(the result). It's about find out a way to prove (process). And it's perfectly fine if u can't produce a solid proof(provability). 'I don't know' is perfectly fine. You don't even have to believe, use the scientific method to analyze, do you best to deduce, and move on to the next topic. 'Religion' is just a topic to study. If people can't really grasp how scientific method and critical thinking works, they would never move past 'to believe' or 'not to believe'.
And that's where so called 'atheism is just a religion' got it wrong. No, it's not about getting a result. Scientific method is a way of processing information. It's about the process, not the result. It's not about believe the god exist or not(the result). It's about find out a way to prove (process). And it's perfectly fine if u can't produce a solid proof(provability). 'I don't know' is perfectly fine. You don't even have to believe, use the scientific method to analyze, do you best to deduce, and move on to the next topic. 'Religion' is just a topic to study. If people can't really grasp how scientific method and critical thinking works, they would never move past 'to believe' or 'not to believe'.
You seem to believe that the scientific method and religion are mutually exclusive.
I'm going to split out some terms here. Scientific Method, Academic Science, and Secularism. The latter two are connected to atheism, at least in this era, and are more in line with ideologies and I do not desire to further address or describe them in this post except to say that they do not have a monopoly on the merits of the scientific method.
To speak of the method itself, which is religion agnostic and, as you say, it is a function to provide information as well as the ability to duplicate results. I would append that applying the scientific method to religion works, and that you can, indeed, learn as well as duplicate results through it - as well as reject results that do not work.
A major challenge is that the resultant artifacts aren't readily transferable or inspectable. Many secularists get hung up on this and say it's an invalid application. Essentially that only what the eye can see or the hand can measure is real. I can't really show you my happiness, or peace, or share with you the the depth of experience or knowledge that heals and transforms. I can tell you about it, about how Christ can lead you to peace. I can describe the inputs and results, the complete formula, and then you can walk it and experience the fruits first hand.
Another part of the challenge is that lack of transferability also applies to the instrumentation. I can't provide you a properly calibrated conscience, or the concept of true humility before God like I could a measure of mass or distance. It's all internal to you. Experimentation on that is time consuming and difficult. Some people run experiments with improperly calibrated instrumentation and then fail to get the expected results.
I'm going to split out some terms here. Scientific Method, Academic Science, and Secularism. The latter two are connected to atheism, at least in this era, and are more in line with ideologies and I do not desire to further address or describe them in this post except to say that they do not have a monopoly on the merits of the scientific method.
To speak of the method itself, which is religion agnostic and, as you say, it is a function to provide information as well as the ability to duplicate results. I would append that applying the scientific method to religion works, and that you can, indeed, learn as well as duplicate results through it - as well as reject results that do not work.
A major challenge is that the resultant artifacts aren't readily transferable or inspectable. Many secularists get hung up on this and say it's an invalid application. Essentially that only what the eye can see or the hand can measure is real. I can't really show you my happiness, or peace, or share with you the the depth of experience or knowledge that heals and transforms. I can tell you about it, about how Christ can lead you to peace. I can describe the inputs and results, the complete formula, and then you can walk it and experience the fruits first hand.
Another part of the challenge is that lack of transferability also applies to the instrumentation. I can't provide you a properly calibrated conscience, or the concept of true humility before God like I could a measure of mass or distance. It's all internal to you. Experimentation on that is time consuming and difficult. Some people run experiments with improperly calibrated instrumentation and then fail to get the expected results.
You are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that scientific method is way of thinking. If you have to compare to religion. They are orthogonal. You can apply scientific method and claims that you believe god exist. Because you can't scientific prove otherwise. But at the same time, you can apply scientific method and claims the reverse, that you don't believe god exist. That's fine, because you also can't prove otherwise. And surprise, you can claim you don't know, which is also perfectly fine. The most important part is you don't always arrive at some certain conclusion, and that's fine.
Because it was not about result. Or rather, it's never about the result. It's about the process, in same vain of procedural justice. It's about finding the provability.
The thing is if you can't move past that you have to make a result. Or the extreme, result is ignoble. That the process of proving the utmost important part. You will never get what scientific method is about. Just like your last paragraph. Sure, there are so many theories. Maybe even someone claimed that that harry porter is real! But why do you have to believe or not to believe if you only care about the process of proving and provability.
It's not about proving that the religious people are wrong(or proving irreligious people are wrong). It's about the fact that, for some people , they truly don't care about the result or take the result itself so far as undetermined (still care about the proving process though) and moved past it.
Because it was not about result. Or rather, it's never about the result. It's about the process, in same vain of procedural justice. It's about finding the provability.
The thing is if you can't move past that you have to make a result. Or the extreme, result is ignoble. That the process of proving the utmost important part. You will never get what scientific method is about. Just like your last paragraph. Sure, there are so many theories. Maybe even someone claimed that that harry porter is real! But why do you have to believe or not to believe if you only care about the process of proving and provability.
It's not about proving that the religious people are wrong(or proving irreligious people are wrong). It's about the fact that, for some people , they truly don't care about the result or take the result itself so far as undetermined (still care about the proving process though) and moved past it.
I'm not an 'atheism is just a religion', I don't believe in Gods, but I do think there secular ideologies.
In the US context, the civil religion, the notions of the constitution, the military, and other institutions have take on a quasi-religious nature. Founding myths that become a spirit regardless of truthfulness.
In general, cult of personalities are clearly examples of secular religion although one that can become supernatural in the case of the Kim dynasty in North Korea.
Ceremonies and traditions that we continue because 'that is just how it has always been done'. There isn't some binary notion of you are religious or your rationalist, non religious people can hold non-rationalist thought.
Personally I don't really understand what you're on about with the scientific method, the parent didn't mention anything on it.
In general, cult of personalities are clearly examples of secular religion although one that can become supernatural in the case of the Kim dynasty in North Korea.
Ceremonies and traditions that we continue because 'that is just how it has always been done'. There isn't some binary notion of you are religious or your rationalist, non religious people can hold non-rationalist thought.
Personally I don't really understand what you're on about with the scientific method, the parent didn't mention anything on it.
I am trying to explain the difference between 'not relying on belief' and 'believe the god doesn't exists' or 'believe ** therefore it's also a religion'. Because what op does seems to lump people to the latter. And that is what's missing critically.
Because there is a clean distinction between athism(not relying on belief) and antithesim. Scientific method is a lens of analysis tool and it's beyond the framing of belief as how religious people claims, or even how antithesim people claims. Just like how I would explain the same to the some antithesim group that science doesn't prove the god don't exist. That's still a misuse of the tool of scientific method. To believe the opposite is still a belief, and missing the mark of the scientific method where the most important part is the process not the result.
Because there is a clean distinction between athism(not relying on belief) and antithesim. Scientific method is a lens of analysis tool and it's beyond the framing of belief as how religious people claims, or even how antithesim people claims. Just like how I would explain the same to the some antithesim group that science doesn't prove the god don't exist. That's still a misuse of the tool of scientific method. To believe the opposite is still a belief, and missing the mark of the scientific method where the most important part is the process not the result.
You are confusing different concepts: ideology and religion.
Ideologies are a set of ethical/moral assumptions about what is right and just, i.e. they are about human practice, about what humans ought to do.
Religions are ideologies, but they are also a set of beliefs about the world itself, about the physical and metaphysical reality - which are thought as true a priori. This part is almost universally wrong, as we could learn by a competing concept: science.
Ideologies can only be falsified insofar as they base their arguments on statements about human nature - these can be questioned empirically.
Ideologies are a set of ethical/moral assumptions about what is right and just, i.e. they are about human practice, about what humans ought to do.
Religions are ideologies, but they are also a set of beliefs about the world itself, about the physical and metaphysical reality - which are thought as true a priori. This part is almost universally wrong, as we could learn by a competing concept: science.
Ideologies can only be falsified insofar as they base their arguments on statements about human nature - these can be questioned empirically.
That is what I used to believe, too.
More recently though, it seems to me that ideologies DO have a pretty strong impact on what people believe about the world itself, especially by people who have a tight coupling between their identiy and the ideology.
At the very least, this seems to apply to both sides of the current right/left divide in the west. For instance, if I ask you to predict how climate change will affect the world over the next 300 years, and your response lies in what is predicted by the 5% most optimistic climate scientists, you are very likely to be on the right. On the other hand, if your response corresponds to the 5% most pessimistic, you are very likely to be on the left.
As ideological polarization, an increasingly large part of the population will fall into one of theose extreme groups, which I interpret as a way that the ideology promotes beliefs that are not supported by science.
It seems to me that the underlying motivation is that people who believe axiomatically that a free market is good, see global warming as a threat to that belief. The leftists may believe the opposite because they see the free market as evil, or just to oppose the right.
There are plenty of other cases where ideologies cause beliefs that are not well founded in "real" science, even though there may be plenty of ideologes that promote them. Some beliefs are so sacret that any challenge to them will be punished as evil/heresy, which itself is a clear indication that the ideology does not value open inquiry.
I would even go so far as to see some of the principles and ideas involved as somewhat metaphysical. Capitalists can see the "invisible hand" in such a light, while leftists seem to imagine some sort of oppression to determine every social interaction (not very diffrent from how Christians in Europe believing that demons were virtually everywhere).
In the end, I think it is about the people following a given ideology. It used to be that atheist were a relatively small minority composed of mostly people with an above-average level of scepticisim to ways of thinking not supported by hard evidence.
But as the percentage of non-religious people increase, more and more poeple that have a religious inclination become "atheists", and those (I think) may be much more likely to accept incredible (literally) statements as fact, with little or no evidence.
More recently though, it seems to me that ideologies DO have a pretty strong impact on what people believe about the world itself, especially by people who have a tight coupling between their identiy and the ideology.
At the very least, this seems to apply to both sides of the current right/left divide in the west. For instance, if I ask you to predict how climate change will affect the world over the next 300 years, and your response lies in what is predicted by the 5% most optimistic climate scientists, you are very likely to be on the right. On the other hand, if your response corresponds to the 5% most pessimistic, you are very likely to be on the left.
As ideological polarization, an increasingly large part of the population will fall into one of theose extreme groups, which I interpret as a way that the ideology promotes beliefs that are not supported by science.
It seems to me that the underlying motivation is that people who believe axiomatically that a free market is good, see global warming as a threat to that belief. The leftists may believe the opposite because they see the free market as evil, or just to oppose the right.
There are plenty of other cases where ideologies cause beliefs that are not well founded in "real" science, even though there may be plenty of ideologes that promote them. Some beliefs are so sacret that any challenge to them will be punished as evil/heresy, which itself is a clear indication that the ideology does not value open inquiry.
I would even go so far as to see some of the principles and ideas involved as somewhat metaphysical. Capitalists can see the "invisible hand" in such a light, while leftists seem to imagine some sort of oppression to determine every social interaction (not very diffrent from how Christians in Europe believing that demons were virtually everywhere).
In the end, I think it is about the people following a given ideology. It used to be that atheist were a relatively small minority composed of mostly people with an above-average level of scepticisim to ways of thinking not supported by hard evidence.
But as the percentage of non-religious people increase, more and more poeple that have a religious inclination become "atheists", and those (I think) may be much more likely to accept incredible (literally) statements as fact, with little or no evidence.
Science itself assumes a metaphysical reality. Science can only make observations on the material world. Science cannot confirm or deny metaphysical underpinnings.
I think classical vs quantum physics is a good example. It gave us information on determinism, but it didn't explain who / what is setting the odds.
Science can give us estimates for all the universal constants. It cannot tell us how they came to being.
We know there was a big bang, we don't know in which medium the big bang occurred.
I think classical vs quantum physics is a good example. It gave us information on determinism, but it didn't explain who / what is setting the odds.
Science can give us estimates for all the universal constants. It cannot tell us how they came to being.
We know there was a big bang, we don't know in which medium the big bang occurred.
That's some serious mental gymnastics you're doing there!
Al lot of what you call "religious tendencies" are just cognitive and organizational tools. Religions use and codify (some of) them in their own ways, and other aspects and approaches to human life use and / or codify in their own ways too.
Whatever leads you to wish for more structure and codification in your life and the world that surrounds, and you find them in religion, that's fine. Other people find them in military life, others in self-discipline, others in ascetism, others in their professional career, etc. But trying to impregnate your religious beliefs and choices onto everyone else is, I think, just trying to justify and shut down your own doubts. If you don't see this then, if I may put it this way, you may lack certain cognitive tools to recognize it.
Al lot of what you call "religious tendencies" are just cognitive and organizational tools. Religions use and codify (some of) them in their own ways, and other aspects and approaches to human life use and / or codify in their own ways too.
Whatever leads you to wish for more structure and codification in your life and the world that surrounds, and you find them in religion, that's fine. Other people find them in military life, others in self-discipline, others in ascetism, others in their professional career, etc. But trying to impregnate your religious beliefs and choices onto everyone else is, I think, just trying to justify and shut down your own doubts. If you don't see this then, if I may put it this way, you may lack certain cognitive tools to recognize it.
To me, it sounds like they really hit you on a sore spot :).
What OP talked about regarding ideology reminds me of the stuff that Zizek talks about. I'm no philosopher, but the thought that ideology has subsumed religion doesn't seem too far fetched. We, as a species, do seem to have a tendency to form religions and hold different biases.
What OP talked about regarding ideology reminds me of the stuff that Zizek talks about. I'm no philosopher, but the thought that ideology has subsumed religion doesn't seem too far fetched. We, as a species, do seem to have a tendency to form religions and hold different biases.
Eye rolling on a claim that "X is religious" when it can be just a simple "X is a cognitive and organizational tool" seems fair to me.
Specially when religious people are so fond of calling something religious when that something has nothing to do with religion
Specially when religious people are so fond of calling something religious when that something has nothing to do with religion
Many secular people are very fond of pinning all the worlds problems on religion, so I think it's fair to use the term back at them when they constantly act in the same exact ways they decry.
It clearly hits a nerve too.
It clearly hits a nerve too.
You obviously can find a lot of topics which people don’t have time thinking about, so they copy rituals and belief systems from their parents, other attachment figures, or even the media.
The sources of those beliefs are decentralized though, and the individual person can pick beliefs which suit their whereabouts, environment, and sub culture best.
Religion however is a centralized source of belief systems, which comes with problems:
- One size fits all solution leads to problems like this: Oh your best friend is gay? Too bad, our 2k year old manifest says they are bad people/subhuman/sick. (This makes me SO angry)
- Central authorities can and will exploit their power if possible: Witch hunts, crusades etc
- Self-actualization is constrained by a fixed set of rules: Tolerable in times where basic needs are often not met and are more urgent, but becomes an issue when 95% live better than a Pharao.
The sources of those beliefs are decentralized though, and the individual person can pick beliefs which suit their whereabouts, environment, and sub culture best.
Religion however is a centralized source of belief systems, which comes with problems:
- One size fits all solution leads to problems like this: Oh your best friend is gay? Too bad, our 2k year old manifest says they are bad people/subhuman/sick. (This makes me SO angry)
- Central authorities can and will exploit their power if possible: Witch hunts, crusades etc
- Self-actualization is constrained by a fixed set of rules: Tolerable in times where basic needs are often not met and are more urgent, but becomes an issue when 95% live better than a Pharao.
I resonate with your comment very much. I always felt like some religions could be less poisonous if they were willing to change, or at least somewhat follow the actual morality of certain eras. For instance, in 2021 most people already realized that being gay is not evil. Most religious people I know tend to think otherwise.
"One aspect of religion I appreciate is that these aspects are well codified and debated – i.e. much more explicit."
They are not well debated in a sense that it would be called reasonable in a normal and educated world. Thats why we call it believe. Its much easier to say 'whats written in a book from some people from some 2000 years ago is true' and start to philosoph around it than actually not stoping questioning until there is a real truth to it. My discussion with a very religios person stoped after i realizied they are convinced that stuff in that book is relevant and true and moving the debate of it to 'our old people studied it and gave those learnings to future people'.
Interesting to read that for you, becoming more religiuos made you aware of other religious tendencies. For me it actually started in school with discovering group dynamic and then after that, questioning religion which lead me to being non religious and i'm very very aware of how other cognitive biases and media and co are forming us.
The biggest problem you might not understand in your world of codified: 'the other believe system' is universal and doesn't need to be codified its just that you might need to discover it for yourself or accept the truth yourself.
Ah it sounds much more spirital than i wanted it to be. Effectively my family/friends are normal good people. We don't identify us through religion and we don't hurt each other. We basically are all on the same planet, we know who birthed us but we don't know why. Single wall of truth: the big bang. Single simplest rule: Don't harm others / don't do things you don't want others to do to you.
And actually, certain states have very well defined law books which answers a ton of questions. Even slightly weirder ones that if someone had an accident with a car, to a degree both parties can be in fault. Its basically us wo build our believe system through living together.
They are not well debated in a sense that it would be called reasonable in a normal and educated world. Thats why we call it believe. Its much easier to say 'whats written in a book from some people from some 2000 years ago is true' and start to philosoph around it than actually not stoping questioning until there is a real truth to it. My discussion with a very religios person stoped after i realizied they are convinced that stuff in that book is relevant and true and moving the debate of it to 'our old people studied it and gave those learnings to future people'.
Interesting to read that for you, becoming more religiuos made you aware of other religious tendencies. For me it actually started in school with discovering group dynamic and then after that, questioning religion which lead me to being non religious and i'm very very aware of how other cognitive biases and media and co are forming us.
The biggest problem you might not understand in your world of codified: 'the other believe system' is universal and doesn't need to be codified its just that you might need to discover it for yourself or accept the truth yourself.
Ah it sounds much more spirital than i wanted it to be. Effectively my family/friends are normal good people. We don't identify us through religion and we don't hurt each other. We basically are all on the same planet, we know who birthed us but we don't know why. Single wall of truth: the big bang. Single simplest rule: Don't harm others / don't do things you don't want others to do to you.
And actually, certain states have very well defined law books which answers a ton of questions. Even slightly weirder ones that if someone had an accident with a car, to a degree both parties can be in fault. Its basically us wo build our believe system through living together.
An interesting thing to consider is that most religious people do not really believe with much conviction. They can clearly see that scripture is not literal truth and that there is no scientific evidence. So religion becomes about faith and faith becomes virtuous.
But a Roman citizen 2000 years ago didn't have faith. They just knew that God(s) exist. It was obvious, self-evident and compelling. The greatest thinkers of the time really believed.
Most Christians talk about faith and belief because that is the only thing left that science hasn't overturned. Our understanding of the world is dominated by science not religion. We won (mostly).
But a Roman citizen 2000 years ago didn't have faith. They just knew that God(s) exist. It was obvious, self-evident and compelling. The greatest thinkers of the time really believed.
Most Christians talk about faith and belief because that is the only thing left that science hasn't overturned. Our understanding of the world is dominated by science not religion. We won (mostly).
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted
Or maybe you have a different definition of "religious" than I do? But no, it must be that I lack the right cognitive tools. Sheesh.
Or maybe you have a different definition of "religious" than I do? But no, it must be that I lack the right cognitive tools. Sheesh.
There is a different and better way to put this: most people are completely unaware of the foundation of irrational nonsense that their worldview is based on. (yes, even, or especially so if they base their worldview on rationality)
If you are a member of a religion, the things you have “faith” in are right there in front of your awareness. If you don’t have religion, the metaphysics/mythos/philosophy your reality is based on is often never acknowledged. The “super rational” can be the worst at denying this and best at handwaving away anything that doesn’t fit into their sense of reason.
If you are a member of a religion, the things you have “faith” in are right there in front of your awareness. If you don’t have religion, the metaphysics/mythos/philosophy your reality is based on is often never acknowledged. The “super rational” can be the worst at denying this and best at handwaving away anything that doesn’t fit into their sense of reason.
>most people are completely unaware of the foundation of irrational nonsense that their worldview is based on
Maybe I live in some kind of intellectual bubble, but me and the vast majority of my atheist friends are all too aware of the fact that the rationality ends at some point, so I've gotta disagree with this pretty hard. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone I know personally who thinks it's rational all the way down.
Maybe I live in some kind of intellectual bubble, but me and the vast majority of my atheist friends are all too aware of the fact that the rationality ends at some point, so I've gotta disagree with this pretty hard. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone I know personally who thinks it's rational all the way down.
can you elaborate on this? This is the kind of philosophical analysis that I think most secular thinkers lack. I know there are rigorous atheists who are capable of understanding their ideology, but they are few
So? Most religious people are incapable of understanding their own religion, too.
I think there's a big difference between belief and dogma. While I agree there is lots of secular dogma, not all secular belief systems are dogmatic. If your belief system is constructed in a fundamentally evidence-based and emotionally-detached manner, then even your core beliefs should be open to challenge and question. I don't think most members of large institutionalized religions are willing to seriously entertain that their core tenets are wildly mistaken, otherwise they are in serious danger of becoming atheists.
I don't see how being an atheist means someone lacks the ability to recognize ideology. Religion may help because it gives practice putting boundaries on ideas which are obviously ridiculous. You can't go around pushing everyone to follow Deuteronomy for very long
Overall these pitfalls can be avoided by following some principles: reject taboos, seek more information, avoid metaphor, accept that some things you can't know
Overall these pitfalls can be avoided by following some principles: reject taboos, seek more information, avoid metaphor, accept that some things you can't know
Atheism also doesn't guarantee that one does recognise ideology.
OP is correct. Religion is a subset of ideology, and not being religious does not in any sense guarantee that one isn't trapped inside an ideological frame.
But OP is wrong to suggest religion is a cure for this, or even a workable substitute.
Ideological thinking is a template - a kind of psychological design pattern. It may well be innate, and can only be sidestepped by learning a different set of philosophical habits.
Collectively, we don't have that. Neither critical thinking nor science do the job. They do other useful jobs, but teaching how to avoid tribal identification among followers and competitive authoritarian individualism among leaders - the real core of all ideologies - isn't something they're designed for.
OP is correct. Religion is a subset of ideology, and not being religious does not in any sense guarantee that one isn't trapped inside an ideological frame.
But OP is wrong to suggest religion is a cure for this, or even a workable substitute.
Ideological thinking is a template - a kind of psychological design pattern. It may well be innate, and can only be sidestepped by learning a different set of philosophical habits.
Collectively, we don't have that. Neither critical thinking nor science do the job. They do other useful jobs, but teaching how to avoid tribal identification among followers and competitive authoritarian individualism among leaders - the real core of all ideologies - isn't something they're designed for.
Agreed, I was specifically responding to their last line which casts a blanket assertion
Your recognition of explicit vs. implicit ideology is addressed by Slavoj Zizek in some of his work. He generalizes ideology to be mostly a set of assumed or unstated beliefs and ideas which are so internalized they are not even consciously recognized. Could be good further reading for those further interested in the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek_bibliog...
One of the main points of Zizek regarding ideology, relevant to what you said, is that as religious ideology has waned in importance, other ideologies have taken their place, yet because they do not come from religions we do not recognize them as ideologies, though they are. But ideology has always existed in this form, in the background. It is just without religion taking a forefront in life that the importance of other ideologies has grown.
Anyway, I bring it up because I do not think it is possible for us to explicitly address all ideology. Ideology is part of the human condition, not in a metaphysical sense, but because we have only limited abilities to perceive and understand the world - finite lifetimes, limited senses, limited cognitive abilities. We must make assumptions and generalizations, take things for granted, and trust people and ideas so that we can spend our time thinking about other things.
Why? Because it's exhausting to explicitly address all ideology. I'll give you some examples: Country, Culture, Government, Justice, Love, Fairness, Ownership, Work. In discourse we take on only limited slices of what these concepts mean, yet we take their existence and high level concepts for granted (though one person's concept of fairness may not match another's). These are heavy, complicated topics in themselves.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Depends on how you define religion. In my opinion what separates religion from philosophy or just ideology, is claims regarding the supernatural and divine. You can absolutely appreciate religions for their wonderful philosophy and theology while rejecting what I would consider very core parts of what makes one a believer in a religion, like belief in supernatural events or divine beings.
One of the main points of Zizek regarding ideology, relevant to what you said, is that as religious ideology has waned in importance, other ideologies have taken their place, yet because they do not come from religions we do not recognize them as ideologies, though they are. But ideology has always existed in this form, in the background. It is just without religion taking a forefront in life that the importance of other ideologies has grown.
Anyway, I bring it up because I do not think it is possible for us to explicitly address all ideology. Ideology is part of the human condition, not in a metaphysical sense, but because we have only limited abilities to perceive and understand the world - finite lifetimes, limited senses, limited cognitive abilities. We must make assumptions and generalizations, take things for granted, and trust people and ideas so that we can spend our time thinking about other things.
Why? Because it's exhausting to explicitly address all ideology. I'll give you some examples: Country, Culture, Government, Justice, Love, Fairness, Ownership, Work. In discourse we take on only limited slices of what these concepts mean, yet we take their existence and high level concepts for granted (though one person's concept of fairness may not match another's). These are heavy, complicated topics in themselves.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Depends on how you define religion. In my opinion what separates religion from philosophy or just ideology, is claims regarding the supernatural and divine. You can absolutely appreciate religions for their wonderful philosophy and theology while rejecting what I would consider very core parts of what makes one a believer in a religion, like belief in supernatural events or divine beings.
I agree with you , and have been influenced by Zizek. We assume religions are primitive , but it’s likely that they are advanced stages of earlier ideologies. I’m expecting contemporary / secular ideology to evolve into a formal religion with canon , priesthood etc
Arguably that already exists in the form of politics/government, corporations, the military.
Based on my opinion that religion requires a belief in supernatural events, I would not call those religion per se. Definitely dogmatic. I think the parallels come from the tendency for human organizations to all take essentially the same structure, if you squint.
Based on my opinion that religion requires a belief in supernatural events, I would not call those religion per se. Definitely dogmatic. I think the parallels come from the tendency for human organizations to all take essentially the same structure, if you squint.
> politics/government, corporations, the military.
+political factions +institutionalized science +media
They all tell us what to think, "trust us we did and will do the hard thinking for you".
+political factions +institutionalized science +media
They all tell us what to think, "trust us we did and will do the hard thinking for you".
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Hubris is a sin. I'm sure someone with your sharp cognitive tools can recognize that.
Hubris is a sin. I'm sure someone with your sharp cognitive tools can recognize that.
I literally mean a toolkit of mental models, like quantum physics vs classical. Believing one or the other doesn't make anyone better – they both have applications.
I care less about codifying beliefs than about if those beliefs are true or not. I may not have the cognitive tools to recognize all the secular ideologies that I have adopted, but at least there are mechanisms in place to examine if aspects of them hold up to reality or not.
We see religious tendencies in the secular world because we really don't know what we're doing running the secular world. Nobody really knows how to organize an economy to work well. All the plausible systems have failed at some point, often in unexpected ways.
"Free markets" are just turning loose an optimizer that optimizes for - something. Central planning just pushes the problem back to the planning level. Combining the two for political ends tends to produce strange results because economics has very poor predictive power.
This uncertainty tends to drive people to faith-based positions. That doesn't work either, but it satisfies some basic human need.
"Free markets" are just turning loose an optimizer that optimizes for - something. Central planning just pushes the problem back to the planning level. Combining the two for political ends tends to produce strange results because economics has very poor predictive power.
This uncertainty tends to drive people to faith-based positions. That doesn't work either, but it satisfies some basic human need.
When I finally sat down and read the entire Bible, one thing that jumped out at me again and again is how often it warns against idolatry.
When you start to see the level of obsession people have over certain topics, it’s hard to call it anything else.
When you start to see the level of obsession people have over certain topics, it’s hard to call it anything else.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
That sounds like twaddle. It could just be that the person recognises their secular ideology - and knows that it doesn't constitute a religion.
That sounds like twaddle. It could just be that the person recognises their secular ideology - and knows that it doesn't constitute a religion.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
You had something interesting to say, why'd you have to go and close it out with flamebait?
You had something interesting to say, why'd you have to go and close it out with flamebait?
Fair enough what's a better wording. I'm trying to convey the mental models that are more natural in the religious world and lacking in the secular world (outside of philosophy )
> it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Maybe: "it just means that you haven't recognized the secular ideology that you have adopted"?
Maybe: "it just means that you haven't recognized the secular ideology that you have adopted"?
A better explanation is that those mental models are in fact universal. Things like bias, magical thinking, and dogma exist in all fields of humans life. Science included. But why stop there? Why not question the biological basis for those phenomena? Why not try and understand why we do those things. Light the candle and shine a light on the darkness.
[deleted]
I have been thinking a lot about region and ideology and what i’ve come up with is that the tendency to form these strong ideological behaviors is a feature of humanity and organized religion is a sort of evolved (perhaps in a meme more than a gene way) response to this tendency.
Essentially groups and ideas survived better when there was an organization and social rules built up around this human tendency. Left unchecked reckless nonsense ideologies spring up too easily, an organized religion gives this human trait an outlet (and often becomes an unchecked wreckless ideology itself, but... less often).
Or in another sense, the big organized religions are the winners in a centuries long evolutionary race of ideas. The nonsense ones destroy themselves eventually, the less nonsense ones survive and spread (seriously, judaism is thousands of years old and has a health code, much of which in context is decent advice).
Essentially groups and ideas survived better when there was an organization and social rules built up around this human tendency. Left unchecked reckless nonsense ideologies spring up too easily, an organized religion gives this human trait an outlet (and often becomes an unchecked wreckless ideology itself, but... less often).
Or in another sense, the big organized religions are the winners in a centuries long evolutionary race of ideas. The nonsense ones destroy themselves eventually, the less nonsense ones survive and spread (seriously, judaism is thousands of years old and has a health code, much of which in context is decent advice).
Imagine you could go back to 0AD. And you ask the people why droughts happen, or why people get sick, or why volcanoes explode. Ask them why they are a slave, or a master.
There were religious answers to all these questions. God's were just the best explanation going for why things happened. And over the next 2000 years science slowly chipped away at that. And then the origin of species was published. To the point where in 2021 most people will have answers based on science. Even religious people.
Science has won the battle of ideas again and again. Religion has retreated into faith and existential fear. And slowly but surely science will shine a light on that fear.
There were religious answers to all these questions. God's were just the best explanation going for why things happened. And over the next 2000 years science slowly chipped away at that. And then the origin of species was published. To the point where in 2021 most people will have answers based on science. Even religious people.
Science has won the battle of ideas again and again. Religion has retreated into faith and existential fear. And slowly but surely science will shine a light on that fear.
> One aspect of religion I appreciate is that these aspects are well codified and debated – i.e. much more explicit.
In a liberal bubble in an atheist society? I remember the South Park episodes on the prophet, and I remember my countrymen executed for "insulting" the said prophet. At least the "cancel culture" chills some racism.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
You can understand the simple fact that all us humans being shitty doesn't imply that some aren't even shittier? When we say someone is "selfish," it means they are more selfish than a majority of people.
In a liberal bubble in an atheist society? I remember the South Park episodes on the prophet, and I remember my countrymen executed for "insulting" the said prophet. At least the "cancel culture" chills some racism.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
You can understand the simple fact that all us humans being shitty doesn't imply that some aren't even shittier? When we say someone is "selfish," it means they are more selfish than a majority of people.
You’re arguing semantics. For many Americans, religion implies the existence of god. Your definition of religion is too vague for debate.
Christians, Muslims, etc, cannot even agree among themselves what their "belief system" is! I think you're overestimating how well-defined people's religious beliefs are, especially the average person's.
Muslims agree on who God is and who are his prophets.
They routinely kill each other over religious differences, so goes to show how much they agree.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
I don't think that's necessarily true though. Religion is synthetic: it's practice, it's discipline and existence is rooted in how easily it can be synthesized in different communities. Man can exist without knowledge of God: that's the very premise that fueled colonialism and, to an extent, feudalism.
I don't think that's necessarily true though. Religion is synthetic: it's practice, it's discipline and existence is rooted in how easily it can be synthesized in different communities. Man can exist without knowledge of God: that's the very premise that fueled colonialism and, to an extent, feudalism.
Is it possible that becoming religious has not equipped you with helpful models, but rather it has led you to project your approach to understanding the world onto others? That last paragraph really screams that. I’ve had
and witnessed many discussions between believers and non-believers where the believers just couldn’t fathom the possibility that a secular person could honestly say “I don’t know” instead of blindly believing something
What’s even more interesting is that most ideologies also adhere to a standard religious framework as well:
- anthropology
- problem of evil/sin
- redemption
- eschatology
If your system he answers to these, you basically have a religion.
- anthropology
- problem of evil/sin
- redemption
- eschatology
If your system he answers to these, you basically have a religion.
That’s a very western take on religion. Some have no belief in an end time with a static or cyclical world.
Sin/evil isn’t really a thing in many religions. Polytheistic religions for example can have multiple contradictory ideas for what the correct actions are.
Sin/evil isn’t really a thing in many religions. Polytheistic religions for example can have multiple contradictory ideas for what the correct actions are.
Eschatology doesn't just have to do with the end times. It is "concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul". Hinduism and Buddhism clearly address this. Confucianism and Shinto may be exceptions, and of course there are plenty others that I'm not familiar with, but eschatology is far from being only a preoccupation of Western religions.
Dropping the end of that quote completely changes the meaning it’s. "the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind" It’s a separate idea from simple questions of the afterlife.
Buddhism is really interesting here because there was such a wide range of different beliefs involved some of which fit that idea and others don’t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_eschatology
Buddhism is really interesting here because there was such a wide range of different beliefs involved some of which fit that idea and others don’t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_eschatology
It doesn't completely change the meaning, it drops a subset of the meaning. Eschatology encompasses both types of ends. The OP seemed under the impression it only involved the end of the universe/world.
I think religion does imply the organized belief in a supernatural deity vs in a secular ideology it's unorganized belief in a somewhat connected set of ideas which are debated more discretely between people who want to. Seems silly to say that engaging with a secular ideology is the same as being in a religion.
I think OP’s point is exactly that a lot of secular ideology in practice doesn’t get debated discretely; most people don’t want to and have already ossified their opinions, even/especially if they don’t really understand why they believe what they believe.
Which person is more committed to a religion: someone who goes to a sermon 1 hr / week, or someone who watches the news for 3 hours / day? The news content will contain the same ideological elements of the sermon: where you come from, what you should believe, what you should do with your life, what is right / wrong.
News is made up of things that literally happened and often have video proof.
Religion is made up of things that did not happen and have no evidence. If something does have evidence of being true, it is called history.
You are confusing obsession and focus with religion.
Religion is made up of things that did not happen and have no evidence. If something does have evidence of being true, it is called history.
You are confusing obsession and focus with religion.
News is literally a story we tell each other to reinforce beliefs about the world.
Truth has no relation to news and news is not about observation of fact.
Even if you witness events yourself, your understanding of what occurred is a narrative you tell, not truth.
All truths and history are interpretations within religious (or ideological) frameworks. Truth as we use the word is not attainable.
There are no exceptions to this!
Truth has no relation to news and news is not about observation of fact.
Even if you witness events yourself, your understanding of what occurred is a narrative you tell, not truth.
All truths and history are interpretations within religious (or ideological) frameworks. Truth as we use the word is not attainable.
There are no exceptions to this!
"A lie is a truth that you just don't believe in" - Conan O'Brien
> All truths and history are interpretations within religious (or ideological) frameworks. Truth as we use the word is not attainable.
Is this statement in the set of "all truths ... within religious (or ideological) frameworks" or is it an exception, as it were, to the rule?
Is this statement in the set of "all truths ... within religious (or ideological) frameworks" or is it an exception, as it were, to the rule?
Many are interpretations of what happened. take the covid - pericarditis link. is it that the fda is investigating reports of slightly elevated rare side effect? or is it that the vaccine may be more harmful to kids than the virus but the government is forcing you to take it anyways. both are actual headlines. One is ideological reinforcement masquerading as news — that’s what op was getting at. Watch enough of that stuff and the real world will become ever more difficult to see.
>News is made up of things that literally happened and often have video proof.
In an ideal situation maybe, but very frequently it is manipulation. Videos are taken out of context or outright modified to fit a narrative. When you watch the complete video it is very often different than the 10 second clip shown on the so called news.
> Religion is made up of things that did not happen and have no evidence
Do you believe everything in the Bible is false or just certain parts? If you believe certain parts are accurate then I don't see how it is any different than news in your view.
In an ideal situation maybe, but very frequently it is manipulation. Videos are taken out of context or outright modified to fit a narrative. When you watch the complete video it is very often different than the 10 second clip shown on the so called news.
> Religion is made up of things that did not happen and have no evidence
Do you believe everything in the Bible is false or just certain parts? If you believe certain parts are accurate then I don't see how it is any different than news in your view.
The first person, because religion isn't simply a matter of content ingestion. If it was, this wouldn't be an issue.
I don’t see it as a fault that we can retarget our believer minds to reinforce a secular worldview. Nature itself can foster a sense of humility and wonder. We can have faith in the fundamental laws of physics. We can recognize that our remote existence suggests we should take care of each other. We can recognize that we cannot fully remove bias or error in our observation and conclusions in the same way someone religious might believe we all are imperfect and sin.
Even so I am far less dogmatic in my worldview and conclusions than I ever was a religious person. To imply that my lack of religion is somehow a religion itself just hilariously misses the point.
Even so I am far less dogmatic in my worldview and conclusions than I ever was a religious person. To imply that my lack of religion is somehow a religion itself just hilariously misses the point.
> Few people understand that most religions e.g. Judaism and Christianity have an apologetic discipline – a deliberate arm open to debate.
They have arguments that they make to nonbelievers. That's not the same as being genuinely open to debate.
They have arguments that they make to nonbelievers. That's not the same as being genuinely open to debate.
Just wanted to say thanks for everyone who participated it was a really interesting discussion and example of “apologetics” bordering between religious and secular belief. I learned a lot from people.
I saw a few comments interpreting the last line as snarky or condescending. I just meant that my experience helped equip me with tools to understand the world better, like learning a new language or programming language does. There are other paths e.g. through philosophy that many seculars pursue as well.
I saw a few comments interpreting the last line as snarky or condescending. I just meant that my experience helped equip me with tools to understand the world better, like learning a new language or programming language does. There are other paths e.g. through philosophy that many seculars pursue as well.
I think the issue you're facing in thinking that these aspects exist but are implicit is that you're looking at the world through religion-colored glasses, which distort the way you're viewing things.
I'll admit that in the absence of religion, some people pick up ideological causes and treat them as a religion. However, I'm interested in knowing what "rituals, origin stories, deities, saints, priesthood, blasphemy, vice & virtue" you think I have.
I'll admit that in the absence of religion, some people pick up ideological causes and treat them as a religion. However, I'm interested in knowing what "rituals, origin stories, deities, saints, priesthood, blasphemy, vice & virtue" you think I have.
> most religions ... have an apologetic discipline – a deliberate arm open to debate.
Is it generally seen as an arm open to debate? I have a very religious friend who has gotten into apologetics in the last 6mo or so, and he explicitly describes it as "defending the faith." That seems much less drawing conclusions from evidence and much more drawing evidence from conclusions.
Maybe he's an exception to apologetics, though, as I know he has some admittedly extreme views in some ways.
Is it generally seen as an arm open to debate? I have a very religious friend who has gotten into apologetics in the last 6mo or so, and he explicitly describes it as "defending the faith." That seems much less drawing conclusions from evidence and much more drawing evidence from conclusions.
Maybe he's an exception to apologetics, though, as I know he has some admittedly extreme views in some ways.
the secular world is simply the things that are not connected with religion, to talk about it as a "thing" that needs anymore definition than that doesn't really make sense. It doesn't make sense for "secular" to define itself anymore than that. There may be groups of secular people who develop the kinds of traits you are interested in, for instance secular humanism. But the "secular world" is just those things that are not connected with religion and secular things don't really anymore traits other than that.
I agree with this. It seems like OP taking the position that everyone is in fact religious, even when they say they are not. This is a position I see many religious people take, and I completely disagree with the premise.
I also don't really consider myself an atheist, either. Ignostic is accurate. Maybe that's worse ;-)
I also don't really consider myself an atheist, either. Ignostic is accurate. Maybe that's worse ;-)
I'm trying to convince secular people, especially atheists, that they are in every way religious. That most of their beliefs are taken on faith. They have a value system of virtue and vice (usually implied), and they have deities ( forces, persona & phenomena that affect their life in a supernatural way).
Well, you're wrong.
A value system is not a set of beliefs. I think it's important to treat people fairly. But I don't believe that the "universe" or whatever cares about fair treatment of people. What matters to me personally or what I find ethical has nothing to do with any sort of deep truth about the world. I like ice cream, that doesn't mean that I ascribe any metaphysical importance to the taste and texture of ice cream.
I also don't have "deities" or anything that affects my life in a supernatural way, and I'm not sure what gave you the idea that secular people (in general) do - maybe you talked to a bunch of esoteric-minded people, or to the kind of environmentalist that turns nature into some sort of mystical deity, but that's not every secularist (nor every environmentalist).
Maybe you should try talking to actual atheists instead of strawmanning them.
A value system is not a set of beliefs. I think it's important to treat people fairly. But I don't believe that the "universe" or whatever cares about fair treatment of people. What matters to me personally or what I find ethical has nothing to do with any sort of deep truth about the world. I like ice cream, that doesn't mean that I ascribe any metaphysical importance to the taste and texture of ice cream.
I also don't have "deities" or anything that affects my life in a supernatural way, and I'm not sure what gave you the idea that secular people (in general) do - maybe you talked to a bunch of esoteric-minded people, or to the kind of environmentalist that turns nature into some sort of mystical deity, but that's not every secularist (nor every environmentalist).
Maybe you should try talking to actual atheists instead of strawmanning them.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
An alternative view, and one that, IMHO, is favored by Occam's razor (to name just one cognitive tool), is that both religious and secular ideologies are consequences of a more general human nature.
An alternative view, and one that, IMHO, is favored by Occam's razor (to name just one cognitive tool), is that both religious and secular ideologies are consequences of a more general human nature.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Are you saying science method is a secular ideology then? Nothing else is required to analyse, understand and explain the world around us. Nothing.
Are you saying science method is a secular ideology then? Nothing else is required to analyse, understand and explain the world around us. Nothing.
From my person experience, religious people have scammed/hurt me to the most in life and business.
I don't know what happened, but did religion make them do it, or did bad people use religion as an excuse?
Religious people often think they are righteous as long as they follow set rules of their religion. They are not often very smart either.
Just to note that preistocracy tends to be corrupt in almost all religions.
Just to note that preistocracy tends to be corrupt in almost all religions.
Considering the sheer amount of religious people, this would hold true for most people
This also makes it a less important
This also makes it a less important
One of successes of religious text like the bible is how skilfully it leverages our ancient psychological needs.
I don’t think it’s purely a semantic argument though, religion is predicated on the supernatural whereas ideology isn’t.
I don’t think it’s purely a semantic argument though, religion is predicated on the supernatural whereas ideology isn’t.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
How would that statement apply to your god? And would they be religious?
How would that statement apply to your god? And would they be religious?
The same cognitive defense mechanism that prevents me from being religious (which I wanted, tried but couldn’t) also prevents me from adopting ideology.
Religion is more easily codified because it does not change as quickly as the secular world. I do not think codification is realistic or desirable tbqh.
I understand what you're trying to say and I appreciate it, but religion and ideology are two very different things despite influencing each other.
> Few people understand that most religions e.g. Judaism and Christianity have an apologetic discipline – a deliberate arm open to debate.
That's just a trick religious evangelizers use as bait to unleash their barrel of canned answers.
And boy, you really have a lot of ammunition to use.
But, and this is an important but: In the end, it is all just rhetoric to justify what you already believe and are unwilling to change.
That's just a trick religious evangelizers use as bait to unleash their barrel of canned answers.
And boy, you really have a lot of ammunition to use.
But, and this is an important but: In the end, it is all just rhetoric to justify what you already believe and are unwilling to change.
> That's just a trick religious evangelizers use as bait to unleash their barrel of canned answer
How is that different from what the atheist side offers?
The fact is, the big questions in life tend to be complicated to figure out, so canned answers are a practical way to not devote your entire lifetime to redeveloping the conclusions from scratch. Ideally, you'd also do some due diligence and try to figure out whether they agree with reality as you understand it.
There's a reason why we use caching in computer science. Cached answers should of course be invalidated in cases where they are found to be incorrect, so one should remain open to the possibility of being wrong about their beliefs (though just how open, is a subject of individual opinion).
How is that different from what the atheist side offers?
The fact is, the big questions in life tend to be complicated to figure out, so canned answers are a practical way to not devote your entire lifetime to redeveloping the conclusions from scratch. Ideally, you'd also do some due diligence and try to figure out whether they agree with reality as you understand it.
There's a reason why we use caching in computer science. Cached answers should of course be invalidated in cases where they are found to be incorrect, so one should remain open to the possibility of being wrong about their beliefs (though just how open, is a subject of individual opinion).
> How is that different from what the atheist side offers?
That one is easy: we don't pretend we have the answer to everything. In fact, that's the first thing we say.
Is the sun going to appear in the sky tomorrow? Probably yes, as far as I know, with 99.99999 certainty, but it is never 100%.
Pure theological questions are answered by me with: is that even a useful question? I don't even care if a god exists, because so far they have been unable to interact with the world in any meaningful way. And you people worry so much about your next life, you are forgetting to live this one.
That one is easy: we don't pretend we have the answer to everything. In fact, that's the first thing we say.
Is the sun going to appear in the sky tomorrow? Probably yes, as far as I know, with 99.99999 certainty, but it is never 100%.
Pure theological questions are answered by me with: is that even a useful question? I don't even care if a god exists, because so far they have been unable to interact with the world in any meaningful way. And you people worry so much about your next life, you are forgetting to live this one.
> The secular world would benefit from adopting more formal definitions of their belief system.
It's called (analytic) philosophy.
It's called (analytic) philosophy.
Yuval Harari makes a very similar argument in “Sapiens”. I really recommend reading it. It’s an eye opener.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
The label "not religious" doesn't mean anything. People use it to refer to atheists, in which case you are alleging that atheists by definition don't have the tools to understand their own position - which is absurd. Others use the term to refer to minimally-practicing members of a faith who basically only show up to places of worship when there is an official event, in which case you argue that these people don't understand the reasons why they avoid their own religion until they become active practitioners.
> The secular world would benefit from adopting more formal definitions of their belief system.
First of all, a secular world doesn't preclude the population from being religious. Having a secular world that is explicitly separate from religion only means that society itself is not regulated by religion.
If by secular world you mean the percentage of the population who is atheist or agnostic, then you're not talking about a specific belief system. You're talking about a diverse group who have chosen to not believe in deities, and that often extends to not believing in the supernatural altogether. The allegation that this absence of belief happens without reflection is simply untrue. On the contrary, being an atheist is still a thorny path to take, even today. It doesn't happen passively.
> In the secular world these aspects exist but they are implicit, making them difficult to debate and attack.
When you say that these aspects are well codified in religion, what you really mean is that specific religions have behavioral codices that members must adhere to. The consequences of non-adherence depend on the religion and the society. But when you look at different religions, these codices are all quite different.
As soon as a population contains more than one religion, what you are touting as a benefit quickly becomes just as impossible as if you were dealing with an atheistic society.
What you find difficult to debate and attack is non-uniformity in general. I consider that a plus.
You are of course completely correct that a diverse society can appear more nebulous, and in some ways individuals can have a much harder time finding a path in life if they, well, have to actually go and find a path. This is a consequence of the freedom to choose. Systems that don't give you those freedoms are assigning a path to you from on high, or at least they heavily constrain your choices. No doubt some people would prefer that.
But the benefit of living in an open society is that you have the option of choosing to be religious, and you are free to choose any religion and any flavor. A secular society doesn't take that away in any form, it just means that your religion doesn't get to make the rules for people living outside of it.
The label "not religious" doesn't mean anything. People use it to refer to atheists, in which case you are alleging that atheists by definition don't have the tools to understand their own position - which is absurd. Others use the term to refer to minimally-practicing members of a faith who basically only show up to places of worship when there is an official event, in which case you argue that these people don't understand the reasons why they avoid their own religion until they become active practitioners.
> The secular world would benefit from adopting more formal definitions of their belief system.
First of all, a secular world doesn't preclude the population from being religious. Having a secular world that is explicitly separate from religion only means that society itself is not regulated by religion.
If by secular world you mean the percentage of the population who is atheist or agnostic, then you're not talking about a specific belief system. You're talking about a diverse group who have chosen to not believe in deities, and that often extends to not believing in the supernatural altogether. The allegation that this absence of belief happens without reflection is simply untrue. On the contrary, being an atheist is still a thorny path to take, even today. It doesn't happen passively.
> In the secular world these aspects exist but they are implicit, making them difficult to debate and attack.
When you say that these aspects are well codified in religion, what you really mean is that specific religions have behavioral codices that members must adhere to. The consequences of non-adherence depend on the religion and the society. But when you look at different religions, these codices are all quite different.
As soon as a population contains more than one religion, what you are touting as a benefit quickly becomes just as impossible as if you were dealing with an atheistic society.
What you find difficult to debate and attack is non-uniformity in general. I consider that a plus.
You are of course completely correct that a diverse society can appear more nebulous, and in some ways individuals can have a much harder time finding a path in life if they, well, have to actually go and find a path. This is a consequence of the freedom to choose. Systems that don't give you those freedoms are assigning a path to you from on high, or at least they heavily constrain your choices. No doubt some people would prefer that.
But the benefit of living in an open society is that you have the option of choosing to be religious, and you are free to choose any religion and any flavor. A secular society doesn't take that away in any form, it just means that your religion doesn't get to make the rules for people living outside of it.
I'm saying that secular people have more religious tendencies than they are aware of. By understanding religion and/or philosophy, those tendencies can be recognized.
That is a sweeping and nebulous claim, and somewhere within it is the premise that atheism is a symptom of insufficient reflection and awareness.
To get a sense of how condescending that comes across, imagine if I turned that around by saying: "Religious people have more atheistic tendencies than they're aware of. By understanding atheism and/or science, these tendencies can be recognized."
A huge number of HNers would immediately see all the things that are wrong with this sentence: it generalized a diverse group, it alleges their world view is invalid and incomplete, and it's an obvious attempt of the speaker to redefine other people's convictions in terms that are easier to attack.
To get a sense of how condescending that comes across, imagine if I turned that around by saying: "Religious people have more atheistic tendencies than they're aware of. By understanding atheism and/or science, these tendencies can be recognized."
A huge number of HNers would immediately see all the things that are wrong with this sentence: it generalized a diverse group, it alleges their world view is invalid and incomplete, and it's an obvious attempt of the speaker to redefine other people's convictions in terms that are easier to attack.
This is a good summary of what I think Douglas Murray was explaining in this discussion with Sam Harris: https://youtu.be/yTtuCNPebDE
Namely; "we may be in the midst of the discovery that the only thing worse than religion is it's absence"
Namely; "we may be in the midst of the discovery that the only thing worse than religion is it's absence"
Shame you got downvoted.
Although it's not conclusive that absence of religion is worse than religion itself, there's tons of evidence for it (e.g. communist & fascist atrocities, medical experiments) – I'd wish that secular believers were more self-critical and introspective.
My biggest concern of modern culture is the sense of inevitability. That progressiveness by definition is beneficial, without any sort of reflection. May things have regressed, and we should take account of the many benefits and setbacks.
Although it's not conclusive that absence of religion is worse than religion itself, there's tons of evidence for it (e.g. communist & fascist atrocities, medical experiments) – I'd wish that secular believers were more self-critical and introspective.
My biggest concern of modern culture is the sense of inevitability. That progressiveness by definition is beneficial, without any sort of reflection. May things have regressed, and we should take account of the many benefits and setbacks.
Progressiveness for its own sake is weird attitude western culture is buying into. I have posted this quote before on HN but you might find it relevant:
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." G.K. Chesterton - The Drift from Domesticity
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." G.K. Chesterton - The Drift from Domesticity
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Such an ego!
"I alone know the truth about the universe! The rest of you are lacking in cognitive tools, i.e, stupid."
Such an ego!
"I alone know the truth about the universe! The rest of you are lacking in cognitive tools, i.e, stupid."
I don’t know. That sounds like a lot of overthinking.
While your points are good your last paragraph projects a lot of weaknesses onto your readers. Do you believe you're the first person to come up with these points and realize them? Or perhaps that someone could have taken an opposite approach of yours -- moving from very religious to non-religious and can see the same behaviors? And then you continue to assume the only way forward is to perpetrate that behavior.
All while claiming other people don't have the cognitive tools you do. I'm amazed this comment didn't get downvoted.
All while claiming other people don't have the cognitive tools you do. I'm amazed this comment didn't get downvoted.
I read the last paragraph analytically, as in the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. It can be difficult to identify that one is in a religion if one assumes that it will call itself one. In this case, missing the “cognitive tools” could be a precise way of describing the shortcoming.
> while claiming other people don't have the cognitive tools you do. I'm amazed this comment didn't get downvoted.
it's the HN psuedo-intellectualism. Most HN readers tend to believe in their above-average intelligence, and that their view point comes from a place of rationalism and superior intellectual capability to analyse the world.
I myself, also fall into this category.
it's the HN psuedo-intellectualism. Most HN readers tend to believe in their above-average intelligence, and that their view point comes from a place of rationalism and superior intellectual capability to analyse the world.
I myself, also fall into this category.
What bonafides are needed to think ?
Being religious isn't a weakness, it is an inevitability. A human mind is very limited and not up to the challenge of understanding everything - people have to accept most of their knowledge through social proof. Once social proof is involved religious-looking structures evolve rapidly. It isn't a matter of having or not having cognitive tools, it is that the tools necessary to avoid faith and community can't exist. At least without a level of change that shatters what it means to be human.
That is a bad definition of religion. I will accept a field of study's conclusions in the absence of time myself to investigate. However, if it turns out that field is incorrect (say with the reproducibility crisis), then I won't "have faith" and believe anyways. In other words, belief != faith, and I'm willing to update my beliefs based on new evidence.
That is hardly a strong argument, religious people can do all that too and still be highly faith based.
I don't think the GP's intent was to project his own superiority. Rather, if we're unable to use mythologies as a metaphor for the human experience, that is, for our self-expression, we are not as smart nor as strong as we fashion ourselves to be.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
There is no mechanism by which the ABSENCE of a belief in your parent's invisible sky wizards becomes just evidence of an alternative belief system.
Not believing in the tooth fairy does not make my understanding and endorsement of say, the periodic table, an equivalent, dogmatic, religious, ineherited-from-parents belief.
The two are not the same. One is better.
There is no mechanism by which the ABSENCE of a belief in your parent's invisible sky wizards becomes just evidence of an alternative belief system.
Not believing in the tooth fairy does not make my understanding and endorsement of say, the periodic table, an equivalent, dogmatic, religious, ineherited-from-parents belief.
The two are not the same. One is better.
The issue is seen when it comes to the question of what intolerance a secular person will not tolerate.
You are alluding to the Paradox of Tolerance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I think the original statement was just too strong. Generally, people are religious even if they claim to be otherwise. I do however believe that truly non religious exist, but that most people are religious or spiritual in their thinking.
I'm always amazed when people bring up things like "the tooth fairy", "magical sky wizard", "flying spaghetti monster" as some sort of intellectual taunt to show the ridiculousness of somebody's belief.
It's the Dunning-Kröger in action; people like you believe that somehow our universe, reality, the nature of humans, are perfectly definable. What you're not realizing is that the concept of God goes beyond any attempt to rationalize; I don't use rationalize in the context you're thinking, but in the mathematical concept of rationality. Language, how we code information into words, is based upon rational polynomials whose coefficients and values take on the alphabet; binary systems being something you may be familiar with. As soon as you codify 'God' as something rational ('sky wizard?') you imply a limit and impose boundaries on a limitless and indescribable entity.
But if you're trying to just mock people for believing something you don't understand, that's fine too, I've always found the most insecure and least intellectual to be the ones that try to show others how "smart" they are.
It's the Dunning-Kröger in action; people like you believe that somehow our universe, reality, the nature of humans, are perfectly definable. What you're not realizing is that the concept of God goes beyond any attempt to rationalize; I don't use rationalize in the context you're thinking, but in the mathematical concept of rationality. Language, how we code information into words, is based upon rational polynomials whose coefficients and values take on the alphabet; binary systems being something you may be familiar with. As soon as you codify 'God' as something rational ('sky wizard?') you imply a limit and impose boundaries on a limitless and indescribable entity.
But if you're trying to just mock people for believing something you don't understand, that's fine too, I've always found the most insecure and least intellectual to be the ones that try to show others how "smart" they are.
> I don't use rationalize in the context you're thinking, but in the mathematical concept of rationality. Language, how we code information into words, is based upon rational polynomials whose coefficients and values take on the alphabet; binary systems being something you may be familiar with. As soon as you codify 'God' as something rational ('sky wizard?') you imply a limit and impose boundaries on a limitless and indescribable entity
That's just mumbo-jumbo of the "not even wrong" category.
If you want to make the claim that there are things in the universe that we can't ever understand and/or are fundamentally non-computable (in some mathematical sense), I can't fundamentally disagree. Nobody knows whether that's true or not.
It's a long stretch from there to any notion of God, though.
That's just mumbo-jumbo of the "not even wrong" category.
If you want to make the claim that there are things in the universe that we can't ever understand and/or are fundamentally non-computable (in some mathematical sense), I can't fundamentally disagree. Nobody knows whether that's true or not.
It's a long stretch from there to any notion of God, though.
[deleted]
A lot of the secular world is just neoliberalism, which is pretty clear about what it is and how you criticise it.
Other branches are definitionally critical of various binary systems(all of the LGBTQ things), describing them instead as continuous systems, or even complex planes.
I don't think such definitions are very useful. They're very limiting since the world is full of edge cases, and your ideology is unlikely to handle all of them well, but is also likely to require you to handle some of them poorly
Other branches are definitionally critical of various binary systems(all of the LGBTQ things), describing them instead as continuous systems, or even complex planes.
I don't think such definitions are very useful. They're very limiting since the world is full of edge cases, and your ideology is unlikely to handle all of them well, but is also likely to require you to handle some of them poorly
>If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
That is Marxist false consciousness and should not be brought up in a debate.
As for the difference between the two, for me a religious belief is one that is without evidence, a non religious belief is one that has some evidence for it, even if it is still wrong (e.g if you believe in the misama theory and so avoid stinking food you are less likely to catch a food born illness).
I do agree without you that it would be better if we adopted some better understanding of the secular beliefs, but that would also cause a lot of infighting because not everybody who hates the current system wants to replace it with the same and they may hate each other more than they hate the current system.
As an example: Malcom X and MLK. They didn't want to be under the boot of Jim Crow. They disagreed about what they wanted and how to get there.
That is Marxist false consciousness and should not be brought up in a debate.
As for the difference between the two, for me a religious belief is one that is without evidence, a non religious belief is one that has some evidence for it, even if it is still wrong (e.g if you believe in the misama theory and so avoid stinking food you are less likely to catch a food born illness).
I do agree without you that it would be better if we adopted some better understanding of the secular beliefs, but that would also cause a lot of infighting because not everybody who hates the current system wants to replace it with the same and they may hate each other more than they hate the current system.
As an example: Malcom X and MLK. They didn't want to be under the boot of Jim Crow. They disagreed about what they wanted and how to get there.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Religion has one fundamental cognitive device - faith. It’s not a tool, it’s malware.
Religion has one fundamental cognitive device - faith. It’s not a tool, it’s malware.
[deleted]
> The secular world would benefit from adopting more formal definitions of their belief system. I think that would reduce the conflict and neurosis that comes from engaging a nebulous system.
If it did that, it wouldn't be able to use it a source of social control. What we have is a society of true believers, that's why they can't see it as a religion, it's just reality to them. I really don't think you can be a true believer and call your religion anything but "reality," especially a "religion."
Anyway, there have been some attempts at documenting American religion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
I think there are still a few people who aren't religious and I don't really think your criterion here is the most useful. It just begs the question.
If it did that, it wouldn't be able to use it a source of social control. What we have is a society of true believers, that's why they can't see it as a religion, it's just reality to them. I really don't think you can be a true believer and call your religion anything but "reality," especially a "religion."
Anyway, there have been some attempts at documenting American religion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
I think there are still a few people who aren't religious and I don't really think your criterion here is the most useful. It just begs the question.
I want to point out that this is incorrect:
> It’s rare to hear someone accused of being un-Swedish or un-British—but un-American is a common slur, slung by both left and right against the other. Being called un-American is like being called “un-Christian” or “un-Islamic,” a charge akin to heresy.
In fact to be unswedish is not just a common idiom it’s a positive one. It’s when you don’t show the typical negative Swedishness. You aren’t “accused” of it, you are congratulated.
“-I went to say hello to all the neighbors in my building. -What a nice and unswedish thing to do!”
> It’s rare to hear someone accused of being un-Swedish or un-British—but un-American is a common slur, slung by both left and right against the other. Being called un-American is like being called “un-Christian” or “un-Islamic,” a charge akin to heresy.
In fact to be unswedish is not just a common idiom it’s a positive one. It’s when you don’t show the typical negative Swedishness. You aren’t “accused” of it, you are congratulated.
“-I went to say hello to all the neighbors in my building. -What a nice and unswedish thing to do!”
To clarify the point, when other Swedes act a little “unswedish” it may be cosmopolitan cool, but it is limited to the national/ethnic in group. When Arabs, Somalians, or Nigerians, or other foreign peoples act unswedish its expected, and if loud, an annoyance
Ditto for “unamerican”. To call a Russian immigrant unamerican would get one mystified looks at best, probably.
One political party in Australia tried to adopt this and starting calling people "un-Australian".
The leader of the other party stood up and tore him to shreds, saying that the magic of Australia is that it's a country of immigrants and that by very definition, everyone there is Australian. It's perfectly fine to disagree about stuff and have discussions, but we're all still Australian. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to tear the country apart and should never be given a microphone again.
The other guy has never tried that childish divisive tactic again.
The leader of the other party stood up and tore him to shreds, saying that the magic of Australia is that it's a country of immigrants and that by very definition, everyone there is Australian. It's perfectly fine to disagree about stuff and have discussions, but we're all still Australian. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to tear the country apart and should never be given a microphone again.
The other guy has never tried that childish divisive tactic again.
> It’s rare to hear someone accused of being un-Swedish or un-British—but un-American is a common slur, slung by both left and right against the other. Being called un-American is like being called “un-Christian” or “un-Islamic,” a charge akin to heresy.
People may be called un-American as a political weapon, but that's about all it is. People in politics use all sorts of childish phrases as weapons. In reality I've never been called un-American or seen another person called un-American, unless it was for humor.
People may be called un-American as a political weapon, but that's about all it is. People in politics use all sorts of childish phrases as weapons. In reality I've never been called un-American or seen another person called un-American, unless it was for humor.
[deleted]
In my anecdotal experience, calling out "un-Nationality" seems way more common in the New World than the Old World and I wonder if this is still remnants of nation-building side effects.
As a black man I have been called unblack plenty times when my views differed. It's a pretty effective slur that leads to one keeping their opinion to themselves.
The mandatory for immigration "life in the UK" test is basically a Buzzfeed "how British are you" test made legally binding.
Unbritishness definitely gets thrown around, especially these days.
Unbritishness definitely gets thrown around, especially these days.
That test is basically just memorising a leaflet of facts and figures. It’s not to be taken seriously one way or the other.
As an American I find being accused of being unAmerican is usually something I find humorous:
1) If you don't blow stuff up on 4th of of July you are unAmerican!
2) If you can't eat Hotdogs like Joey Chestnut you are unAmerican!
3) If you don't own gun you are...
Long time ago I was accused of being "un-Canadian(TM)" by neighbor because I do not watch hockey. Actually I do not watch sports at all but it did not matter to him. God knows what would've happened had I admitted not pouring maple syrup on my morning eggs and bacon.
Could you just get away by telling you are contributing your share to strategic reserve[1] to stabilize price for all Canadians. That would be very patriotic thing to do :-)
1. https://www.vpr.org/post/inside-global-strategic-maple-syrup...
1. https://www.vpr.org/post/inside-global-strategic-maple-syrup...
> had I admitted not pouring maple syrup on my morning eggs and bacon.
That sounds tasty. Can I be an honorary Canadian?
That sounds tasty. Can I be an honorary Canadian?
Heads up: that's probably peameal back bacon and not the pork belly bacon you're expecting.
Sorry to disappoint. Just your regular pork belly bacon. Old style thick slices.
Anyways being way older I am now more into BBQ and veggies.
Anyways being way older I am now more into BBQ and veggies.
Belly bacon strips are far more popular than peameal in Canada. Peameal for sure exists (unlike American "Canadian Bacon"), but 90% of people still have bacon that would be normal bacon to an American. If you go to a Canadian diner and order "bacon" unqualified, you'll get strips of belly bacon.
Ewww ;) I hate mixing salt and sweets.
As long as you try to starve your neighbor, get him sick, then take his land, you'll be properly Canadian
Unaustralian is reasonably common, used as a slur by both sides of politics, the same as described in the article. Tends to be called out with accusations of jingoism in the mud flinging though, which might make it different.
Seems that British nationalism runs pretty deep too, no? How else would you explain brexit?
Many would argue that Brexit was more about English nationalism than British nationalism.
What makes the UK very complex is the coexistence of two layers of national identity – British layered over English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish. Which layer a person identifies with is very often determined by their politics, and sometimes also by religious/cultural background. (British vs Irish identity in Northern Ireland tends to correspond with Protestant vs Catholic religious background, albeit there are exceptions to that generalisation.) At the same time, given England is 85% of the population, the boundary between "British nationalism" and "English nationalism" is often quite vague. Its boundaries with Scottish nationalism, Welsh nationalism, Irish nationalism, tend to be more clearly cut.
What makes the UK very complex is the coexistence of two layers of national identity – British layered over English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish. Which layer a person identifies with is very often determined by their politics, and sometimes also by religious/cultural background. (British vs Irish identity in Northern Ireland tends to correspond with Protestant vs Catholic religious background, albeit there are exceptions to that generalisation.) At the same time, given England is 85% of the population, the boundary between "British nationalism" and "English nationalism" is often quite vague. Its boundaries with Scottish nationalism, Welsh nationalism, Irish nationalism, tend to be more clearly cut.
Over half of the Welsh population votes for Brexit. A third of Scots did. Without those votes the UK would not have left the EU.
The idea it is purely an English phenomenon is divisive and pernicious.
The idea it is purely an English phenomenon is divisive and pernicious.
> Over half of the Welsh population votes for Brexit
Many of the residents of Wales who voted for Brexit are English: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-peop...
The areas of Wales which identify the most strongly as Welsh had the some of the lowest votes for Brexit.
Many of the residents of Wales who voted for Brexit are English: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-peop...
The areas of Wales which identify the most strongly as Welsh had the some of the lowest votes for Brexit.
So we can cut it along perceived ethnic lines too?
This is just more pernicious divisiveness. Those areas that are most Welsh also voted in significant numbers for Brexit.
The people of the UK, in various proportions in various places, voted to leave the EU. It may suck, but pretending it’s purely an English problem is delusion.
If you want someone to blame, blame the people that voted for Brexit everywhere. This exoneration of particular regions is bizarre. How can it be all about English Nationalism when a third of Scots voted that way too?
This is just more pernicious divisiveness. Those areas that are most Welsh also voted in significant numbers for Brexit.
The people of the UK, in various proportions in various places, voted to leave the EU. It may suck, but pretending it’s purely an English problem is delusion.
If you want someone to blame, blame the people that voted for Brexit everywhere. This exoneration of particular regions is bizarre. How can it be all about English Nationalism when a third of Scots voted that way too?
> How can it be all about English Nationalism when a third of Scots voted that way too?
When did I ever say it was all about English nationalism? I think I only said that in your head.
When did I ever say it was all about English nationalism? I think I only said that in your head.
Would it have better fit in with those layers if instead of voting on the UK leaving the EU they had instead voted on England leaving the UK?
I don’t think England would ever leave the UK, as English people view England as the main UK country. Also, the EU has been blamed for decades as a scapegoat, whereas the UK definitely hasn’t.
British nationalism is built on building things up as British not tearing things down as unBritish.
“‘Cor tea and digestives on a rainy day, what could be more british”
National identity precludes other nationalities, which is largely the impetus for Brexit. Brits are not ever blamed for being unBritish, even if they don’t like football.
“‘Cor tea and digestives on a rainy day, what could be more british”
National identity precludes other nationalities, which is largely the impetus for Brexit. Brits are not ever blamed for being unBritish, even if they don’t like football.
That's not true, we regularly judge people not doing things the 'right' way, but we just don't use the term 'un-British'. It's hard to explain, but there are code-phrases that some use like 'its not the done thing', or 'they're not our sort of people'.
Supporting football's not really 'British', and a fairly modern phenomenon. In the 80s it was deemed uncouth and heavily associated with hooliganism, but rehabilitated in the 90s, and is already falling out of fashion again.
Football support is heavily wrapped up in the complicated British classes, in the 90s/00s it was cool to pretend to be working class when you were middle class, and supporting football was a visible way of doing that.
Supporting football's not really 'British', and a fairly modern phenomenon. In the 80s it was deemed uncouth and heavily associated with hooliganism, but rehabilitated in the 90s, and is already falling out of fashion again.
Football support is heavily wrapped up in the complicated British classes, in the 90s/00s it was cool to pretend to be working class when you were middle class, and supporting football was a visible way of doing that.
> How else would you explain brexit?
The economy. I'm sure there's an undercurrent of xenophobia and "little England"-ism which explains it, but it's not the full picture. Probably the biggest factor is that neoliberalism has been fucking working class people over since Thatcher. It's (sadly) empirically demonstrated that economic hardship pushes people to right-wing populism (see the 1930s, and the 2010s).
Marx was right, history is moved by the material conditions of people (not fully, but in large part).
The economy. I'm sure there's an undercurrent of xenophobia and "little England"-ism which explains it, but it's not the full picture. Probably the biggest factor is that neoliberalism has been fucking working class people over since Thatcher. It's (sadly) empirically demonstrated that economic hardship pushes people to right-wing populism (see the 1930s, and the 2010s).
Marx was right, history is moved by the material conditions of people (not fully, but in large part).
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think the real issue is laid out at the end
>"If matters of good and evil are not to be resolved by an omniscient God in the future, then Americans will judge and render punishment now. We are a nation of believers. If only Americans could begin believing in politics less fervently, realizing instead that life is elsewhere. But this would come at a cost—because to believe in politics also means believing we can, and probably should, be better"
I think the author is part of a group of largely public intellectuals in the US who have subscribed to the theory of "religion is the opium of the people, but that's a good thing".
Yes, the loss of religion does away with a glue that in some sense kept a sort of false peace intact. Injustices can no longer be explained away with metaphysical explanations, superficial alliances under the banner of faith cannot be maintained. The people who stand to lose from this are the kind of people who write these op-eds. People who benefit from delaying conflict. The people who stand to benefit from the loss of religion are the people who need some justice in this world, not in the next one.
>"If matters of good and evil are not to be resolved by an omniscient God in the future, then Americans will judge and render punishment now. We are a nation of believers. If only Americans could begin believing in politics less fervently, realizing instead that life is elsewhere. But this would come at a cost—because to believe in politics also means believing we can, and probably should, be better"
I think the author is part of a group of largely public intellectuals in the US who have subscribed to the theory of "religion is the opium of the people, but that's a good thing".
Yes, the loss of religion does away with a glue that in some sense kept a sort of false peace intact. Injustices can no longer be explained away with metaphysical explanations, superficial alliances under the banner of faith cannot be maintained. The people who stand to lose from this are the kind of people who write these op-eds. People who benefit from delaying conflict. The people who stand to benefit from the loss of religion are the people who need some justice in this world, not in the next one.
I don't know if you saw it, but Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray had a debate about this topic a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aALsFhZKg-Q
TLDW: we don't know if Peterson is religious or not but he thinks that Christianity must stay. Harris (obviously) is an atheist and thinks religions must go. Now, Douglas is interesting. He's an atheist but thinks that Christianity must stay because much-much worse ideologies would take its place. Peterson and Douglas like to prove their point by pointing to existing ideologies that are already very dangerous.
Personally, I don't have any argument to offer. Since seeing this debate, I thought about this topic a lot but I still didn't come to a conclusion.
TLDW: we don't know if Peterson is religious or not but he thinks that Christianity must stay. Harris (obviously) is an atheist and thinks religions must go. Now, Douglas is interesting. He's an atheist but thinks that Christianity must stay because much-much worse ideologies would take its place. Peterson and Douglas like to prove their point by pointing to existing ideologies that are already very dangerous.
Personally, I don't have any argument to offer. Since seeing this debate, I thought about this topic a lot but I still didn't come to a conclusion.
> Christianity must stay because much-much worse ideologies would take its place
That is one terrifying statement. And I think I changed my mind about christianity being gone would make for a better world.
if qanon is anything but a sample taste of possible future I sure hope christianity stays.
That is one terrifying statement. And I think I changed my mind about christianity being gone would make for a better world.
if qanon is anything but a sample taste of possible future I sure hope christianity stays.
>if qanon is anything but a sample taste of possible future I sure hope christianity stays.
Ah... QAnon is mostly an amalgamation of beliefs already commonly held by the extremist fringe of Evangelical Christianity and other right-wing Christian sects, and is based on a Christian apocalyptic worldview. It exists to play on Christian fears of the temporal, secular world being run by vast Satanic conspiracies arrayed against them.
It couldn't exist in a world without Christianity.
Ah... QAnon is mostly an amalgamation of beliefs already commonly held by the extremist fringe of Evangelical Christianity and other right-wing Christian sects, and is based on a Christian apocalyptic worldview. It exists to play on Christian fears of the temporal, secular world being run by vast Satanic conspiracies arrayed against them.
It couldn't exist in a world without Christianity.
If anything its a proof that people will believe in anything that suits their narrative. Especially if its random gibberish that can be interpreted anyway you want.
The question for me is: Is a mutually shared narrative required for a society to maintain cohesion and engagement at scale?
If the assumption is "yes" then the challenge becomes whether the narrative is actually epistemologically solid enough to bear scrutiny from all angles - something I don't actually believe exists.
I think in the US the narrative since the Colonies formed, has been something like "Land of Opportunity" which a healthy proportion of the US and world doesn't believe in, and realistically only some segment of the world population did believe in for a short period after WWII.
If the assumption is "yes" then the challenge becomes whether the narrative is actually epistemologically solid enough to bear scrutiny from all angles - something I don't actually believe exists.
I think in the US the narrative since the Colonies formed, has been something like "Land of Opportunity" which a healthy proportion of the US and world doesn't believe in, and realistically only some segment of the world population did believe in for a short period after WWII.
if we want to maintain cohesion and engagement, we must have something that binds us together.
current and past mainstream religions are not capable of achieving this. they were not meant to. they did achieve it for the society at the time they were founded, but the world has moved on and religions stagnated.
and it's not just society at a national level. we live in a global society. our interconnections worldwide are to deep to be able to separate societies by nation.
a religion today must be capable of creating cohesion and engagement on a global scale. it must bear scrutiny from all angles indeed, from every corner of this planet.
if we can't find a religion that is capable of achieving this, then indeed we may be better off without any religion.
current and past mainstream religions are not capable of achieving this. they were not meant to. they did achieve it for the society at the time they were founded, but the world has moved on and religions stagnated.
and it's not just society at a national level. we live in a global society. our interconnections worldwide are to deep to be able to separate societies by nation.
a religion today must be capable of creating cohesion and engagement on a global scale. it must bear scrutiny from all angles indeed, from every corner of this planet.
if we can't find a religion that is capable of achieving this, then indeed we may be better off without any religion.
If you are interested in this topic, I really cannot recommend reading A Secular Age by the philosopher Charles Taylor enough.
It’s a huge book but the basic takeaway is this: the modern secular world is a thing that was created over the course of many centuries and cultural developments. It is not merely the subtraction of so-called primitive beliefs. The “subtraction thesis” is the predominant model of how most people (and until recently, religious scholars) interpreted the secularizarion process.
This means that the same basic historical and psychological forces are at play, but they’ve just been morphed and combined in different ways. What is truly new about the modern secular world is its immanence, which basically just means it is not concerned with a “world beyond” this one, and its “cross pressures”, or the state of being aware of other viable alternatives to one’s belief system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Age
It’s a huge book but the basic takeaway is this: the modern secular world is a thing that was created over the course of many centuries and cultural developments. It is not merely the subtraction of so-called primitive beliefs. The “subtraction thesis” is the predominant model of how most people (and until recently, religious scholars) interpreted the secularizarion process.
This means that the same basic historical and psychological forces are at play, but they’ve just been morphed and combined in different ways. What is truly new about the modern secular world is its immanence, which basically just means it is not concerned with a “world beyond” this one, and its “cross pressures”, or the state of being aware of other viable alternatives to one’s belief system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Age
I'm concerned of both aspects. For one, thinking that secular belief is essential or natural – as if it's defined only by the material world and observations on it. Secular belief also assumes its universal (why wouldn't it be since we all live on the same earth). This leads to totalitarianism (with a small t)
It is not concerned about the world beyond, but is concerned about the future. That's why it has beliefs too
The themes here remind me of another politics-is-the-new-religion article by David French, "America Is in the Grips of a Fundamentalist Revival". [1]
In it he draws a distinction between religion and fundamentalist religion (which the author has a background with), with a key quality of the latter being a lack of a sort of humility, a certainty that they're right. Which in turn leads them to be less tolerant of opposing viewpoints - because (in their view) they can see right and wrong so clearly, it pulls them to the position that "error has no rights".
That being said, I think it is easy to pay too much attention to the extremes.
An analysis of the US's political problems is out of scope of a HN comment, but one thing I did recently was read books by two prolific authors on the US left and right [2] (who each have historically been aligned with one of our two political parties). They both contained opposing narratives covering the last 100 years or so, but what was very interesting was how they both overlapped around certain key historical/political events.
I think reading these books was quite helpful for my understanding of US politics in a way that isn't really covered by the news cycle (in the future, I'd like to spend more time reading these sorts of books and less time on news).
[1] https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/america-is-in-the-grip...
[2] Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" and Charles Murray's "By the People"
In it he draws a distinction between religion and fundamentalist religion (which the author has a background with), with a key quality of the latter being a lack of a sort of humility, a certainty that they're right. Which in turn leads them to be less tolerant of opposing viewpoints - because (in their view) they can see right and wrong so clearly, it pulls them to the position that "error has no rights".
That being said, I think it is easy to pay too much attention to the extremes.
An analysis of the US's political problems is out of scope of a HN comment, but one thing I did recently was read books by two prolific authors on the US left and right [2] (who each have historically been aligned with one of our two political parties). They both contained opposing narratives covering the last 100 years or so, but what was very interesting was how they both overlapped around certain key historical/political events.
I think reading these books was quite helpful for my understanding of US politics in a way that isn't really covered by the news cycle (in the future, I'd like to spend more time reading these sorts of books and less time on news).
[1] https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/america-is-in-the-grip...
[2] Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" and Charles Murray's "By the People"
Phyllis Tickle wrote a book on this about a decade ago. Her argument is that every ~500 years there is a major shakeup in the Christian world, and we’re in the midst of one right now.
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Emergence-How-Christianity-Chan...
This post explains it well:
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/are-we-in-a-500-year-reli...
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Emergence-How-Christianity-Chan...
This post explains it well:
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/are-we-in-a-500-year-reli...
What's the proposed mechanism behind the 500-year periodicity? Without a plausible mechanism it's hard to take seriously.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thanks for the link. So much has changed in the last 500 years that it makes me wonder how much the (distant) past can tell us about the future, but sometimes there's interesting stuff. This topic reminds me a little bit of Ray Dalio's articles (on the rise and decline of empires) which also tries to find patterns that only become apparent over a gigantic time period. [1]
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-1-big-picture-tiny-nu...
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-1-big-picture-tiny-nu...
As religious faith has declined, comment intensity on HN has risen.
All joking aside this is a pretty well-known phenomenon that folks like Hegel and Nietzsche have discussed. The Enlightenment has had its tentacles on formalized religion for over 300 years in the Western World.
Nietzsche’s mad man who runs about the town telling people that “God is Dead” is not meant to be taken as a positive or light statement. Nietzsche posited that many of the key elements of modern society would cease to have meaning. Why then, if man is not created in the image of God, should man treat fellow man in any which way? What justification does one have for not harming fellow man if his fellow man is but ape?
Books I loved with perspectives on this are “Enlightenment Now” by Steven Pinker and “The Rise of the Modern Self” by Carl Trueman.
“You gotta serve somebody.” -Bob Dylan
All joking aside this is a pretty well-known phenomenon that folks like Hegel and Nietzsche have discussed. The Enlightenment has had its tentacles on formalized religion for over 300 years in the Western World.
Nietzsche’s mad man who runs about the town telling people that “God is Dead” is not meant to be taken as a positive or light statement. Nietzsche posited that many of the key elements of modern society would cease to have meaning. Why then, if man is not created in the image of God, should man treat fellow man in any which way? What justification does one have for not harming fellow man if his fellow man is but ape?
Books I loved with perspectives on this are “Enlightenment Now” by Steven Pinker and “The Rise of the Modern Self” by Carl Trueman.
“You gotta serve somebody.” -Bob Dylan
You're correct that this isn't really new territory in philosophy - but "lay" people are actually starting to see it play out at scale in society which is making them perk their ears up.
I doubt we'll see Beyond Good and Evil become a NYT bestseller unfortunately.
I doubt we'll see Beyond Good and Evil become a NYT bestseller unfortunately.
There are religions, there are ideologies, and there are tribalisms. Tribalism is the underlying cause of most of humanity's bad behavior. And unfortunately, it creeps into religions and ideologies more often than not.
In other words, as the article states, rationality is not going to increase as religion decreases. Tribalism is a fundamental human tendency, and few religions / ideologies address it correctly – if at all.
In other words, as the article states, rationality is not going to increase as religion decreases. Tribalism is a fundamental human tendency, and few religions / ideologies address it correctly – if at all.
I have a theory that tribalism is simultaneously the most important condition for civilisations and also often their undoing. The great filter[0] argues that it’s unlikely for a civilisation to reach the stage where it can visit other star systems and this is why earth hasn’t been visited by aliens.
Tribalism is a fundamental component in starting on the road to a modern civilisation, without it there is not capacity to innovate as all individuals are occupied with gathering food and finding shelter. Only when humans settled down in groups did we have the ability for some individuals to be freed from the toil of daily life to invent things.
In any case, if you assume this tribalism is crucial for civilisations to get started, then all alien civilisations would have had the same component. However, while tribalism is crucial in the earliest life of a civilisation I think it’s detrimental later. In particular, it makes tackling global challenges like climate change difficult and in the presence of word ending weapons it makes total destruction likely.
We’ve already seen examples of this e.g. inaction on climate change because China won’t do their part and with the mutually assured destruction of nuclear weapons.
So in essence I agree with you and because tribalism is an evolutionary trait I expect it will also be our undoing long term.
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
Tribalism is a fundamental component in starting on the road to a modern civilisation, without it there is not capacity to innovate as all individuals are occupied with gathering food and finding shelter. Only when humans settled down in groups did we have the ability for some individuals to be freed from the toil of daily life to invent things.
In any case, if you assume this tribalism is crucial for civilisations to get started, then all alien civilisations would have had the same component. However, while tribalism is crucial in the earliest life of a civilisation I think it’s detrimental later. In particular, it makes tackling global challenges like climate change difficult and in the presence of word ending weapons it makes total destruction likely.
We’ve already seen examples of this e.g. inaction on climate change because China won’t do their part and with the mutually assured destruction of nuclear weapons.
So in essence I agree with you and because tribalism is an evolutionary trait I expect it will also be our undoing long term.
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
I know at least in Christianity tribalism is addressed.
One instance where Jesus says love your neighbour, then the listeners ask him who should be considered a neighbour. He responds with a story about a Samaritan who goes out of his way to help a Jew robbed and left for dead, as an example of a good neighbour.
Jews and Samaritans at the time despised each other.
One instance where Jesus says love your neighbour, then the listeners ask him who should be considered a neighbour. He responds with a story about a Samaritan who goes out of his way to help a Jew robbed and left for dead, as an example of a good neighbour.
Jews and Samaritans at the time despised each other.
> There are religions, there are ideologies, and there are tribalisms. Tribalism is the underlying cause of most of humanity's bad behavior. And unfortunately, it creeps into religions and ideologies more often than not.
I think one needs to go a bit deeper. Tribalism is ~~the~~ an underlying cause, but I believe an even deeper cause lies at the root (or a deeper root at least), one that enables tribalism and all other things higher in the stack: the nature of human consciousness. Consciousness presents us with an illusion (estimation, simulation, perspective, opinion, etc) of reality, and we mistake this for reality itself. What's even stranger about the situation is that we already know this. And yet despite this, we continue on living our lives (our real time behavior) as if this is not actually true.
Worse, I believe that this illusion has been encoded/embedded within portions of the ~fabric of reality. As just one example, look at our language (very simplistic compared to the reality we use it to describe), but more so how we use it (on a real time, day to day basis). Take the word "is", which means "to be". "1 + 1 is 2" is (almost certainly) an objectively and comprehensively true statement. But then take "Tribalism is the underlying cause of most of humanity's bad behavior"...is this almost certainly an objectively and comprehensively true statement? I suspect not. And yet, we use the very same word. And this is an extremely simple, fairly innocuous statement compared to many other examples (say, journalism) where we use this word in a way that implies (is perceived as) being of the "1+1=2" variety, but is actually of the estimation/opinion type (in turn, increasing the magnitude of illusion further, creating an even more powerful coordinated/synchronized illusion).
Now, I'm quite confident that you were speaking casually and can understand the complex nuance in play if you put your mind to it...but what of third parties who ingest information in threads like this, adding portions of it to their model of reality, perhaps even repeating the "truths" they have learned to others? While it's true that many people are able to switch their mind into extreme pedantry mode (for short periods of time with some degree of skill) and pick nits along with me, what is actually happening (in the real world as it is) when they are not in this mode, and are interacting in a complex system with billions of other people who are also not in this mode the vast majority of the time, if ever?
Imagine you have a giant computing cluster with 7 billion nodes, and the software running on every single node is utterly riddled with bugs, a complete mess of continuous errors in computation - might the output of this cluster be suboptimal relative to one that has less bugs?
I think one needs to go a bit deeper. Tribalism is ~~the~~ an underlying cause, but I believe an even deeper cause lies at the root (or a deeper root at least), one that enables tribalism and all other things higher in the stack: the nature of human consciousness. Consciousness presents us with an illusion (estimation, simulation, perspective, opinion, etc) of reality, and we mistake this for reality itself. What's even stranger about the situation is that we already know this. And yet despite this, we continue on living our lives (our real time behavior) as if this is not actually true.
Worse, I believe that this illusion has been encoded/embedded within portions of the ~fabric of reality. As just one example, look at our language (very simplistic compared to the reality we use it to describe), but more so how we use it (on a real time, day to day basis). Take the word "is", which means "to be". "1 + 1 is 2" is (almost certainly) an objectively and comprehensively true statement. But then take "Tribalism is the underlying cause of most of humanity's bad behavior"...is this almost certainly an objectively and comprehensively true statement? I suspect not. And yet, we use the very same word. And this is an extremely simple, fairly innocuous statement compared to many other examples (say, journalism) where we use this word in a way that implies (is perceived as) being of the "1+1=2" variety, but is actually of the estimation/opinion type (in turn, increasing the magnitude of illusion further, creating an even more powerful coordinated/synchronized illusion).
Now, I'm quite confident that you were speaking casually and can understand the complex nuance in play if you put your mind to it...but what of third parties who ingest information in threads like this, adding portions of it to their model of reality, perhaps even repeating the "truths" they have learned to others? While it's true that many people are able to switch their mind into extreme pedantry mode (for short periods of time with some degree of skill) and pick nits along with me, what is actually happening (in the real world as it is) when they are not in this mode, and are interacting in a complex system with billions of other people who are also not in this mode the vast majority of the time, if ever?
Imagine you have a giant computing cluster with 7 billion nodes, and the software running on every single node is utterly riddled with bugs, a complete mess of continuous errors in computation - might the output of this cluster be suboptimal relative to one that has less bugs?
I don't think it's useful to blame consciousness in the context of this thread. Why not keep going and blame the big bang for the mass shooting in Austin yesterday morning? Technically true, but not useful to point out.
Additionally, you're assuming there is such a thing as objective reality. Your 1+1=2 example is based on manmade axioms. It's not an objectively true statement, it's a conclusion based on an approximated system of logic that humans have invented for convenience. How much is "one" apple, for example? If "1" in your equation represents an apple, can you swap one apple for another and have an equivalent result?
Additionally, you're assuming there is such a thing as objective reality. Your 1+1=2 example is based on manmade axioms. It's not an objectively true statement, it's a conclusion based on an approximated system of logic that humans have invented for convenience. How much is "one" apple, for example? If "1" in your equation represents an apple, can you swap one apple for another and have an equivalent result?
I think of it much as you might when debugging a systems problem: it seems to me that the nature of consciousness is likely the least distant and most impactful entity that we are able to exert influence upon.
I do indeed assume there is an objective reality, as it seems you do (or did) as well. Something I find very interesting about this theory is that it regularly invokes a solipsism response when someone is exposed to it, even though it is a very simple idea that is fairly consistent with mainstream psychology and neuroscience.
I do indeed assume there is an objective reality, as it seems you do (or did) as well. Something I find very interesting about this theory is that it regularly invokes a solipsism response when someone is exposed to it, even though it is a very simple idea that is fairly consistent with mainstream psychology and neuroscience.
The reason I point out the problem of objective reality is your comment of "is this almost certainly an objectively and comprehensively true statement? I suspect not". Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. In fact I don't think I understood the point you were trying to make at all. Not being snarky, I'm just now confused.
I was being extremely precise (because I believe the problem is extremely important).
So, my interpretation of "Tribalism is the underlying cause of most of humanity's bad behavior", focuses on the words "the" and "most", as well as the general idea of what ails humanity. I would say that this aspect is extremely truthy and extremely important, but I believe it is even more true that the particulars of consciousness itself is THE root cause of all the world's problems...and not just in a "well duh, no shit" sense, but in a this is where humanity should be focusing its very best minds sense. I believe the problem is blatantly obvious and well known, but for some reason we seem unable to take it seriously.
So, my interpretation of "Tribalism is the underlying cause of most of humanity's bad behavior", focuses on the words "the" and "most", as well as the general idea of what ails humanity. I would say that this aspect is extremely truthy and extremely important, but I believe it is even more true that the particulars of consciousness itself is THE root cause of all the world's problems...and not just in a "well duh, no shit" sense, but in a this is where humanity should be focusing its very best minds sense. I believe the problem is blatantly obvious and well known, but for some reason we seem unable to take it seriously.
> In his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, Martin Luther King Jr. wished that “one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed.” The very idea that a nation might have a creed—a word associated primarily with religion—illustrates the uniqueness of American identity as well as its predicament.
That was a quote from the _Reverend_ Martin Luther King Jr, no less, so it's fair to say he knew the connotations and chose that term deliberately. Honestly, it still bothers me when I notice how often leftists will quote King, while never acknowledging the role that Christianity played in his work. He was an extremely well-trained Baptist Minister, with a doctorate in systematic theology. For whatever reason, I don't really see the modern Social Justice types taking many cues from Baptist Theology these days.
That was a quote from the _Reverend_ Martin Luther King Jr, no less, so it's fair to say he knew the connotations and chose that term deliberately. Honestly, it still bothers me when I notice how often leftists will quote King, while never acknowledging the role that Christianity played in his work. He was an extremely well-trained Baptist Minister, with a doctorate in systematic theology. For whatever reason, I don't really see the modern Social Justice types taking many cues from Baptist Theology these days.
You've confused me. Are you saying that "leftists" cannot quote king because he was Christian? Why's that matter? Also, quotes can be used for many purposes outside of their origin, e.g., love thy neighbour, etc.
No, I'm saying that I know actual leftists (not sure what your quotes are for) who will only post King quotes when the topic is "White liberals are unhelpful" and "anti-capitalism", typically only posting quotes which don't include religious terms. Then, they will unironically claim that his legacy is being erased by the folks who only ever quote him from "I have a dream".
To which I say: yes - his legacy is being erased when you intentionally ignore important parts of his character and works. But erasing his Christianity is especially egregious, given how fundamental that aspect is to his entire philosophy and life. His theology is inseparable from his philosophy, and a massive influence for both his anti-capitalism/pro-poor people campaigns and for his racial reconciliation work.
To which I say: yes - his legacy is being erased when you intentionally ignore important parts of his character and works. But erasing his Christianity is especially egregious, given how fundamental that aspect is to his entire philosophy and life. His theology is inseparable from his philosophy, and a massive influence for both his anti-capitalism/pro-poor people campaigns and for his racial reconciliation work.
My quotes are because it can mean something very different from where I am from; for me it's quite an American term. Unsurprising given the forum we're on of course.
It's always left me a bit uneasy when people speak of "legacy being erased" as it's often untrue. In this way, I disagree with both yourself and those individuals you quoted. For me, leaving out details is commonplace in all aspects of life. That doesn't entail erasure. I doubt that people consider the complete background of authors when sharing inspirational quotes. The "I had a dream" speech and quote is powerful and meaningful to the individual because of what it reads, not necessarily who wrote it. That's why you'll see people quote people who are arguably did good ... but also a lot of bad, e.g., Winston Churchill.
It's always left me a bit uneasy when people speak of "legacy being erased" as it's often untrue. In this way, I disagree with both yourself and those individuals you quoted. For me, leaving out details is commonplace in all aspects of life. That doesn't entail erasure. I doubt that people consider the complete background of authors when sharing inspirational quotes. The "I had a dream" speech and quote is powerful and meaningful to the individual because of what it reads, not necessarily who wrote it. That's why you'll see people quote people who are arguably did good ... but also a lot of bad, e.g., Winston Churchill.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Define religion as a societal organization, beliefs as mental convictions without proofs, and faith as determination and grit towards hope and higher goals.
Then by the very process of dismantling organized religion, whatever core is left, will not be average: The remaining core will be the more fundamentalist, more extreme and the annoyingly louder part. Its position in society will take time to shift though, all the while new technology platforms make such voices heard louder and wider than before.
When people lose beliefs, the addicted will need something else to hold on to. In this case, the quest for riches, fame and money. So for those already rich, it only makes sense to buy up all sources of knowledge and information, such as media, education and civic spaces. Making the snake eat its tail, prevents it from nibbling your own coffers. Beliefs are governed by being infallible, which is the false core itself.
Whatever direction people take, will be powered by faith. The hope for something better, wether it be in printing more currency, or less. And it makes sense for all involved not to get people engaged in anything that really matters.
So it is not from the outside or from another person true faith will blossom, as faith is ever so much more than mere beliefs.
Then by the very process of dismantling organized religion, whatever core is left, will not be average: The remaining core will be the more fundamentalist, more extreme and the annoyingly louder part. Its position in society will take time to shift though, all the while new technology platforms make such voices heard louder and wider than before.
When people lose beliefs, the addicted will need something else to hold on to. In this case, the quest for riches, fame and money. So for those already rich, it only makes sense to buy up all sources of knowledge and information, such as media, education and civic spaces. Making the snake eat its tail, prevents it from nibbling your own coffers. Beliefs are governed by being infallible, which is the false core itself.
Whatever direction people take, will be powered by faith. The hope for something better, wether it be in printing more currency, or less. And it makes sense for all involved not to get people engaged in anything that really matters.
So it is not from the outside or from another person true faith will blossom, as faith is ever so much more than mere beliefs.
Yeah, people need to believe in something - faith is part of our human nature, and that's why it's a phenomenon across the globe. As an Eastern Orthodox, I don't need any ideology other than Orthodoxy, which defines my value system and which pretty much gives me an answer for all the good and bad happening; it's unifying, not dividing. That's why I have a hard time associating myself with any secular ideology, as they all conflict with Orthodoxy in one or many ways. I always found it funny that Republicans in the States often present themselves as Christians. Still, they don't act as such - in fact, their values predate Christ and are based on the Old Testament ("An eye for an eye," etc.) and ignore the existence of the New Testament and the teachings of Christ.
Interesting. I always found religion divisive. If I don’t believe in God then I can’t really take part in all these cool religious community stuff like church, boy scouts, etc.
Orthodox people don't try to convert others, although we're genuinely happy when others discover Orthodoxy, and priests never claim that it is the exclusive religion for salvation. Indeed, often they will tell you that when you get baptized, you get only responsibilities, and no privileges, so, it's like a coop of people helping each other thru the guidance of clergy. For example, liturgies start with the priest bowing in front of the Parish and send me "Please, forgive me, a sinner."
Back in grad school I had an orthodox roomate who showed me some of their faith, and I discovered Orthodox churches have beautiful liturgies. Here is a recording of Rachmaninoff's liturgy of St. John Chrysostomus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K94ePzs14Nc
Also a lot of the orthodox church fathers are pretty amazing and I enjoy reading their writings. Here is Symeon the New Theologian, one of the three Great Hierarchs of the Eastern Church (along with Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysostom), from his Ethical Discourses:
"I learned from Scripture and from experience itself that the cross comes at the end for no other reason than that we must endure trials and tribulations and finally voluntary death itself. In times past, when heresies prevailed, many chose death through martyrdom and various tortures. Now, when we through the grace of Christ live in a time of profound and perfect peace, we learn for sure that cross and death consist in nothing else than the complete putting to death of self-will. He who pursues his own will, however slightly, will never be able to observe the law of Christ the Savior."
There is both a rich liturgical tradition and a rich literary tradition in Orthodox Christianity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K94ePzs14Nc
Also a lot of the orthodox church fathers are pretty amazing and I enjoy reading their writings. Here is Symeon the New Theologian, one of the three Great Hierarchs of the Eastern Church (along with Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysostom), from his Ethical Discourses:
"I learned from Scripture and from experience itself that the cross comes at the end for no other reason than that we must endure trials and tribulations and finally voluntary death itself. In times past, when heresies prevailed, many chose death through martyrdom and various tortures. Now, when we through the grace of Christ live in a time of profound and perfect peace, we learn for sure that cross and death consist in nothing else than the complete putting to death of self-will. He who pursues his own will, however slightly, will never be able to observe the law of Christ the Savior."
There is both a rich liturgical tradition and a rich literary tradition in Orthodox Christianity.
I am mesmerized by the Byzantine chanting and the Byzantine musical notation, which many, including music professionals, are unaware of. I haven't felt more human than being among Orthodox brothers and sisters, who are our extended family. I feel a lot more at home at the Church than at my temporary earthly residence. I can always call my priest and share all things that trouble me, ask for a blessing for something that I'm planning to do, and a prayer when we're in trouble. There's no pressure to tithe, bring more people to Church, and other things, turning the Church of God into a cult, an exclusive club, or an MLM scheme. When I look for a Church management system, I found only Protestant versions, which focus on attendance and tithe tracking with weird add-ons such as facial recognition, contacting people who haven't donated recently, and many other things you can never see in an Orthodox Church.
It’s interesting that basically no evidence is presented for the focal narrative of the piece, just generalizations and subjective impressions. I think the author is one of the many people who mistook the partisan civility that resulted from, and whose fading remnants lasted a while past, the long period of realignment covering most of the mid-to-late 20th Century in which the two major parties were not well-aligned with the main ideological divides, so that neither could too-openly invoke them without risking internal schism, with an absence of intense ideological division.
I'm not religious, not an atheist either. When I was a kid we went to church. I'm curious what (if anything) other parents substitute for organized religion with their kids. Or do you choose to participate anyway even if not devout? To be clear, I'm a big fan of questioning everything, but I definitely see benefits to being part of something like organized religion and wonder how I will fill that void with my son.
What gap did you feel that church filled in your own childhood?
I went to church as a kid too, but the only positive thing I remember about it has a secular alternatives (youth choir).
Otherwise I just remember: Wearing uncomfortable clothes and trying to sit still while bored out of mind for an hour, trying to intentionally make us late so we wouldn't have to go, my dad getting angry at me for intentionally making us late, spending forever sitting in traffic and finding a parking spot.
I went to church as a kid too, but the only positive thing I remember about it has a secular alternatives (youth choir).
Otherwise I just remember: Wearing uncomfortable clothes and trying to sit still while bored out of mind for an hour, trying to intentionally make us late so we wouldn't have to go, my dad getting angry at me for intentionally making us late, spending forever sitting in traffic and finding a parking spot.
Honestly I don’t know. My parents were not religious and so I’m not baptized and never went to church. It’s like when people ask me: didn’t you miss not having a brother or a sister? Well how can I miss it if I never had it? Instead they had friends and we did camping trips, and dinners, and bbqs, and we went to the movies, and to the acquarium, and stuff…
Let them be religious. If their mother is religious and wants them in a church let it happen.
My only rule is when they ask me what I believe I will not lie to them. But they can be religious if they want.
My only rule is when they ask me what I believe I will not lie to them. But they can be religious if they want.
People feel the urge to label some one, group, or idea, as bad. I get around this by accepting that I am bad. It helps me see the best in everyone else, and makes me hold myself to really high standards. It is sometimes unpleasant though.
It's probably some sort of natural calibration process.
It's probably some sort of natural calibration process.
Isn’t this what Catholicism is all about? We are all sinners and terrible people. Therefore we should see the best in fellow human and give money to the church so it can offset our tab with god
I realize most people stick to the “everyone is bad” part and forget that they too are an everyone and gloss over the whole forgiveness and acceptance part.
I realize most people stick to the “everyone is bad” part and forget that they too are an everyone and gloss over the whole forgiveness and acceptance part.
Is it though, don’t religious people think everyone else not part of their religion is going to hell?
I asked this from a Christian friend of mine. He said that the "uninitiated", like indigenous people will be judged by their conscience.
I told him that people in Iraq are 99% muslims and they definitely know about the existence of Christianity so they aren't really uninitiated. If I remember correctly, he said that if a culture poisons your mind to not believe in the Christian God, then you're still considered "uninitiated".
I told him that people in Iraq are 99% muslims and they definitely know about the existence of Christianity so they aren't really uninitiated. If I remember correctly, he said that if a culture poisons your mind to not believe in the Christian God, then you're still considered "uninitiated".
> "culture poisons your mind"
That seems like quite the cop out lol. Pretty sure any decision to not practice Christianity would meet this criteria.
That seems like quite the cop out lol. Pretty sure any decision to not practice Christianity would meet this criteria.
I've come to terms with this by denouncing morals and focusing on ethics.
I don't go so far as denouncing morals, I'm glad they exist, but I'm very skeptical of them.
Morality works well for its evolved purpose, which is to bind together small tribes and push someone into action in response to visual and audio cues that someone is suffering.
Beyond that, it's highly flawed.
It doesn't get switched on for out-groups. Arguably it contributes to tribal conflict.
It can be co-opted so easily by nefarious charismatic leaders, motivating morally outraged people towards atrocity.
It can be co-opted easily by a victim-playing psychopath in an interpersonal setting for personal gain.
It's used as a mask for policies and ideologies that are really a byproduct of jealousy, envy, self-interest, among other motivations.
It's not rational, we become less altruistic as the scale of the problem grows, and we respond more to emotional stimuli than actual information about what's going on.
Morality works well for its evolved purpose, which is to bind together small tribes and push someone into action in response to visual and audio cues that someone is suffering.
Beyond that, it's highly flawed.
It doesn't get switched on for out-groups. Arguably it contributes to tribal conflict.
It can be co-opted so easily by nefarious charismatic leaders, motivating morally outraged people towards atrocity.
It can be co-opted easily by a victim-playing psychopath in an interpersonal setting for personal gain.
It's used as a mask for policies and ideologies that are really a byproduct of jealousy, envy, self-interest, among other motivations.
It's not rational, we become less altruistic as the scale of the problem grows, and we respond more to emotional stimuli than actual information about what's going on.
The problem with talking about "morals"-vs-"ethics" is that it isn't very clear what is the actual difference between them.
One point of view–to which I subscribe–is that the terms are synonyms. One comes from Latin, the other comes from Greek. English does that sometimes.
Others insist they differ in meaning. But there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what the actual difference is. I've heard many proposals, and the only thing I've found they have in common is that they disagree with each other.
Some people say "morals" is about principles and "ethics" is about their application. Others say "morals" are religious and "ethics" are secular. Yet others say "morals" are personal and "ethics" are professional and/or political. I'll just stick with using the two words as interchangeable synonyms myself.
One point of view–to which I subscribe–is that the terms are synonyms. One comes from Latin, the other comes from Greek. English does that sometimes.
Others insist they differ in meaning. But there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what the actual difference is. I've heard many proposals, and the only thing I've found they have in common is that they disagree with each other.
Some people say "morals" is about principles and "ethics" is about their application. Others say "morals" are religious and "ethics" are secular. Yet others say "morals" are personal and "ethics" are professional and/or political. I'll just stick with using the two words as interchangeable synonyms myself.
I agree about morals. They're always relative, and can sometimes be fluid. Holding someone to a set of morals is usually pretty shortsighted.
What do you mean by ethics here?
The one thing I try to hold myself to is to maximize individual choice, even if I don't currently agree with some of the choices.
What do you mean by ethics here?
The one thing I try to hold myself to is to maximize individual choice, even if I don't currently agree with some of the choices.
False correlation. People realizing that belief in imaginary beings somewhere out there is false is a good thing. Any correlation at the same time of a rise in people becoming political or ideological zealots has nothing to do with the failure of religion in modern science based societies.
Agreed that weakening religious ideology is good, but disagree that it’s uncorrelated with changing politics. A large part of evangelical political backlash is explicitly rooted in the disappearance of religious symbolism and language from American public life. Exhibit A would be the absurd furor over Starbucks cups not saying “Merry Christmas”. The current intensifying political divide has a lot to do with devout Christians feeling insecure about their diminishing societal influence and the author manages to completely ignore that glaringly obvious fact.
The interesting argument IMO is that current secular ideology seems to trend toward “ignore all religious holidays” or “remove all religious symbolism from society” when a perfectly rational and arguably more populist alternative would be to include and celebrate them all.
The interesting argument IMO is that current secular ideology seems to trend toward “ignore all religious holidays” or “remove all religious symbolism from society” when a perfectly rational and arguably more populist alternative would be to include and celebrate them all.
I also think that religiosity is a neurological phenomenon and is as much a part of being a human as language, music, money or tool use. Nobody, including myself, can escape it.
I see a lot of talk in this thread about making the definition of "religion" meaningless by broadening it too much, but I think the definition that gets narrowed in is "the phenomenon of humans engaging in dogmatic belief." A good example of this is transhumanism, specifically, the idea that you can upload your mind to a computer. It is all but given based on our current scientific understanding that the mind is inseparable from the body, yet somehow particularly atheist people behave as if they are separate things. This is a dogmatic belief.
Other closely related behaviors are ideological movements. I believe that religion is largely social in nature and driven more by social pressure and community/family and less by actual rational analysis or any other method of coming to conclusions about the world. I think it shows in the decline of traditional religion and also in the rise of what are often being termed "religions" these days by detractors (correctly in many cases, for example the Gaia worship end of times cult). When that is taken into account, the irrational behavior of swathes of people who hold as a core identity characteristic their perceived strict adherence to rationality makes a lot of sense.
I know I have a religion, I don't know what it is exactly, but I'm a human so I have one. But I try to be open to any idea I hold being challenged, I'd like my belief system to be as close to the truth as I can get it, and that means ignoring social proof and being prepared to find out that anything and everything I believe is wrong. Of course, until I find out I'm wrong, I think I'm right.
I see a lot of talk in this thread about making the definition of "religion" meaningless by broadening it too much, but I think the definition that gets narrowed in is "the phenomenon of humans engaging in dogmatic belief." A good example of this is transhumanism, specifically, the idea that you can upload your mind to a computer. It is all but given based on our current scientific understanding that the mind is inseparable from the body, yet somehow particularly atheist people behave as if they are separate things. This is a dogmatic belief.
Other closely related behaviors are ideological movements. I believe that religion is largely social in nature and driven more by social pressure and community/family and less by actual rational analysis or any other method of coming to conclusions about the world. I think it shows in the decline of traditional religion and also in the rise of what are often being termed "religions" these days by detractors (correctly in many cases, for example the Gaia worship end of times cult). When that is taken into account, the irrational behavior of swathes of people who hold as a core identity characteristic their perceived strict adherence to rationality makes a lot of sense.
I know I have a religion, I don't know what it is exactly, but I'm a human so I have one. But I try to be open to any idea I hold being challenged, I'd like my belief system to be as close to the truth as I can get it, and that means ignoring social proof and being prepared to find out that anything and everything I believe is wrong. Of course, until I find out I'm wrong, I think I'm right.
>A good example of this is transhumanism, specifically, the idea that you can upload your mind to a computer. It is all but given based on our current scientific understanding that the mind is inseparable from the body, yet somehow particularly atheist people behave as if they are separate things. This is a dogmatic belief.
It's unknown if such a technology will be possible one day, but I don't find transhumanism or that idea dogmatic. The human mind is of course part of the human body, but there's nothing that prescribes any particular mind must be part of a biological body. This is known as "substrate independence". If substrate independence is true, it would suggest creation of conscious machines and simulation of conscious beings is feasible.
There are additional difficulties when it comes to the possibility of actually "uploading" one's mind, but it seems incorrect to say "atheists who trust science believe the mind and body are inseparable, yet here they act like they can be separated". The atheist/physicalist/scientific claim is that the mind emerges from the brain, and that the brain is made of ordinary matter - not that they're "inseparable" in the sense that there can't be such a thing as a mind without a fleshy body.
It's orthogonal to "bodiness" or an idea of anything like a soul. If substrate independence is true, then a mind is a thing which must exist on some physical substrate composed of matter. It's fine if you believe substrate independence isn't true, but I don't see any dogma. Perhaps a dogma would be "substrate independence is true" without demonstrating any evidence of it, but I haven't seen that claim. This'll probably only ever be known for sure if some group actually manages to instantiate a seemingly-conscious mind on a non-biological substrate, and if it seems to pass every possible test for consciousness we can devise.
It's unknown if such a technology will be possible one day, but I don't find transhumanism or that idea dogmatic. The human mind is of course part of the human body, but there's nothing that prescribes any particular mind must be part of a biological body. This is known as "substrate independence". If substrate independence is true, it would suggest creation of conscious machines and simulation of conscious beings is feasible.
There are additional difficulties when it comes to the possibility of actually "uploading" one's mind, but it seems incorrect to say "atheists who trust science believe the mind and body are inseparable, yet here they act like they can be separated". The atheist/physicalist/scientific claim is that the mind emerges from the brain, and that the brain is made of ordinary matter - not that they're "inseparable" in the sense that there can't be such a thing as a mind without a fleshy body.
It's orthogonal to "bodiness" or an idea of anything like a soul. If substrate independence is true, then a mind is a thing which must exist on some physical substrate composed of matter. It's fine if you believe substrate independence isn't true, but I don't see any dogma. Perhaps a dogma would be "substrate independence is true" without demonstrating any evidence of it, but I haven't seen that claim. This'll probably only ever be known for sure if some group actually manages to instantiate a seemingly-conscious mind on a non-biological substrate, and if it seems to pass every possible test for consciousness we can devise.
Belief that your mind can be moved is a dogmatic belief, if you hold it, seeing as our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it. That isn't to say a machine cannot be conscious, or that a different type of consciousness cannot exist.
I'd say certainty in such a belief would be dogmatic. But I don't think it's at all dogmatic (or wrong) to say that in the distant future it could maybe become possible.
If one merely says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine", I don't think that's dogma. Even if one says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine and retain continuous consciousness in the process" (as opposed to basically just creating a mental copy of oneself), I'd say that also isn't dogma, even if the odds are lower.
I would actually say "our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it" is dogmatic. Unless you mean "we don't yet know how we could go about it given our current limited understanding", then sure; but asserting that something (especially something that doesn't violate any laws of physics) will never be possible is a positive, definitive statement, and one I also don't think is true.
We just know it would be enormously difficult and complex and that it's extremely unlikely it would be possible within the next few centuries, and may never be possible. There's nothing we know about right now that would fundamentally make it impossible. It's all just matter and information.
The definition of dogma, according to Google, is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". Claims of incontrovertible truth are dangerous, whichever direction they're in. If some transhumanist wholeheartedly expects they're going to be inside of a computer by the time they're 80, then that would be dogmatic, but I've personally not seen anyone with such an attitude.
If one merely says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine", I don't think that's dogma. Even if one says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine and retain continuous consciousness in the process" (as opposed to basically just creating a mental copy of oneself), I'd say that also isn't dogma, even if the odds are lower.
I would actually say "our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it" is dogmatic. Unless you mean "we don't yet know how we could go about it given our current limited understanding", then sure; but asserting that something (especially something that doesn't violate any laws of physics) will never be possible is a positive, definitive statement, and one I also don't think is true.
We just know it would be enormously difficult and complex and that it's extremely unlikely it would be possible within the next few centuries, and may never be possible. There's nothing we know about right now that would fundamentally make it impossible. It's all just matter and information.
The definition of dogma, according to Google, is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". Claims of incontrovertible truth are dangerous, whichever direction they're in. If some transhumanist wholeheartedly expects they're going to be inside of a computer by the time they're 80, then that would be dogmatic, but I've personally not seen anyone with such an attitude.
Current scientific understanding is inconclusive. You can't prove a negative so it definitely doesn't preclude it.
Why does current scientific knowledge preclude it? Is a simulation of the entire human body impossible in principle, or alternatively is it known that such a simulation won't be conscious?
Because from our current understanding, the mind is an emergent property of the brain, not some ethereal thing contained by the brain. It might be possible to create artificial consciousness, to find consciousness that occurs in different ways, but to move a human mind out of a brain, as far as we can tell, is impossible.
I don't understand how these are mutually exclusive. Why should it being emergent mean it's absolutely impossible to move it out of the brain?
Of course it could turn out to be impossible in practice for some reason or another, or it may not happen for thousands of years, but I don't see any theoretical reason that makes it impossible a priori.
Of course it could turn out to be impossible in practice for some reason or another, or it may not happen for thousands of years, but I don't see any theoretical reason that makes it impossible a priori.
There's a lot of unresolved debate in the philosophy of mind about how the mind might come about from the brain.
Not all hypotheses assert substrate-dependant epiphenomenalism, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
So our current understanding is merely that we have little clue whether it's possible. I lean towards the idea that it's possible and view the burden of proof as being on your shoulders to show why wetware as a substrate is necessary.
Not all hypotheses assert substrate-dependant epiphenomenalism, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
So our current understanding is merely that we have little clue whether it's possible. I lean towards the idea that it's possible and view the burden of proof as being on your shoulders to show why wetware as a substrate is necessary.
> A good example of this is transhumanism, specifically, the idea that you can upload your mind to a computer.
Better examples might be what you can find in certain strands of rationalism: the simulation argument, that God (friendly AI) doesn't exist but ought to be created, that if the AI isn't summoned (programmed) in a very particular way it will be maximally dangerous, the Judgment day when the AI is brought online, and even intangible possible Hells through TDT and basilisk arguments.
I can't help getting the impression there's a weirdly distorted version of Christianity in there somewhere, and the reason it can survive is because its adherents don't recognize that that's what it is.
Better examples might be what you can find in certain strands of rationalism: the simulation argument, that God (friendly AI) doesn't exist but ought to be created, that if the AI isn't summoned (programmed) in a very particular way it will be maximally dangerous, the Judgment day when the AI is brought online, and even intangible possible Hells through TDT and basilisk arguments.
I can't help getting the impression there's a weirdly distorted version of Christianity in there somewhere, and the reason it can survive is because its adherents don't recognize that that's what it is.
My observation shows it has less to do with religion and more with the large influence of the media (not just the news)
TV, radio, news, internet, personal voice - comments posts such as hacker news.
People would have never connected before social media, tv, radio to align in mass.
Religion has been more about social that faith for decades. Now people have another option - internet and social media.
TV, radio, news, internet, personal voice - comments posts such as hacker news.
People would have never connected before social media, tv, radio to align in mass.
Religion has been more about social that faith for decades. Now people have another option - internet and social media.
Blaming the trend of declining religious faith in the American people is as easy as blaming replacement migration.
How about we talk about declining standard of living, wealth inequality, and rules that apply only to the working class while the political/wealthy classes live their best lives.
The existing system is broken.
How about we talk about declining standard of living, wealth inequality, and rules that apply only to the working class while the political/wealthy classes live their best lives.
The existing system is broken.
I feel that many issues are not only a confusion of values, but a confusion of what values even _are_. There is some cookie cutter bullshit about what is "good" or "bad" and this is used to paint a broad and incoherent picture which breaks down the structures it is painted on. Like confusing ageism with public policy of how to handle disease. Or being idealistic to avoide concern over secondary consequences. You can be called a lot of names by trying to point out secondary consequences which harm certain woke policy choices. When did someone decide there were clear answers to challenging issues and cut off further debate?
I think most belief systems, religious or otherwise, sort of boil down to: "believe what you need to believe in order to get through life with some sort of meaning". Otherwise things can get a little too bleak in our heads...
[deleted]
Is it bad to point out the obvious? The way people process and vet information seems to be fundamentally in opposition and tied to their political party, reinforced by machine learning silos, diametrically opposed tv networks and further fueled by hostile nations tinkering with narratives. Let's not forget, without "he who shall not be named", this wouldn't have been possible.
Wow... that was not what I expected. The author shares a very interesting and insightful perspective that is well worth taking in.
So I figure there should be a possible version of Emo Phillips' best God joke ever https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religio... available for American politics.
This seems counterintuitive to me if we assume a causal relationship. I’d imagine lessening religious faith would lessen ideological intensity.
Then again when it was assumed most people were “religious”, it meant there was some higher thing than ourselves that we shared we could unify on. God however you take him, is at least a symbol of something above us, bigger than individuals, of an immaterial nature.
With the annihilation of God in the public discourse, we have to find something else bigger than ourselves that we can unify around on, and the ideological intensity maybe stems from arguing what that higher thing is. Is it science, love, security, pleasure, freedom? Different people will take on an ideology of some sort, and the intensity will because one groups higher thing they think is higher than another’s. God was the trump card for highest before, but now, I’m not sure what is for most people.
With the annihilation of God in the public discourse, we have to find something else bigger than ourselves that we can unify around on, and the ideological intensity maybe stems from arguing what that higher thing is. Is it science, love, security, pleasure, freedom? Different people will take on an ideology of some sort, and the intensity will because one groups higher thing they think is higher than another’s. God was the trump card for highest before, but now, I’m not sure what is for most people.
This seems counterintuitive to me if we assume a causal relationship. I’d imagine lessening religious faith would lessen ideological intensity.
Then again when it was assumed most people were “religious”, it meant there was some higher thing than ourselves that we shared we could unify on. God however you take him, is at least a symbol of something above us, bigger than individuals, of an immaterial nature.
With the annihilation of God in the public discourse, we have to find something else bigger than ourselves that we can unify around on, and the ideological intensity maybe stems from arguing what that higher thing is. Is it science, love, security, pleasure, freedom? Different people will take on an ideology of some sort, and the intensity will because one groups higher thing they think is higher than another’s. God was the trump card for highest before, but now, I’m not sure.
With the annihilation of God in the public discourse, we have to find something else bigger than ourselves that we can unify around on, and the ideological intensity maybe stems from arguing what that higher thing is. Is it science, love, security, pleasure, freedom? Different people will take on an ideology of some sort, and the intensity will because one groups higher thing they think is higher than another’s. God was the trump card for highest before, but now, I’m not sure.
After thinking about it for a very long time, I've come to believe that "religious faith" is ultimately a form of intellectual laziness, and every religious adherent of every faith that I've cornered after a nice meal and a few drinks has all but admitted as such.
I’m inclined to agree, though that does not preclude them being otherwise smart, kind, open etc.
I think also that we as humans have “religions” that are also intellectual cop-outs in other areas. Left vs Right, Capitalism vs <<other>>, Nationalism/Patriotism vs Globalism.
I find a lot of people don’t have nuance to their thinking they just blindly believe what ever they’ve settled in on, which leads to those funny “curb your capitalism/communism” YouTube videos, where people can’t defend closely held convictions.
I think also that we as humans have “religions” that are also intellectual cop-outs in other areas. Left vs Right, Capitalism vs <<other>>, Nationalism/Patriotism vs Globalism.
I find a lot of people don’t have nuance to their thinking they just blindly believe what ever they’ve settled in on, which leads to those funny “curb your capitalism/communism” YouTube videos, where people can’t defend closely held convictions.
"As _______ has declined, ______ intensity has risen."
That is a natural cycle for more than religion.
Look at the mainstream media. As the internet has cut into their sweet spot, they've reacted with reporting that's more binay, more sensationalized. Similar can be said of politics. Again, the internet, it enables the people to self organize, etc. And the result to politics? A louder and more extreme mindset professing how important gov is.
As "movements" contract those who remain are naturally more devoted. Devotes what to believe they are relevant. Less voices triggers those who remain to be louder.
That is a natural cycle for more than religion.
Look at the mainstream media. As the internet has cut into their sweet spot, they've reacted with reporting that's more binay, more sensationalized. Similar can be said of politics. Again, the internet, it enables the people to self organize, etc. And the result to politics? A louder and more extreme mindset professing how important gov is.
As "movements" contract those who remain are naturally more devoted. Devotes what to believe they are relevant. Less voices triggers those who remain to be louder.
It is not the first time that certain ideologies were seen having characteristics often associated with religious faith. There this French intellectual named Raymond Aron who wrote a book called "The Opium of the Intellectuals" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Opium_of_the_Intellectuals). He also used to be a schoolmate of Sarte.
He goes in very great details (although this is hard to read even for me as a native French speaker) about how his intellectual contemporaries (most of them Marxists) used to believe in the same kind of myths that are usually associated with religion. The proletariat as a messiah, the Left being the road towards Progress and the inevitable fate of Humanity pass to the next stage, that in all societies History is unavoidably leaning towards the same finality, the State has replaced Providence and is seen as a guide that shepherds the people.
He goes in very great details (although this is hard to read even for me as a native French speaker) about how his intellectual contemporaries (most of them Marxists) used to believe in the same kind of myths that are usually associated with religion. The proletariat as a messiah, the Left being the road towards Progress and the inevitable fate of Humanity pass to the next stage, that in all societies History is unavoidably leaning towards the same finality, the State has replaced Providence and is seen as a guide that shepherds the people.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The Christian Science Monitor also ran a similar article last month that I feel is worth a read.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0512/Is-politics...
Rather than try to drive any particular point this is more of a discussion piece about this moment in time.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0512/Is-politics...
Rather than try to drive any particular point this is more of a discussion piece about this moment in time.
We may be on the cusp of a great religious revival, due to the increased acceptance and eventual mainstreaming of psychedelics.
People often interpret their psychedelic experiences in religious terms, and psychedelic use has often created new religions and helped to engender an authentic reconnection to existing religions.
Mainstream religions rarely offer much more than platitudes or a place to socialize for the majority of their adherents, of whom many are part of the religion simply because their parents were, or because the church is the social center of their town.
They don't have an authentic connection to the teachings, many don't even read their sacred scriptures, rely on priests to tell them what to believe, and usually neither they nor their priests ever had a mystical experience.
Then psychedelics come in to the picture, and suddenly they may have a renewed sense of the sacred, religious texts and spaces come alive, and they may even come face to face with what they experience as the genuine heart of their tradition, including meeting, talking to or even being god.
This is not an uncommon occurrence, even for atheists and agnostics.
I don't think the mainstream culture has fully appreciated either how enormously powerful such experiences can be, nor their repercussions.
Historically, mainstream religions have been very against drug use, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when their churches, mosques, and synagogues start filling up with people who were drawn there through mystical experiences they had on psychedelics.
People often interpret their psychedelic experiences in religious terms, and psychedelic use has often created new religions and helped to engender an authentic reconnection to existing religions.
Mainstream religions rarely offer much more than platitudes or a place to socialize for the majority of their adherents, of whom many are part of the religion simply because their parents were, or because the church is the social center of their town.
They don't have an authentic connection to the teachings, many don't even read their sacred scriptures, rely on priests to tell them what to believe, and usually neither they nor their priests ever had a mystical experience.
Then psychedelics come in to the picture, and suddenly they may have a renewed sense of the sacred, religious texts and spaces come alive, and they may even come face to face with what they experience as the genuine heart of their tradition, including meeting, talking to or even being god.
This is not an uncommon occurrence, even for atheists and agnostics.
I don't think the mainstream culture has fully appreciated either how enormously powerful such experiences can be, nor their repercussions.
Historically, mainstream religions have been very against drug use, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when their churches, mosques, and synagogues start filling up with people who were drawn there through mystical experiences they had on psychedelics.
Walk into a mainstream religious setting. None of them are there because they got high. If that were the case, the 70s would have looked a lot different.
This is false.
A lot of people found religion in the 60's and 70's due to psychedelics, and have continued to do so ever since. As an example, many people were first drawn to Eastern religions through psychedelic experiences.
Also, arguments have been made that even the mainstream religions were originally founded (and in their early years sustained) due to psychedelic use. For an example see Allegro's "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross".
That's not to mention many smaller religions such as the Native American Church, Santo Daime, Uniao Do Vegetal, etc.
Something else to consider is that drug use has been so stigmatized (not to mention illegal) for so long that many users have been afraid to come forward and admit their psychedelic use. That's been changing due to the Psychedelic Renaissance and its positive reception in the press, but there are likely to be many more people who haven't come out of the closet yet (not to mention users who died before this more permissive era started). So the number of people who were drawn to religion through psychedelic use is probably much larger than we know.
A lot of people found religion in the 60's and 70's due to psychedelics, and have continued to do so ever since. As an example, many people were first drawn to Eastern religions through psychedelic experiences.
Also, arguments have been made that even the mainstream religions were originally founded (and in their early years sustained) due to psychedelic use. For an example see Allegro's "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross".
That's not to mention many smaller religions such as the Native American Church, Santo Daime, Uniao Do Vegetal, etc.
Something else to consider is that drug use has been so stigmatized (not to mention illegal) for so long that many users have been afraid to come forward and admit their psychedelic use. That's been changing due to the Psychedelic Renaissance and its positive reception in the press, but there are likely to be many more people who haven't come out of the closet yet (not to mention users who died before this more permissive era started). So the number of people who were drawn to religion through psychedelic use is probably much larger than we know.
I'm sure plenty of them did. But it's interesting I don't see Christians, Jews, or Muslims talk about how they get high all the time. They'd be put off by you suggesting it. It's even a central practice to not do so.
One thing I learned from psychedelic usage is the powerful of the minds ability to imagine things about reality and present them as reality itself. I think the realization of this sort of thing might contribute to many psychedelic users to adopt a more ~spiritual outlook on life, which I believe is more aligned with how things really are.
I used to be an atheist, then after experimenting with psychedelics I became agnostic, then after some major struggle in life now God is central to my life and I enjoy reading the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita. I had never touched anything similar before psychedelics, I was prejudiced against religions, religious people, spirituality and anything that wasn't materialistic.
spiritually yes .. however, for me it took many, small and far apart, ventures into Bible study to find that in the Old Testament, it is literally a guiding principle to refrain from drugs that induce ecstatic experience.. The Old Testament g*d is a sober one.. (oh wait, wine) Fast-forward 2+ thousand years, and the structures of capital R Religion focus on tangible outcomes with built, physical infrastructure .. family structures and committments..
it’s worth also introducing another word into the vocabulary of the discussion: spirituality
This is such a belittling and reductionist take on religiosity that all I can do, as a religious person myself, who is well educated (because that's the other assumed trope common in places like these: people must be religious because they are otherwise ignorant or uneducated), is laugh.
Not only has American theological ignorance increased (people like Richard Dawkins for example, popular in atheist cultures, has just downright comically terrible theology and understanding of the Bible), but as well as ignorance of the human psyche.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Not only has American theological ignorance increased (people like Richard Dawkins for example, popular in atheist cultures, has just downright comically terrible theology and understanding of the Bible), but as well as ignorance of the human psyche.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Any pattern of thoughts that has been grouped into a discipline, whether religious or secular, can - imo - be viewed as a best effort by a group or individual that was then adopted by the group. That doesn't mean they're equal, but I think it's helpful framing.
Setting aside fundamentalists, people are using combinations of these disciplines to make sense of life. Epiphanies which are liberating to me may be terrifying or unimportant to you and vice versa. The need to conform can be helpful on a societal level (particularly from a bird's-eye view) and harmful on an individual level. At some point, the individual harm affects enough individuals that there is a noticeable backlash, and we see some form of reorganization of beliefs.
Most people aren't built for serious thought. Maybe someone has a better idea than I do how it breaks down on the nature/nature scale, but the average person will always be more concerned with the signaling aspects of a given belief than the belief itself. As a human trying to survive or thrive, you increase your margin for error by squeezing into a group. How you choose the group or if it's chosen for you will again depend on some combination of internal and external factors.
Whether we like it or not, we're building this thing together, and it's to our benefit to be curious and compassionate about the beliefs of others. It doesn't mean converting or losing your religion, but if I understand what motivates you, I can propose comprises that work for both parties. Of cours, there will always be assholes who must have everything their way, but don't be cynical. Most people are capable of compromise, just as most people are capable of love and hope.
Setting aside fundamentalists, people are using combinations of these disciplines to make sense of life. Epiphanies which are liberating to me may be terrifying or unimportant to you and vice versa. The need to conform can be helpful on a societal level (particularly from a bird's-eye view) and harmful on an individual level. At some point, the individual harm affects enough individuals that there is a noticeable backlash, and we see some form of reorganization of beliefs.
Most people aren't built for serious thought. Maybe someone has a better idea than I do how it breaks down on the nature/nature scale, but the average person will always be more concerned with the signaling aspects of a given belief than the belief itself. As a human trying to survive or thrive, you increase your margin for error by squeezing into a group. How you choose the group or if it's chosen for you will again depend on some combination of internal and external factors.
Whether we like it or not, we're building this thing together, and it's to our benefit to be curious and compassionate about the beliefs of others. It doesn't mean converting or losing your religion, but if I understand what motivates you, I can propose comprises that work for both parties. Of cours, there will always be assholes who must have everything their way, but don't be cynical. Most people are capable of compromise, just as most people are capable of love and hope.
The issue isn’t so much that Americans have become less religious, it is that many fewer of them were raised in homes that had at least one religious parent. the experience of practicing a religion, even if you don’t believe it, tends to protect you from the single minded politics as religion thought process
That theory would suggest that the less religious a country, the more religious its politics. But plenty of countries in Europe are at least as irreligious as the US[1][2], yet the same effect doesn't seem to hold there.
[1] https://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-weste... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-ab...
[1] https://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-weste... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-ab...
I think the political fervency can be explained by other factors such as the loss of jobs that moved from USA to other countries. It has created a large number of unemployed citizens who I think join political rallies to bring back the jobs.
This is a commonly held view among the punditry. But the author ignores the obvious counterexample: all the division in the 50s, 60s, and 70s such as over desegregation, civil rights, abortion, and the Vietnam war, despite higher rates of religiosity. You cango farther back: the civil war. America has always been deeply divided.
I think the obvious counter example is the fact that there's a lot of political extremism in the bible belt. The extremism seems to be more homogeneously distributed where lack of religion isn't.
The title of the article when I visit is "America without God" and it's subtitle is one of many sweeping statements about humanity that I've seen debated by Americans that seem a bit parochial when considering the global context.
All humans have a belief system, it's part of what kept small tribes of humans together for tens of thousands of years. If you don't inherit one then you'll make one up for yourself.
The good old correlation is not causation clearly applies here.
IMHO, religions is at the same time archaic and something deeply rooted in human nature, but like many primitive instincts it can be mastered.
IMHO, religions is at the same time archaic and something deeply rooted in human nature, but like many primitive instincts it can be mastered.
"Join me in our crusade to reap the rewards of our global victory'
Said President Bush in 2005. Once politics and faith intermingle the result is higher intensity.
Said President Bush in 2005. Once politics and faith intermingle the result is higher intensity.
> Once politics and faith intermingle the result is higher intensity.
America has been into that since the very beginning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apotheosis_of_Washington
America has been into that since the very beginning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apotheosis_of_Washington
I think this correlation is related to causation. I think there are registers in people's minds that are simply occupied.
Addicts occupy their predisposition to addiction with a single or ever changing way of neglecting their responsibilities and relationships and health, based on simple earliest exposure.
Susceptible people occupy their predisposition to susceptibility with religion or fervent ideology, the "choice" being simply the earliest exposure.
Whichever one shows up first occupies that part of their mind. No different than a simpler organism impressing who its mother and caretaker is.
Addicts occupy their predisposition to addiction with a single or ever changing way of neglecting their responsibilities and relationships and health, based on simple earliest exposure.
Susceptible people occupy their predisposition to susceptibility with religion or fervent ideology, the "choice" being simply the earliest exposure.
Whichever one shows up first occupies that part of their mind. No different than a simpler organism impressing who its mother and caretaker is.
Reducing the actions of people to objects or "simpler organisms" is rarely a helpful concept. Often people are much more complicated than our reductions of them.
I should wrote "analogous" instead of "no different", as analogies compare dissimilar things with common attributes, and could provide the same introspective capabilities without the easy ego based rebuttals
There aren't enough differences for me to entertain the idea of backtracking though
There aren't enough differences for me to entertain the idea of backtracking though
What a condescending and misanthropic view of people. So we're just paramecia with "registers" waiting for occupation.
As with anything, I think the real answer is much more nuanced.
1) This article is making the case that this behavior is universal, when there is no evidence of that. As always has been, there are subsects of any ideology that are ravenous in their dogma. They are always the loudest and get the most attention, because their actions are so extreme. It's selection bias by the media, who (wouldn't you know it) are the same folks making the assertion that political religiosity has supplanted deified religiosity.
2) If there's something resembling a "trend" happening around peoples' emotional investment in politics, it's likely around the fact that politics is increasingly prodding itself into peoples' lives. At the very least, if I travel abroad, and we have a president like Trump, I look like a fucking idiot. That sucks. At the worst, I'm a woman or minority whose livelihood is negatively affected constantly by political footballing.
This has nothing to do with an absence of god, but everything to do with a real, quantifiable affect on peoples' lives. How can you expect people, secular or not, to put up with the state of social and political conversation as it exists today? If they're staunch conservatives, how can they put up with a clear wind blowing in the direction of socialism? If they're democrats, how can they put up with a clearly obstructionist and crooked counter party?
Reducing all of that to computer parlance and the most basic biologies undermines the real problems that people are dealing with.
As with anything, I think the real answer is much more nuanced.
1) This article is making the case that this behavior is universal, when there is no evidence of that. As always has been, there are subsects of any ideology that are ravenous in their dogma. They are always the loudest and get the most attention, because their actions are so extreme. It's selection bias by the media, who (wouldn't you know it) are the same folks making the assertion that political religiosity has supplanted deified religiosity.
2) If there's something resembling a "trend" happening around peoples' emotional investment in politics, it's likely around the fact that politics is increasingly prodding itself into peoples' lives. At the very least, if I travel abroad, and we have a president like Trump, I look like a fucking idiot. That sucks. At the worst, I'm a woman or minority whose livelihood is negatively affected constantly by political footballing.
This has nothing to do with an absence of god, but everything to do with a real, quantifiable affect on peoples' lives. How can you expect people, secular or not, to put up with the state of social and political conversation as it exists today? If they're staunch conservatives, how can they put up with a clear wind blowing in the direction of socialism? If they're democrats, how can they put up with a clearly obstructionist and crooked counter party?
Reducing all of that to computer parlance and the most basic biologies undermines the real problems that people are dealing with.
I don’t think anyone judges you because of who the president is.
Because they're "staunch conservatives" or "democrats", as you wrote, because thats what they were exposed to first, not because they had an array of choices set in front of them with no external influence and said "that makes more sense"
The same goes with religion
The same goes with addicts
The same goes with religion
The same goes with addicts
Faith is fine (in god, democracy, veganism, open source or a political party - whatever). Blind faith (= ideology) is a problem.
I don't think religion is declining at all.
I remember one time there were two articles on the front page of HN. One says "If you want to be more productive, be more happy", then you scroll down and you find "If you want to be more productive, be more depressed".
Take a look at this article for example https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is...
Determining if religion is declining or rising is more complex than just making a poll.
Take a look at this article for example https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is...
Determining if religion is declining or rising is more complex than just making a poll.
Just curious to know, isn't religion also an ideology? Every ideology at some point turns into religion!
isn't ideological intensity an euphemism for religious faith? or is that the joke
religio = piety
ideo = images / ideas
I think religious devotion is a subset of ideological intensity.
ideo = images / ideas
I think religious devotion is a subset of ideological intensity.
Religion is going away and political affiliation resembles more of a cult. You know, very healthy.
The total number of people identifying as religious in the US is declining. The number of people identifying as evangelical/"born again" is rising.
Of course, it's about the same thing as the religious and non-religious cult-dynamics are somewhat similar.
Of course, it's a product of any "local community" fading away - the moderating influence of random people living near one is fading.
Of course, it's about the same thing as the religious and non-religious cult-dynamics are somewhat similar.
Of course, it's a product of any "local community" fading away - the moderating influence of random people living near one is fading.
Religion isn't going away. Ideology is religion. Very bad religion, but it is religion (or a "cult" to use your language, though that term is overloaded). And no one is without religion. Everyone worships something. The question is: are you worshiping the right thing?
In terms of the "traditional" churches in the US, yes, mainline Protestantism is dying because it is a spent force (it has more or less fully acquiesced to the culture, become a consumer and servant of that culture, which means it no longer has any purpose). Muslims who move her tend to become moderates and likely shed Islam entirely eventually. You do see some growth among Evangelicals, but in any case, globally (Africa, Asia), you do see Catholicism and Islam growing. The West is in this sense a decadent freak.
In terms of the "traditional" churches in the US, yes, mainline Protestantism is dying because it is a spent force (it has more or less fully acquiesced to the culture, become a consumer and servant of that culture, which means it no longer has any purpose). Muslims who move her tend to become moderates and likely shed Islam entirely eventually. You do see some growth among Evangelicals, but in any case, globally (Africa, Asia), you do see Catholicism and Islam growing. The West is in this sense a decadent freak.
what definition of religion are you using? this is the dictionaries...
religion
/rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling
power, especially a personal God or gods.under that definition, Buddhism isn't a religion - so it's clearly not a very good definition.
This is not true. Religion is in fact growing every where but the west and perhaps a few other places.
If you only meant the west then that is accurate, but due to the various birth rates it could very easily change with immigration.
If you only meant the west then that is accurate, but due to the various birth rates it could very easily change with immigration.
[deleted]
[deleted]
now consider this in terms of eschatology, and end-of-the-world cults.
For me it was Harari who first stated that all modern ideologies like communism or liberalism are in fact just religions.
Can't say what's worse.
Uh ... is it news to people that american nationalism is a very religious belief system?
It isn't to outsiders, I definitely heard this comparison made when I was in school ... which was the 90's.
This also feels more like americans adjusting to having explicit ideological beliefs in the first place, since the decades-long political monoculture is breaking up. There is an interesting religious feel to party affiliation in the US, but nothing particularly exceptional compared to other places. Maybe that's an outsider missing some nuance though.
It isn't to outsiders, I definitely heard this comparison made when I was in school ... which was the 90's.
This also feels more like americans adjusting to having explicit ideological beliefs in the first place, since the decades-long political monoculture is breaking up. There is an interesting religious feel to party affiliation in the US, but nothing particularly exceptional compared to other places. Maybe that's an outsider missing some nuance though.
>Uh ... is it news to people that american nationalism is a very religious belief system?
I think the "news" here, such as there actually is any, is that modern secular progressivism has adopted (transplanted?) many religious notions from e.g. Catholicism, and the comparison bothers people because the left prides itself on being anti-religious. American Nationalism has pretty much always been tied to Christianity given the history of the country, so yeah it's not surprising at all to point that out.
I think the "news" here, such as there actually is any, is that modern secular progressivism has adopted (transplanted?) many religious notions from e.g. Catholicism, and the comparison bothers people because the left prides itself on being anti-religious. American Nationalism has pretty much always been tied to Christianity given the history of the country, so yeah it's not surprising at all to point that out.
In America, religion has always had an outsized influence in everything, including leftist movements. It's no surprise that its influence has extended to other movements in ways both subtle and (perhaps) surprising.
It isn't. Politics being the new religion and growing amounts of atheism and agnosticism has commonly been the scapegoat. But it is easy to disprove. The South is extremely religious and just as radical (if not more) than the areas of the country that aren't as religious. If it was the lack of religion we'd see the political fervor be less homogeneously distributed (and similarly if religion caused this division).
Neither is this news to people nor is it a good claim. But it is a believable claim so that's why we're talking about it.
Neither is this news to people nor is it a good claim. But it is a believable claim so that's why we're talking about it.
[deleted]
Kaliyuga
>The secular world would benefit from adopting more formal definitions of their belief system.
Just as the religious world contains Christians, Jews, Scientologists, Muslims, Hindus, et cetc" with sometimes radically different ideas, the secular world too has a great many different people with different belief systems.
>If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted
This is just a sort of tautological argument, wherein you adopt that "to be religious" is the same as "to have a belief system". Given that axiom, you are right! I'm a fairly militant atheist but I have no problem accepting that I have a belief system, an imperfect one too. I just don't think there is a god.
Just as the religious world contains Christians, Jews, Scientologists, Muslims, Hindus, et cetc" with sometimes radically different ideas, the secular world too has a great many different people with different belief systems.
>If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted
This is just a sort of tautological argument, wherein you adopt that "to be religious" is the same as "to have a belief system". Given that axiom, you are right! I'm a fairly militant atheist but I have no problem accepting that I have a belief system, an imperfect one too. I just don't think there is a god.
> This is just a sort of tautological argument, wherein you adopt that "to be religious" is the same as "to have a belief system".
Not OP, but I think this is a pretty narrow reading of their statement. Personally, I read it to be more about value and community dynamics.
Institutionalized religions often are very explicit about their (supposed) terminal values and arrange social situations to explicitly work toward or reinforce those values. I believe OP is pointing out that secular groups (at least those within view of OP's demographics) mostly fail to have explicitly defined value systems.
There is a difference between why we perform and action and the reasons we give for performing the same action [citation needed]. I think OP suggests that religions have structures useful for cognating about the former more sharply than secularism does.
Not OP, but I think this is a pretty narrow reading of their statement. Personally, I read it to be more about value and community dynamics.
Institutionalized religions often are very explicit about their (supposed) terminal values and arrange social situations to explicitly work toward or reinforce those values. I believe OP is pointing out that secular groups (at least those within view of OP's demographics) mostly fail to have explicitly defined value systems.
There is a difference between why we perform and action and the reasons we give for performing the same action [citation needed]. I think OP suggests that religions have structures useful for cognating about the former more sharply than secularism does.
> I believe OP is pointing out that secular groups (at least those within view of OP's demographics) mostly fail to have explicitly defined value systems.
I read it like that as well. I've seen this idea illustrated this way: a kid raised in a religious community gets drilled from an early age about morals as an umbrella abstraction (in the form of allegories from religious texts), so they don't need to be micromanaged about the moral implications of every individual scenario under the sun ("don't run in the supermarket!", "don't push your sister!", "don't yell in the hallway!", etc etc) because they are explicitly exposed to an underlying set of values to govern every scenario.
That's is an obviously religious leaning take (I heard it from a jewish person, though I'm not jewish myself), but I think there's a certain grain of truth in the sense that non-religious people don't have a standardized way of talking to kids about morals as an umbrella abstraction on a weekly basis, in a way that church goers do.
I read it like that as well. I've seen this idea illustrated this way: a kid raised in a religious community gets drilled from an early age about morals as an umbrella abstraction (in the form of allegories from religious texts), so they don't need to be micromanaged about the moral implications of every individual scenario under the sun ("don't run in the supermarket!", "don't push your sister!", "don't yell in the hallway!", etc etc) because they are explicitly exposed to an underlying set of values to govern every scenario.
That's is an obviously religious leaning take (I heard it from a jewish person, though I'm not jewish myself), but I think there's a certain grain of truth in the sense that non-religious people don't have a standardized way of talking to kids about morals as an umbrella abstraction on a weekly basis, in a way that church goers do.
Plenty of people prove this not to be working at all.
Plenty of priests have fucked kids.
Religoius people are often enough the same amount of assholes or more. I have not fought over a city for ages due to some believe.
Plenty of priests have fucked kids.
Religoius people are often enough the same amount of assholes or more. I have not fought over a city for ages due to some believe.
Religious types often say the same of the non-religious. Here's other analogies to illustrate the reductio ad absurdum: plenty of people prove school not to be working (by getting failing grades, passing by cheating, etc), plenty of people prove entrepreneurship not to be working (by going bankrupt), etc. All this line of observation shows us is that variability exists everywhere.
Something to keep in mind is that religious societies have existed for millennia, whereas societies that are openly non-religious are a relatively recent development, so comparing the two ought to account for a potential lack of historical hindsight on one of the sides.
Something to keep in mind is that religious societies have existed for millennia, whereas societies that are openly non-religious are a relatively recent development, so comparing the two ought to account for a potential lack of historical hindsight on one of the sides.
Thats not my point i was making.
The parent mentioned specifically religious believes as a tool for good child upbringing.
My counter argument shows, that religious upbringing doesn't necessarily mean a good moral & ethics.
The parent mentioned specifically religious believes as a tool for good child upbringing.
My counter argument shows, that religious upbringing doesn't necessarily mean a good moral & ethics.
> The parent mentioned specifically religious believes as a tool for good child upbringing.
No, I merely pointed out that religious upbringing is explicit about some topics in ways that non-religious one usually aren't.
Your counter argument can be flipped around into "religious upbringing doesn't necessarily mean bad morals & ethics", so in effect it's not really saying anything meaningful.
No, I merely pointed out that religious upbringing is explicit about some topics in ways that non-religious one usually aren't.
Your counter argument can be flipped around into "religious upbringing doesn't necessarily mean bad morals & ethics", so in effect it's not really saying anything meaningful.
You mention it though to bring it up as an argument or a point for religion otherwise you wouldn't do it.
Not everything must necessarily be a religion-vs-atheism competition (in fact it's tiresome that some people insist on putting every religion-related discussion in that light). I believe I was clear enough when I indicated that I'm open minded to ideas from religious groups, but I don't subscribe to their faith, so I don't understand the insinuation that I'd get brownie points or something for "shilling".
If you're seeing a factual argument exclusively as some sort of attack on your belief system, then you're missing the point that self-improvements efforts shouldn't be discriminating against an idea solely due to the source of insight.
In other words, if a statement is "you don't talk to your kids about morals as much as [insert religion] people do", it's petty to respond by saying "well the religious group you belong to has people that do poopy pants stuff" (even more so if some atheists also do said poopy pants stuff); it's more productive to instead say "huh, how then could I talk to my kids about morals more often?"
If you're seeing a factual argument exclusively as some sort of attack on your belief system, then you're missing the point that self-improvements efforts shouldn't be discriminating against an idea solely due to the source of insight.
In other words, if a statement is "you don't talk to your kids about morals as much as [insert religion] people do", it's petty to respond by saying "well the religious group you belong to has people that do poopy pants stuff" (even more so if some atheists also do said poopy pants stuff); it's more productive to instead say "huh, how then could I talk to my kids about morals more often?"
I believe OP is pointing out that secular groups (at least those within view of OP's demographics) mostly fail to have explicitly defined value systems.
You could say that secular groups may have implicit value systems, may even implicitly enforce but because they haven't made these values explicit, they allow to explicate, question and change them - whereas religion is about maintain an explicit and unchanging set of values.
So there's more to the not-explicitness of a secular process than "a religion that doesn't say it's a religion".
You could say that secular groups may have implicit value systems, may even implicitly enforce but because they haven't made these values explicit, they allow to explicate, question and change them - whereas religion is about maintain an explicit and unchanging set of values.
So there's more to the not-explicitness of a secular process than "a religion that doesn't say it's a religion".
> I believe OP is pointing out that secular groups (at least those within view of OP's demographics) mostly fail to have explicitly defined value systems.
And there are good reasons for that. The currently dominating set of progressive views is inherently dynamic and based on the Overton moving in one direction. This is in direct opposition to religion where the basic set of values is normally fixex, often by a sacred book containing the words believed to be spoken by the founder or a deity.
And there are good reasons for that. The currently dominating set of progressive views is inherently dynamic and based on the Overton moving in one direction. This is in direct opposition to religion where the basic set of values is normally fixex, often by a sacred book containing the words believed to be spoken by the founder or a deity.
Regardless of whether "everyone is religious," everyone certainly has revelatory beliefs, i.e. beliefs that were not reasoned to.
Christian thinkers have spilled a lot of ink attempting to clarify the boundary between reason and revelation whereas, in the secular world, many people do not seem to understand that many of their beliefs (particularly the foundational ones) are revealed.
Christian thinkers have spilled a lot of ink attempting to clarify the boundary between reason and revelation whereas, in the secular world, many people do not seem to understand that many of their beliefs (particularly the foundational ones) are revealed.
You are confusing secularism with naturalism.
As a non-religious person, certainly I understand many of my beliefs come from convention or intuition or whatever non-rational source, sure.
But I don't have any meta-belief telling me to hold onto given beliefs-that-seem-implausible-or-unverifiable because I'll be rewarded in the end or because it's a test or whatever. I don't continually change whatever belief I know is arbitrary but that's because consistency has some utility so point remains.
Basically, I have no trouble with non-rational beliefs and behaviors. But religious specifically espouses irrationalist beliefs - irrationalism being the exhortation to keep, cultivate and fixate beliefs beyond the rational. Institutions other than religion, various flavors of Stalinism say, promote faith, fixating one's beliefs and so-forth. I'm against those too. But a wide variety of secular belief systems are against the irrationalist approach - some versions of liberal religion try to escape it too but as people observe, these folks are kind of becoming non-religious.
Edit: Just generally, "everything not-wholly-rational is a religion" is a slippery argument that's being way-abused in this thread.
But I don't have any meta-belief telling me to hold onto given beliefs-that-seem-implausible-or-unverifiable because I'll be rewarded in the end or because it's a test or whatever. I don't continually change whatever belief I know is arbitrary but that's because consistency has some utility so point remains.
Basically, I have no trouble with non-rational beliefs and behaviors. But religious specifically espouses irrationalist beliefs - irrationalism being the exhortation to keep, cultivate and fixate beliefs beyond the rational. Institutions other than religion, various flavors of Stalinism say, promote faith, fixating one's beliefs and so-forth. I'm against those too. But a wide variety of secular belief systems are against the irrationalist approach - some versions of liberal religion try to escape it too but as people observe, these folks are kind of becoming non-religious.
Edit: Just generally, "everything not-wholly-rational is a religion" is a slippery argument that's being way-abused in this thread.
Religion, spiritual beliefs, ghosts, lottery ticket "investing," superstitions, luck, horoscopes, phobias, ritual sacrifices, Capgras delusions/changelings, and faith healing are examples of what I categorize as magical thinking.
These are the ways of animals who cannot control their emotions long-enough to think clearly and honestly between banging on bones in front of a monolith.
If the average member of society is ever to progress beyond being a bunch of easily-misled rubes herded into tribal cult ideological pens, something needs to change where decent, intelligent people are lionized over minimally-useful celebrities and charlatans.
(The United States was founded by primarily anti-intellectual merchants and landowners who scoffed at the Old World's stodginess and intellectual pursuits.)
These are the ways of animals who cannot control their emotions long-enough to think clearly and honestly between banging on bones in front of a monolith.
If the average member of society is ever to progress beyond being a bunch of easily-misled rubes herded into tribal cult ideological pens, something needs to change where decent, intelligent people are lionized over minimally-useful celebrities and charlatans.
(The United States was founded by primarily anti-intellectual merchants and landowners who scoffed at the Old World's stodginess and intellectual pursuits.)
phobias
That's an odd thing to put in your list. Phobias aren't something people choose to believe in. They're specifically an irrational, subconscious pattern of behaviour. That isn't a belief.
That's an odd thing to put in your list. Phobias aren't something people choose to believe in. They're specifically an irrational, subconscious pattern of behaviour. That isn't a belief.
It's only odd for people with external locus-of-control magical beliefs that things "just happen" to them. Phobias are irrational fears most people choose not to overcome. This is in contrast to people who aren't ruled by fear, and confront and overcome their fears. Therefore, a lack of agency argument would be moot. And, phobias aren't behaviors, they're dysfunctional, intrusive, reflex feelings related to particular triggers.
What is rational? Is not rationality subjective? What you might deem irrational others might deem perfectly rational, and vice-versa, what you might deem rational others might deem quite obviously irrational.
Are we to see experiences as rational explanation of a phenomena? Sure, I see and feel a rock, and I verify its existence rationally. I smell food and verify its existence rationally. What about people experiencing a divine being communicating to them, then?
No, we must disregard this as hallucination or a psychological problem. Only what we (and by we I mean the "educated western world") in our pre-determined frame of rationality deem rational can ever be rational, and all that falls outside must naturally be considered irrational irrespective of its potential rationality in relation to other experiences we might call rational.
Really (I think), something being rational is a state of mind, a common understanding with our peers. In a church most would agree that their belief is rational, not out of ignorance (though here you might disagree), but out of shared acceptance of a different frame of rationality, essentially accepting other experiences as being able to feed to rationality than those you might accept.
I guess the point I'm trying to make (and I might be way off) is that when you say that religiosity espouses irrationalist beliefs, they're irrational to you, within your frame of rationalism. To someone else you're the ignorant one who's fighting tooth and nail.
Edit: To those down voting I would love to engage further in conversation about this!
Are we to see experiences as rational explanation of a phenomena? Sure, I see and feel a rock, and I verify its existence rationally. I smell food and verify its existence rationally. What about people experiencing a divine being communicating to them, then?
No, we must disregard this as hallucination or a psychological problem. Only what we (and by we I mean the "educated western world") in our pre-determined frame of rationality deem rational can ever be rational, and all that falls outside must naturally be considered irrational irrespective of its potential rationality in relation to other experiences we might call rational.
Really (I think), something being rational is a state of mind, a common understanding with our peers. In a church most would agree that their belief is rational, not out of ignorance (though here you might disagree), but out of shared acceptance of a different frame of rationality, essentially accepting other experiences as being able to feed to rationality than those you might accept.
I guess the point I'm trying to make (and I might be way off) is that when you say that religiosity espouses irrationalist beliefs, they're irrational to you, within your frame of rationalism. To someone else you're the ignorant one who's fighting tooth and nail.
Edit: To those down voting I would love to engage further in conversation about this!
Rational means you'll make choices that benefit yourself. It's one of the core assumptions of game theory, economics, and policymaking. All the math breaks as soon as that's not the case because irrational is unpredictable. What's nice about rational agency is that it makes cooperation without hierarchy possible so it's been known to rustle the jimmies of the first estate.
There are at least two forms of rationality – epistemic rationality (aka theoretical rationality), and instrumental rationality. Your comment doesn't clearly draw the distinction between them.
In the context of discussions about the rationality of religious belief, we are primarily talking about epistemic/theoretical rationality, although non-epistemic rationality does sometimes come up (for example, Pascal's wager).
Some people think epistemic rationality can be reduced to instrumental rationality, but the philosopher Thomas Kelly wrote what is (to me at least) a pretty convincing refutation of that viewpoint: https://www.princeton.edu/~tkelly/papers/epistemicasinstrume...
In the context of discussions about the rationality of religious belief, we are primarily talking about epistemic/theoretical rationality, although non-epistemic rationality does sometimes come up (for example, Pascal's wager).
Some people think epistemic rationality can be reduced to instrumental rationality, but the philosopher Thomas Kelly wrote what is (to me at least) a pretty convincing refutation of that viewpoint: https://www.princeton.edu/~tkelly/papers/epistemicasinstrume...
I'm familiar with the rationalist movement and all the rationalists I've met have been wonderful people with few exceptions. I hadn't heard of epistemic rationality, but I find it interesting how the LessWrong definition (top search result) makes it sound like self-criticism and atonement.
One concern I have is how closely many people associate "rationality" with the "rationalist movement" (LessWrong, etc). Rationality has been discussed by philosophers for well over 2000 years. Aristotle famously declared that rationality was the feature that distinguished human beings from lesser animals. Most of those philosophers had radically different views from those of the contemporary "rationalist movement". Even today, many thinkers who radically disagree with the "rationalist movement" still believe in the importance of rationality, they just disagree with the "rationalist movement" on what actually counts as "rational".
Well now they get to be a footnote in Plato's Republic. I'm not concerned about what people believe. If they want to get excited about Bayes theorem then that's great. I'm not concerned if people disagree on what it's called or how it's defined. Do you think the people who get paid to be rational understand rationality? I've seen things like software that earned billions in additional revenue get rolled back because we couldn't explain how it made decisions. The answer is that I don't have the answers and no one else does too. What's remarkable is how philosophers like Charles Babbage helped us make thousands of years of philosophy executable and we've unleashed it unto the world. How do we begin to understand that let alone explain it to the world?
Do we want people to make choices that benefit themselves? That seems to be the root of so many problems in the world. Shouldn't we encourage people to make choices that benefit others, benefit the wider community, etc.?
Of course and one way to do that is by ensuring everyone gains. Startups for example create wealth by building products that provide a service to their communities. Paul Graham talks about this sort of thing on his blog. I think that's great even though it's not the case for folks in rent-seeking economies with zero-sum games where people can only win by making the other guy lose. Would you encourage someone in that situation to act against their self-interest?
No, we should encourage choices that maximize the benefit over all individuals including the person who is making the choice. The person making the choice is in no way morally less important than others.
We should also avoid thinking in terms of a false dichotomy. Most voluntary exchanges and relationships in the world are win-win-win, in that both counterparties are gaining and the externality is positive. In such a context, self-maximizing through profit seeking is the choice that maximizes the benefit to others.
What we want to discourage is a much more narrow cone of behavior. Corruption. Negative externalities. Things that aren't win-win-win.
We should also avoid thinking in terms of a false dichotomy. Most voluntary exchanges and relationships in the world are win-win-win, in that both counterparties are gaining and the externality is positive. In such a context, self-maximizing through profit seeking is the choice that maximizes the benefit to others.
What we want to discourage is a much more narrow cone of behavior. Corruption. Negative externalities. Things that aren't win-win-win.
> What's nice about rational agency is that it makes cooperation without hierarchy possible
And economic liberalism is the belief system that it works for the greater good.
And economic liberalism is the belief system that it works for the greater good.
> And economic liberalism is the belief system that it works for the greater good.
Perhaps also anarchism, due to its focus on having the minimum amount of hierarchy possible.
Perhaps also anarchism, due to its focus on having the minimum amount of hierarchy possible.
We actually don't know that:
"What about people experiencing a divine being communicating to them, then?"
But we have studied this and the answers tell us what the most realistic thing actually is and thats why we see 'divine being communicating to them' as a mental illness.
You can expierence this challanging thought yourself by taking LSD. Realizing that you are actually know everything for a few hours and than getting back to your 'normal reality' is exhausting.
But i still don't believe we are all caught on the earth and we need LSD to shackle those bounds. I know how many people are on the planet, how many people i have seen die and leave our planet in the normal rational way. I have never ever seen anything which makes me believe otherwise and LSD showed me even more how fragile my own reality is.
You might want to look in a medical book on different topics you refered to to see what you believe. Nonetheless its just more realistic that human a had a similiar brain issue than all other similiar independend cases before than that this person is now talking directly to god and we areound us are all dumb shits not being able to recognise it.
My default sentence for this is simple: I'm a good person, and i don't like the idea very much that there is a god who allows cancer in kids and rape from religious people and murder etc. and either this god is a massive asshole, clearly not relevant enought to woreshop or doesn't exist anyway.
"What about people experiencing a divine being communicating to them, then?"
But we have studied this and the answers tell us what the most realistic thing actually is and thats why we see 'divine being communicating to them' as a mental illness.
You can expierence this challanging thought yourself by taking LSD. Realizing that you are actually know everything for a few hours and than getting back to your 'normal reality' is exhausting.
But i still don't believe we are all caught on the earth and we need LSD to shackle those bounds. I know how many people are on the planet, how many people i have seen die and leave our planet in the normal rational way. I have never ever seen anything which makes me believe otherwise and LSD showed me even more how fragile my own reality is.
You might want to look in a medical book on different topics you refered to to see what you believe. Nonetheless its just more realistic that human a had a similiar brain issue than all other similiar independend cases before than that this person is now talking directly to god and we areound us are all dumb shits not being able to recognise it.
My default sentence for this is simple: I'm a good person, and i don't like the idea very much that there is a god who allows cancer in kids and rape from religious people and murder etc. and either this god is a massive asshole, clearly not relevant enought to woreshop or doesn't exist anyway.
I don’t know much of the field of rationality, yet I can’t help but think that you confirm my idea that rationality is subjective. You determine rationality based on probability, so essentially when you’re saying something is irrational, you mean it is improbable (or in your words realistic).
Taken further, is it not then irrational to think that the earth arose out of absolute nothingness, to become the perfectly aligned world we know? Is this realistic? Is this probable? (Not saying the alternative is necessarily more probable, just asking)
As to your default sentence you might want to look into the discipline of Harmatiology (the doctrine of sin), for you do not understand the commonly held view of Christians on this point.
Taken further, is it not then irrational to think that the earth arose out of absolute nothingness, to become the perfectly aligned world we know? Is this realistic? Is this probable? (Not saying the alternative is necessarily more probable, just asking)
As to your default sentence you might want to look into the discipline of Harmatiology (the doctrine of sin), for you do not understand the commonly held view of Christians on this point.
I do connect rationality with math and chances.
Of course there is always an unkown right? We don't know it all.
But as i said somewhere else: math for example is universal, you can come up with the same rules independently were you are.
This doesn't happen with religion/believe.
There is no experiment in the world, which shows any universal truth to believing in one specific god or more specific gods or religion.
Nothing spiritual was proven ever in my lifetime. None.
So i dream. I like to come up with things, ideas, stories, places etc. but that doesn't motivate me to believe in it so hard that it affects my normal life.
Of course there is always an unkown right? We don't know it all.
But as i said somewhere else: math for example is universal, you can come up with the same rules independently were you are.
This doesn't happen with religion/believe.
There is no experiment in the world, which shows any universal truth to believing in one specific god or more specific gods or religion.
Nothing spiritual was proven ever in my lifetime. None.
So i dream. I like to come up with things, ideas, stories, places etc. but that doesn't motivate me to believe in it so hard that it affects my normal life.
Non religious people call this 'science'.
'We' think about the big bang 'we' wrote the book on it.
Religion writes books about 'gods' and repeat stories from the past.
Math unites people across the globe. Everyone agrees globally on the scientific truth.
I understand that there are plenty of countries which you would prefer not to life in but i do believe in my country but my country is a good one. We don't kill people anymore because they are different than the norm.
'We' think about the big bang 'we' wrote the book on it.
Religion writes books about 'gods' and repeat stories from the past.
Math unites people across the globe. Everyone agrees globally on the scientific truth.
I understand that there are plenty of countries which you would prefer not to life in but i do believe in my country but my country is a good one. We don't kill people anymore because they are different than the norm.
Picking up on the "is there a god" and who believes in it?
I have always wondered how many of the high priests or whatever their titles might be in any religion over the millenia (this includes Aztecs and Vikings etc) really just saw religion as another way of holding power (vs. kings or what have you). I.e. "just pretending" to believe and in reality just using it to to wield power and influence over people.
Please don't mistake this for saying there aren't very pious people in that group. I do not doubt there are. I just wonder. Just like there are politicians that truly try and improve things and help their constituents and then there are also the ones that really just enjoy having the power and that really couldn't care less until election time rolls around.
I have always wondered how many of the high priests or whatever their titles might be in any religion over the millenia (this includes Aztecs and Vikings etc) really just saw religion as another way of holding power (vs. kings or what have you). I.e. "just pretending" to believe and in reality just using it to to wield power and influence over people.
Please don't mistake this for saying there aren't very pious people in that group. I do not doubt there are. I just wonder. Just like there are politicians that truly try and improve things and help their constituents and then there are also the ones that really just enjoy having the power and that really couldn't care less until election time rolls around.
[deleted]
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27488136.
>I just don't think there is a god.
This would be agnostic (militant agnostic?), wouldn't it? I think a true atheist would say "I know that there is not a god."
This would be agnostic (militant agnostic?), wouldn't it? I think a true atheist would say "I know that there is not a god."
Agnostics actually don't think the question of "is there a god?" is interesting or can have an answer
Not really.
There are "I know that there is not a god" atheists, those are the insufferable unholier-than-thou types like Richard Dawkins, who seem mostly interested in provoking religious people.
And there are "there is no falsifiable proof at all to support the existence of a god" atheists, which are the ordinary sensible ones, who don't hate religious people, they just don't share their beliefs.
There are "I know that there is not a god" atheists, those are the insufferable unholier-than-thou types like Richard Dawkins, who seem mostly interested in provoking religious people.
And there are "there is no falsifiable proof at all to support the existence of a god" atheists, which are the ordinary sensible ones, who don't hate religious people, they just don't share their beliefs.
Dawkins is actually a weak atheist (agnostic atheist), not a strong atheist. He thinks an interpersonal God is highly improbable, but it's not possible to prove a negative and so he doesn't assert that it doesn't exist.
trophycase(2)
> the secular world has many different people
agreed and the world would be more navigable if they adopted distinct names, garb & beliefs the way the other religions did.
If you think about it, every thanksgiving debate was really a religious debate among people who didn’t clarify their membership.
agreed and the world would be more navigable if they adopted distinct names, garb & beliefs the way the other religions did.
If you think about it, every thanksgiving debate was really a religious debate among people who didn’t clarify their membership.
> agreed and the world would be more navigable if they adopted distinct names, garb & beliefs the way the other religions did.
Athiesm is to religion what not collecting stamps is to a hobby. We aren't the ones creating an imagined reality. We're just saying until there's substantive evidence to support the existence of a deity we probably shouldn't assume one exists.
Athiesm is to religion what not collecting stamps is to a hobby. We aren't the ones creating an imagined reality. We're just saying until there's substantive evidence to support the existence of a deity we probably shouldn't assume one exists.
You imply from your comparison that atheism is [not belonging to a group with a shared belief] and then say "we" [belong to a group with a shared belief], which is clearly self-contradictory. I strongly agree with the first part, but not with the second. There are certainly atheists who wouldn't agree with what "we" (you) are "just saying".
We, the people who aren't interested in unicorns, are rarely mentioned on lists of fantasy fandom although we do share the same feelings about a particular element of the fantasy genre.
I don't see why some see the need to clump people together by what they don't believe in. Atheism isn't about "interest" or "feelings", so your comparison doesn't hold either. Different people arrive at the same conclusions via completely different paths, many not even rationally. It's really arrogant to assume atheists are superior in this regard (and I'm not saying you said that but it's not too hard to infer), and I say that as an atheist myself.
> Athiesm is to religion what not collecting stamps is to a hobby.
I believe the point of the article and discussion is the particular atheists "collecting stamps" with more ideological ferver than the hobbyists.
I believe the point of the article and discussion is the particular atheists "collecting stamps" with more ideological ferver than the hobbyists.
> We aren't the ones creating an imagined reality.
One problem I see with this line of thinking is that it's often faux intellectualism, in the sense of not even attempting to define what a deity is in the first place, instead taking the lazy approach of "whatever you think god is doesn't exist". What exactly is a deity in the first place anyways? Bearded guy in the clouds? A lot of christians don't believe in that either. Jesus (i.e. a human)? A certain north korean leader that had similar godlike fame among followers most definitely existed (godhood claims notwithstanding). The holy spirit? Read "spirit" as you read "spirit of the law". Some flavors of pantheism actually argue that the concept of "an omnipotent omnipresent entity that nevertheless grants us free will" can be perfectly explained if said entity is the laws of physics.
As we can see, there's a pretty big spectrum ranging anywhere from strawmen to things that do exist. IMHO, proper atheism needs to be able to argue against the entire body of theism, not just narrow set of christian beliefs, and as such it's a belief system that doesn't fit many people. There's agnosticism (basically, "I don't know if god exists because the evidence doesn't convince me"), which is a much easier belief system to actually defend, and which I think describes more accurately the belief system that a lot of self-proclaimed atheists actually subscribe to.
One problem I see with this line of thinking is that it's often faux intellectualism, in the sense of not even attempting to define what a deity is in the first place, instead taking the lazy approach of "whatever you think god is doesn't exist". What exactly is a deity in the first place anyways? Bearded guy in the clouds? A lot of christians don't believe in that either. Jesus (i.e. a human)? A certain north korean leader that had similar godlike fame among followers most definitely existed (godhood claims notwithstanding). The holy spirit? Read "spirit" as you read "spirit of the law". Some flavors of pantheism actually argue that the concept of "an omnipotent omnipresent entity that nevertheless grants us free will" can be perfectly explained if said entity is the laws of physics.
As we can see, there's a pretty big spectrum ranging anywhere from strawmen to things that do exist. IMHO, proper atheism needs to be able to argue against the entire body of theism, not just narrow set of christian beliefs, and as such it's a belief system that doesn't fit many people. There's agnosticism (basically, "I don't know if god exists because the evidence doesn't convince me"), which is a much easier belief system to actually defend, and which I think describes more accurately the belief system that a lot of self-proclaimed atheists actually subscribe to.
The problem with that text book definition of Atheism, or Anti-Theist is that the the label of Atheist has taken an a life of its own, and the majority of people publicly proclaiming themselves to be an "Atheist" do not simply seek "evidence to support the existence of a deity", no instead they adopt the so called Atheism+ movement that incorporates loads of other philosophical and political positions into the label of "Atheist". It has become decidedly Authoritarian Left in its political positioning, so much so that many libertarians that used to proudly use the Atheist Label has stopped referring to themselves as Atheist
Atheism believes in many gods
No?
Atheism is actually polytheistic.
The Gods can be identified by answering these questions: “why am I here?”, “who am i?”, “what should I do?”, “what is true?”, “why should I suffer & die?”, “what will happen tomorrow?”, “who matters more: myself or others?”.
The deities of the secular religion would be “the self”, your parents, “the government/state and its figureheads“ , money (and the institutions controlling it), the earth / ecology/ the environment , “science”
These are deities because they are the object of irrational fear, worship, rituals & sacrifice.
To be clear, these gods are also worshiped by formally religious people (christians, muslims etc).
The Gods can be identified by answering these questions: “why am I here?”, “who am i?”, “what should I do?”, “what is true?”, “why should I suffer & die?”, “what will happen tomorrow?”, “who matters more: myself or others?”.
The deities of the secular religion would be “the self”, your parents, “the government/state and its figureheads“ , money (and the institutions controlling it), the earth / ecology/ the environment , “science”
These are deities because they are the object of irrational fear, worship, rituals & sacrifice.
To be clear, these gods are also worshiped by formally religious people (christians, muslims etc).
This is a standard argument most Christians make. It is not really true. You do not have to believe anything. You do not have to have answers.
Let me give you an analogy. Imagine growing up in a militaristic society, and the expectation is that you join the military and fight in whatever wars your imperialistic country engages in. Now suppose you do not feel like doing that. Then your community starts asking you, "but then, if you don't fight with us, then who will you fight for?". Do you feel in your life that you have to fight for one particular empire?
Let me give you an analogy. Imagine growing up in a militaristic society, and the expectation is that you join the military and fight in whatever wars your imperialistic country engages in. Now suppose you do not feel like doing that. Then your community starts asking you, "but then, if you don't fight with us, then who will you fight for?". Do you feel in your life that you have to fight for one particular empire?
In your analogy, by not fighting for the empire you are making choice, and arguably it’s to support the enemy.
But you’re missing the larger point he’s making and the point the article is making, many ppl who claim to be atheist do have a belief system, it’s simply ill-defined. Most atheists arguing in this thread will give answers and do think they know the truth (it’s that there is no god and life is a hedonistic pursuit). And those beliefs build on others and are built on by other beliefs/ideas as well.
You’re making the same argument many make when trying to build on wedge issues: take a tiny portion of a group that is in no way representative of the larger group and then make generalizations to prove your point.
Aside from you (I’m taking you at your word), I’ve yet to meet an atheist who really had no beliefs.
But you’re missing the larger point he’s making and the point the article is making, many ppl who claim to be atheist do have a belief system, it’s simply ill-defined. Most atheists arguing in this thread will give answers and do think they know the truth (it’s that there is no god and life is a hedonistic pursuit). And those beliefs build on others and are built on by other beliefs/ideas as well.
You’re making the same argument many make when trying to build on wedge issues: take a tiny portion of a group that is in no way representative of the larger group and then make generalizations to prove your point.
Aside from you (I’m taking you at your word), I’ve yet to meet an atheist who really had no beliefs.
Atheism is actually a species of the gnostic heresy. Absolute certainty of the nonexistence of God is gnosis.
> Absolute certainty of the nonexistence of God is gnosis.
Absolute certainty of any spiritual truth is gnosis, but that of the nonexistence God is not one of the Gnostic heresies (which are specific heresies associated with the specific Gnostics, not a anything which happens to fit the definition of gnosiss.)
Absolute certainty of any spiritual truth is gnosis, but that of the nonexistence God is not one of the Gnostic heresies (which are specific heresies associated with the specific Gnostics, not a anything which happens to fit the definition of gnosiss.)
I think in order to convince yourself to give your life for something, you have to have a religious belief in what you are making the sacrifice for (greater good, community, progeny, greatness of your leader, virtue of your country – or for money if you are a mercenary). That would identify the god of your religion
I think dying for your own children might be the only exception
>You do not have to believe anything.
I think part of the confusion is there are multiple definitions of "atheist". One definition is someone who believes there is no god. That itself is a belief, so in that case your description doesn't match atheist. But another definition of atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god. So then your description would match atheist.
Also there are multiple definition of "agnostic" making the situation even more confusing.
I think part of the confusion is there are multiple definitions of "atheist". One definition is someone who believes there is no god. That itself is a belief, so in that case your description doesn't match atheist. But another definition of atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god. So then your description would match atheist.
Also there are multiple definition of "agnostic" making the situation even more confusing.
Atheism does not imply specific belief in any of those, only a lack of belief in God's with specific characteristics.
Just because I bathe myself in sheep's blood every time the Federal Reserve changes interest rates doesn't mean I think they are a god.
Infidel! Everyone knows you're supposed to perform ritual sacrifice at the next full moon, not bathe in sheep's blood.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but it's a little bit odd to me that a non-religious person would necessarily have an irrational fear of anything you mentioned. Where, in your world view, is there room for someone who can think critically and make rational decisions? Why must all of these totally reasonable things that make up our world be feared?
They can also be worshipped / loved.
There could be rational worship & love e.g. loving your parents because they care for you and they have direct impact over your wellbeing.
Irrational worship/ love is loving and icon or demagogue : extreme example being Kim Jong Il – when he is hurt or sad, everyone is heart broken.
Even in the free world we worship these demagogues. When trump is president many panic, some are elated. When the next president comes, the roles reverse some are relieved and some are sad.
There could be rational worship & love e.g. loving your parents because they care for you and they have direct impact over your wellbeing.
Irrational worship/ love is loving and icon or demagogue : extreme example being Kim Jong Il – when he is hurt or sad, everyone is heart broken.
Even in the free world we worship these demagogues. When trump is president many panic, some are elated. When the next president comes, the roles reverse some are relieved and some are sad.
A lot of those questions would be answered by "I don't know", and I don't know how that could be considered a god or similar to religious thinking. "I don't know" is a concept religions seek to avoid.
You seem to have some motivation to bring non-religious people away from their thinking, or looking down on them in some way, and making strange and spurious arguments in order to do so.
You seem to have some motivation to bring non-religious people away from their thinking, or looking down on them in some way, and making strange and spurious arguments in order to do so.
This could be useful as a metaphor, as an aid for some religious people to help them understand atheists and agnostics.
Imposing that metaphor as a truth when interacting with an atheist is not useful though. If anything, insisting on defining an atheist as religious shows an elementary lack of respect.
Imposing that metaphor as a truth when interacting with an atheist is not useful though. If anything, insisting on defining an atheist as religious shows an elementary lack of respect.
i found this insightful - that there are also the same set of 'gods' for both the religious and the athiest
>Immigrants to America tend to become American; emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American.
Is that true, or just the authors' speculation? Although it is easily explained. Everyone wants to be American because the USA, of all the countries in the world offers the greatest opportunities to the greatest number of people. They are the top of the food chain, in less nationalistic terms. (i'm not American btw but i can see the truth).
Is that true, or just the authors' speculation? Although it is easily explained. Everyone wants to be American because the USA, of all the countries in the world offers the greatest opportunities to the greatest number of people. They are the top of the food chain, in less nationalistic terms. (i'm not American btw but i can see the truth).
Things may look a bit different from a (West) European perspective. I know enough people who used to live in the US but left, partly because they did not want to inflict US citizenship upon their children. Among all wealthy countries, US citizenship is probably the least desirable one if you don't plan to live there permanently.
In any case, the expat/immigrant situation is familiar to many Europeans as well. The real difference is that most European countries are nation states, while the US is a land of immigrants and their descendants. "American" is an adopted identity. You become American if you have lived in the US long enough and consider yourself American. In contrast, "German" is an assigned identity. You are German if other Germans generally see you as German. You cannot become fully integrated into a nation state as long as other people pay attention to your origins.
In any case, the expat/immigrant situation is familiar to many Europeans as well. The real difference is that most European countries are nation states, while the US is a land of immigrants and their descendants. "American" is an adopted identity. You become American if you have lived in the US long enough and consider yourself American. In contrast, "German" is an assigned identity. You are German if other Germans generally see you as German. You cannot become fully integrated into a nation state as long as other people pay attention to your origins.
Some Americans I know make a big difference between being a settler nation, like those who came to where there was no civilisation but hunters/gatherers, vs immigrants who move into the blooming civilisation
That's like, the difference between one ship full of Pilgrims and every subsequent ship, or between one wagon train and every subsequent wagon train, or between the people on the Mayflower and their kids (who showed up in a society that already existed).
The people who draw the distinction generally don't like the pilgrims settlers because of what they did when they got here. In contrast to immigrants, who did not "settle" anyone or any land. You can see a lot of this in today's politics as well.
The land is still being settled today; eg. Trump allowing previously unsettled land to be destroyed for oil and gas extraction
You are correct in that this difference between settler and immigrant is a gradient, but outside of programming few things are simply yes/no
It's more than a gradient, it's like counting up ones to make 1,000,000. Which one is showing up to a small number and making it big, and which ones are showing up to a big number and hanging around?
Ah, yes, the “Daughters of the American Revolution” types.
somewhere that you claim is hunters/gatherers*
Just because the farming and ranching looks different, doesn't make it not farming or ranching
Just because the farming and ranching looks different, doesn't make it not farming or ranching
this is a major factor to consider.
Also, the 20th century saw massive changes in where people lived compared to "their country".
prior to world war 1, this was a far more mixed affair (see, the austrian-hungarian empire and the greeks in anatolia).
Also, the 20th century saw massive changes in where people lived compared to "their country".
prior to world war 1, this was a far more mixed affair (see, the austrian-hungarian empire and the greeks in anatolia).
> emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American
I don't think that's true of Australia. American Australians tend to assimilate pretty well, and after a while people tend to mostly forget they were Americans originally, even if they still have a bit of an accent. The Australian politician Kristina Keneally is an example. She was born in Nevada, grew up in Ohio, didn't move to Australia until her 20s. But I don't think anyone really thinks of her as "an American". She's an Australian politician. You might like her politics or you might dislike them, but nobody really cares about where she was born and grew up. She's one of us now.
The Australian media has even taken to (at times) calling Virginia Roberts Giuffre (the most notable public victim of Jeffrey Epstein) "an Australian", without qualification. (She married an Australian man, had kids with him, now they live here.) Whereas the American media just calls her an American.
The Australian media always wanted to view Mel Gibson as an Australian, even when he said that he himself identified as an American rather than as an Australian. (I think they are less keen on that now that he has made himself a bit of a persona non grata through his behaviour. America, you can have him.)
I don't think that's true of Australia. American Australians tend to assimilate pretty well, and after a while people tend to mostly forget they were Americans originally, even if they still have a bit of an accent. The Australian politician Kristina Keneally is an example. She was born in Nevada, grew up in Ohio, didn't move to Australia until her 20s. But I don't think anyone really thinks of her as "an American". She's an Australian politician. You might like her politics or you might dislike them, but nobody really cares about where she was born and grew up. She's one of us now.
The Australian media has even taken to (at times) calling Virginia Roberts Giuffre (the most notable public victim of Jeffrey Epstein) "an Australian", without qualification. (She married an Australian man, had kids with him, now they live here.) Whereas the American media just calls her an American.
The Australian media always wanted to view Mel Gibson as an Australian, even when he said that he himself identified as an American rather than as an Australian. (I think they are less keen on that now that he has made himself a bit of a persona non grata through his behaviour. America, you can have him.)
Just googled Kristina Keneally. You're living out very relevant info.
Born to and raised by Australian mother. Then married Australian man before moving to Australia.
I think the blood and subsequent marriage connection helped immensely in how she is viewed. I think that would be the same for most other Euro nations. At least one parent of the land along with partner from the land and residing in the land for 30+ years.
Born to and raised by Australian mother. Then married Australian man before moving to Australia.
I think the blood and subsequent marriage connection helped immensely in how she is viewed. I think that would be the same for most other Euro nations. At least one parent of the land along with partner from the land and residing in the land for 30+ years.
> Born to and raised by Australian mother
I really don't think most people care about the fact she has an Australian mother. In fact, I myself had forgotten that fact. If she hadn't, I don't think it would really make a difference to how she is viewed in Australia. (My mother was born in Scotland but calling myself “Scottish” feels weird, like the real Scots are going to call me out for being a fake one.)
Virginia Roberts Giuffre has been called an "Australian" by the Australian media (e.g. [0]) even though as far as I am aware she has no Australian ancestry. She is also married to an Australian man but I think you are putting more emphasis on that fact than what counts. Most Australians, if they think of her as an Australian, it is because she has adopted this country as her homeland through immigration, not because she married an Australian. If she married an Australian but stayed in the US, nobody would think of her as Australian. If she had moved here as a single person, or with a non-Australian husband, people probably still would.
In somewhat of the reverse, the British politician Patricia Hewitt was born in Australia and grew up here, but I'd probably think of her as British first and Australian very much second. The country in which she has lived the bulk of her adult life, and in which she has had her political career, is more significant in identifying her than where she was born and raised.
[0] https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/virgin...
I really don't think most people care about the fact she has an Australian mother. In fact, I myself had forgotten that fact. If she hadn't, I don't think it would really make a difference to how she is viewed in Australia. (My mother was born in Scotland but calling myself “Scottish” feels weird, like the real Scots are going to call me out for being a fake one.)
Virginia Roberts Giuffre has been called an "Australian" by the Australian media (e.g. [0]) even though as far as I am aware she has no Australian ancestry. She is also married to an Australian man but I think you are putting more emphasis on that fact than what counts. Most Australians, if they think of her as an Australian, it is because she has adopted this country as her homeland through immigration, not because she married an Australian. If she married an Australian but stayed in the US, nobody would think of her as Australian. If she had moved here as a single person, or with a non-Australian husband, people probably still would.
In somewhat of the reverse, the British politician Patricia Hewitt was born in Australia and grew up here, but I'd probably think of her as British first and Australian very much second. The country in which she has lived the bulk of her adult life, and in which she has had her political career, is more significant in identifying her than where she was born and raised.
[0] https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/virgin...
Australia, like the US, is an immigrant nation, you can move there from anywhere and be considered an Australian within a generation.
In which case the real difference here is not where one is immigrating from (America or elsewhere), but rather where one is immigrating to: an immigrant-dominated society like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, US, maybe Argentina too; or one dominated by people whose ancestors have lived there for countless centuries, such as most European, Middle Eastern, African or Asian countries.
The original quote we were discussing, "Immigrants to America tend to become American; emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American" is mistaken because it is viewing it primarily in terms of Americanness, instead of the nature of the society receiving the immigrant
The original quote we were discussing, "Immigrants to America tend to become American; emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American" is mistaken because it is viewing it primarily in terms of Americanness, instead of the nature of the society receiving the immigrant
There aren't all that many immigrant nations like the US though. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, that's pretty much it? Maybe Singapore or the UK at a stretch.
I agree there aren't many. It still is myopic to view this as something specific to America, as opposed to a generic quality possessed by all immigrant-dominated societies, and the fact that there are only a few such societies doesn't change that. Many (obviously not all) American authors do tend to view it in that myopic US-centric way. America is never as exceptional as some Americans think.
The "truth" you see is the designed outcome of soft diplomacy through the export of US culture via movies, television and the internet.
I know lots of non-US folk who love the values and opportunities they experience in America. But I also know lots of others who don't.
I see my own country adopting more and more aspects from America: individualism over community, the excessive consumerism, the Starbuck-ification of every facet of our lives, that I think are more harmful than beneficial.
I know lots of non-US folk who love the values and opportunities they experience in America. But I also know lots of others who don't.
I see my own country adopting more and more aspects from America: individualism over community, the excessive consumerism, the Starbuck-ification of every facet of our lives, that I think are more harmful than beneficial.
I am curious how being "individualists" had them end up with something like Homeowners Associations. I am an individualist myself to a relatively high degree and I do not understand how something like that can be tolerated at all.
My first inclination is that the individualism has turned from (admittedly, rosy nostalgia follows here) a propensity towards creative expression and unique identity amongst the whole, into an assertion of control that serves my needs at the expense of others. In my experience, while HOAs can be well-intentioned, they provide easy opportunity for people to build small kingdoms, and for most, being a king is quite tempting.
A HOA certainly doesn't seem to be about community. Community would be about embracing differences and respecting each person's right to live as they wish.
HOAs seems to be more about using bureaucracy to control others and force them to do what the person with power wants. There is a classic quote “There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
I think the dark side of individualism is that it can create the mindset that other's success comes at your expense, which pitches people and groups against each other, and makes differences a threat and not a strength. It also also discourages people from acknowledging their own limitations, because if someone is smarter or better than you then they will be more successful, and that means you lose.
HOAs seems to be more about using bureaucracy to control others and force them to do what the person with power wants. There is a classic quote “There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
I think the dark side of individualism is that it can create the mindset that other's success comes at your expense, which pitches people and groups against each other, and makes differences a threat and not a strength. It also also discourages people from acknowledging their own limitations, because if someone is smarter or better than you then they will be more successful, and that means you lose.
That isn't true if you mean in terms of achieving the classic American dream… Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and others are moving more people out of lower/middle class to middle/upper class as a percentage. I do not know in terms of raw numbers but via % we are behind.
If you move to the USA from the developing world or even Eastern Europe, regardless of what job you do your salary immediately soars above whatever you made in your country of origin. Taxation on many consumer goods is also likely to be lower. (For example, electronics can be expensive elsewhere due to high import duties or VAT.) Of course, cost of living in the USA is also much higher, but nevertheless lots of immigrants feel that they have moved up in life just because of the higher wages and consumeristic lifestyle now available to them.
At this point I think the EU should just set aside a nice space somewhere and make it a raw capitalist, no taxes, no regulations, no safety net zone.
"Talent" seems to like that environment.
"Talent" seems to like that environment.
[deleted]
That would be terrible for anyone living there, as would the environment, and the environment of every country around that country, etc.
Regulation = Civilization, Taxes = Civilization, Safety Net = Civilization
Now that doesn't mean you want a regulatory nightmare, the USA has real problems with license monopolies and city regs in some areas, but you also don't want unrestricted capitalism like the USA has that destroys people, society, and the common environment. Europe has a lot of work to do as well but at least they grasp this fundamental concept. The middle ground between these two is always hard to nail perfectly.
Regulation = Civilization, Taxes = Civilization, Safety Net = Civilization
Now that doesn't mean you want a regulatory nightmare, the USA has real problems with license monopolies and city regs in some areas, but you also don't want unrestricted capitalism like the USA has that destroys people, society, and the common environment. Europe has a lot of work to do as well but at least they grasp this fundamental concept. The middle ground between these two is always hard to nail perfectly.
Yet people in most of Western Europe (discounting Switzerland and Luxembourg and maybe Norway) are objectively poorer than even the poorest American states.
Yes. when I lived in Sweden, I noticed that Swedes in general have less stuff. Smaller housing, fewer cars, less ability to buy stuff, and even go out.
The average engineer salary was almost half (about 60%) of those in NYC and SF, while prices coffee/going out in Stockholm were almost the same as in NYC. Rent prices were lower though.
But, their quality of life seemed higher overall. Less stressful in general, more vacations and time off, more thoughtful planing of their cities, etc.
So, it seems like a tradeoff. If you are a blue collar or unskilled worker, Sweden would have been better, while you'd struggle in the US. But if you are a skilled worker (even blue collar, like plumber or electrician), you'd do better in the US.
I'd rather be a barista in Sweden than in the US, but I'd rather be an engineer in the US than in Sweden.
But, their quality of life seemed higher overall. Less stressful in general, more vacations and time off, more thoughtful planing of their cities, etc.
So, it seems like a tradeoff. If you are a blue collar or unskilled worker, Sweden would have been better, while you'd struggle in the US. But if you are a skilled worker (even blue collar, like plumber or electrician), you'd do better in the US.
I'd rather be a barista in Sweden than in the US, but I'd rather be an engineer in the US than in Sweden.
> If you are a blue collar or unskilled worker, Sweden would have been better,
The problem here is that for the Swedes to enjoy their social benefits, they cannot afford to have too many low skilled workers. The swedish economy is a high skilled economy, perhaps the highest skilled in the world. There are very few low-skill jobs, unlike the US which has an army of low skilled workers filling low skilled jobs. This is why the U.S. is able to absorb so many low skilled migrants whereas Sweden is having enormous problems finding jobs for their low skilled migrants. So while sure, you are better off being a low skilled worker in Sweden just as you are better off being a high skilled worker in the U.S., but that's because these two economies are structured very differently.
The problem here is that for the Swedes to enjoy their social benefits, they cannot afford to have too many low skilled workers. The swedish economy is a high skilled economy, perhaps the highest skilled in the world. There are very few low-skill jobs, unlike the US which has an army of low skilled workers filling low skilled jobs. This is why the U.S. is able to absorb so many low skilled migrants whereas Sweden is having enormous problems finding jobs for their low skilled migrants. So while sure, you are better off being a low skilled worker in Sweden just as you are better off being a high skilled worker in the U.S., but that's because these two economies are structured very differently.
> The swedish economy is a high skilled economy, perhaps the highest skilled in the world. There are very few low-skill jobs, unlike the US which has an army of low skilled workers filling low skilled jobs. This is why the U.S. is able to absorb so many low skilled migrants whereas Sweden is having enormous problems finding jobs for their low skilled migrants.
How is that not backwards?
If you have 'an army of low skilled workers' then there's no room 'to absorb so many low skilled migrants', surely?
If you have 'a high-skilled economy' then surely you are 'having enormous problems' filling your low-skilled jobs, and welcome migrants?
Indeed, isn't Sweden famously highly accepting of migrants and in particular refugees? Presumably skewed low-skilled if at all?
(Neither Swedish nor American, so not pushing an agenda, just commenting. :))
How is that not backwards?
If you have 'an army of low skilled workers' then there's no room 'to absorb so many low skilled migrants', surely?
If you have 'a high-skilled economy' then surely you are 'having enormous problems' filling your low-skilled jobs, and welcome migrants?
Indeed, isn't Sweden famously highly accepting of migrants and in particular refugees? Presumably skewed low-skilled if at all?
(Neither Swedish nor American, so not pushing an agenda, just commenting. :))
> If you have 'an army of low skilled workers' then there's no room 'to absorb so many low skilled migrants', surely?
Why? The world doesn't work by laws of semantic symmetry. The Swedish economy is structured on automation, on lack of personal service roles, and on skilled industry. Swedish furniture manufacturers use robots and those on the shop floor that remain are required to have skills to operate those robots. Neither will you will find a huge pool of labor cutting people's lawns or being nannies or replacing roofs because there aren't many lawns to cut, roofs are made to last longer and be less labor intensive, and personal service is stygmatized. It's like Holland, which is the breadbasket of Europe but is a pioneer in agricultural automation and does not rely on large amounts of cheap migrant labor, whereas the US agricultural sector does. Even for something like restaurants, Swedish culture makes much less use of them -- e.g. San Francisco has 500 restaurants per 100K, But once you transition to a high skilled economy it becomes much harder to absorb low skilled workers.
Here, things like labor policies play a role. A high minimum wage, generous benefits and travel may pencil out for a high skilled worker that is willing to be paid 1/2 what they could get in the U.S., but they don't pencil out for a low skilled worker unless the low skilled worker's wages are high enough so that the various costs pencil out, which means there can't be too many of them as the services they provide will be more expensive means and thus have smaller utilization. That is why people complain about things like taxis, restaurant meals, bus trips, etc., costing a lot in Sweden, which is why Stockholm has 1/10 as many restaurants per 100K compared to Tokyo and 1/5 as many compared to San Francisco. Those high wages basically require a more capital intensive production processes and don't leave a lot of room for low skilled jobs.
Btw, that is one of the arguments for high minimum wages and generous benefits. The idea is that it will force firms to invest in more capital so that labor becomes more productive. That's the phenomena of McDonald's creating robot tellers and getting rid of workers. That's the process by which the revenue generated per worker is high enough to justify generous benefits. And the question with that approach is always can the economy transition to a high skilled economy or will there be a permanent underclass of unemployable low skilled workers. And Sweden has done a decent job of making this transition, although there is always a problem with high unemployment, it hasn't been the fiasco predicted, as most of the labor force has transitioned to high skilled work. But then that creates a problem when you dump a lot of low skilled workers on the economy -- they find themselves in the permanent unemployed class.
The U.S., on the other hand, has lower costs of employing labor and thus is able to absorb low skilled labor but the flip side is you do not have the same pressures towards automation and capital investment, so the US economy overall is much more mixed. It's not a high tech economy, it has a lot of low skilled jobs as well, and those low skilled jobs don't enjoy the same level of benefits.
It's a tough call which approach is "better". Culturally, the US will never become Sweden, but there are pros and cons of each approach.
Why? The world doesn't work by laws of semantic symmetry. The Swedish economy is structured on automation, on lack of personal service roles, and on skilled industry. Swedish furniture manufacturers use robots and those on the shop floor that remain are required to have skills to operate those robots. Neither will you will find a huge pool of labor cutting people's lawns or being nannies or replacing roofs because there aren't many lawns to cut, roofs are made to last longer and be less labor intensive, and personal service is stygmatized. It's like Holland, which is the breadbasket of Europe but is a pioneer in agricultural automation and does not rely on large amounts of cheap migrant labor, whereas the US agricultural sector does. Even for something like restaurants, Swedish culture makes much less use of them -- e.g. San Francisco has 500 restaurants per 100K, But once you transition to a high skilled economy it becomes much harder to absorb low skilled workers.
Here, things like labor policies play a role. A high minimum wage, generous benefits and travel may pencil out for a high skilled worker that is willing to be paid 1/2 what they could get in the U.S., but they don't pencil out for a low skilled worker unless the low skilled worker's wages are high enough so that the various costs pencil out, which means there can't be too many of them as the services they provide will be more expensive means and thus have smaller utilization. That is why people complain about things like taxis, restaurant meals, bus trips, etc., costing a lot in Sweden, which is why Stockholm has 1/10 as many restaurants per 100K compared to Tokyo and 1/5 as many compared to San Francisco. Those high wages basically require a more capital intensive production processes and don't leave a lot of room for low skilled jobs.
Btw, that is one of the arguments for high minimum wages and generous benefits. The idea is that it will force firms to invest in more capital so that labor becomes more productive. That's the phenomena of McDonald's creating robot tellers and getting rid of workers. That's the process by which the revenue generated per worker is high enough to justify generous benefits. And the question with that approach is always can the economy transition to a high skilled economy or will there be a permanent underclass of unemployable low skilled workers. And Sweden has done a decent job of making this transition, although there is always a problem with high unemployment, it hasn't been the fiasco predicted, as most of the labor force has transitioned to high skilled work. But then that creates a problem when you dump a lot of low skilled workers on the economy -- they find themselves in the permanent unemployed class.
The U.S., on the other hand, has lower costs of employing labor and thus is able to absorb low skilled labor but the flip side is you do not have the same pressures towards automation and capital investment, so the US economy overall is much more mixed. It's not a high tech economy, it has a lot of low skilled jobs as well, and those low skilled jobs don't enjoy the same level of benefits.
It's a tough call which approach is "better". Culturally, the US will never become Sweden, but there are pros and cons of each approach.
dutch farming (especially kasbouw/greenhouses) are absolutely crazy.
in 2019, they exported roughly 95 billion euro's. And they are the second exporter globally. Mind you the country is absolutely tiny in comparison to the number one exporter (the USA).
[0] https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2020/01/17/dutch-agric...
[0] https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2020/01/17/dutch-agric...
Thanks! That lead me down the rabbit hole.
Here is an interesting article with some pictures, demonstrating what Dutch high-tech farming looks like: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/holland-...
Here is an interesting article with some pictures, demonstrating what Dutch high-tech farming looks like: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/holland-...
Yes, it's really a miracle of what you can accomplish with intelligence and capital investment. Very high wages even for agricultural workers, a small labor pool, and massive yields.
The other catch I see is how ‘life changing’ your job as an engineer can be in us vs rest of the world. US definitely is the better bet for the young and risk taking.
You can always go back and settled wherever you want after making a ton of cash in the US (assuming it works out), reverse isn’t true as much.
You can always go back and settled wherever you want after making a ton of cash in the US (assuming it works out), reverse isn’t true as much.
It is easy to confuse a large splashy salary with what a real "life changing" job is for the majority of people. A salary that pays for a good life, real health care that actually covers you when you get sick, a real safety net that gets you back on your feet if something goes wrong, an environment run by the rule of law, an environment that isn't polluted, and a country that is building a real future for ALL the people and not just engineers.
Would you want your kids to grow up in the USA?
That is usually a good question to ask, as it shows if we are succeeding as a country. I think the USA is great if you are in the ~10% of the population who want to make loads of money, work 80 hours, and are in tech/lawyer/doctor. Everyone else is stuck in the same cultural mentality IMO, it's like living in a persistent guerilla war that you don't want to be fighting in.
Would you want your kids to grow up in the USA?
That is usually a good question to ask, as it shows if we are succeeding as a country. I think the USA is great if you are in the ~10% of the population who want to make loads of money, work 80 hours, and are in tech/lawyer/doctor. Everyone else is stuck in the same cultural mentality IMO, it's like living in a persistent guerilla war that you don't want to be fighting in.
I think there are two major factors to life quality that many American cities somehow missed or never really cared about enough, being able to stroll through cities by foot and decent work conditions (mostly reasonable work and commute times & holidays).
A friend of mine moved to L.A. in the early 2000s, he's still there, married to an American, but he burned out in his job there very quickly. No wonder, they were living in a small apartment with a baby in downtown L.A. and he had to commute for 3 hours daily. He got back at 10 to 11 PM and got up at 6 AM to get to work again - every workday, with almost no holiday. That's insane by European standards.
A friend of mine moved to L.A. in the early 2000s, he's still there, married to an American, but he burned out in his job there very quickly. No wonder, they were living in a small apartment with a baby in downtown L.A. and he had to commute for 3 hours daily. He got back at 10 to 11 PM and got up at 6 AM to get to work again - every workday, with almost no holiday. That's insane by European standards.
Also, social control is quite a bit stricter in a lot of (especially northern) european countries compared to the US.
Showing one's wealth is in bad taste, and bragging about status is considering being an outlier. This is slowly changing (since about the 80's) but prior to that, showing off your middle class wealth as a status indicator was frowned upon in certain circles. especially considering the hardship most people endured during and after ww2.
Showing one's wealth is in bad taste, and bragging about status is considering being an outlier. This is slowly changing (since about the 80's) but prior to that, showing off your middle class wealth as a status indicator was frowned upon in certain circles. especially considering the hardship most people endured during and after ww2.
That gets down to culture.
I was raised in the USA and I was raised that showing one's wealth is in bad taste. In fact I think most of the midwest feels similar. I still do. The point of money isn't to show it off, it is to put it to good use.
I was raised in the USA and I was raised that showing one's wealth is in bad taste. In fact I think most of the midwest feels similar. I still do. The point of money isn't to show it off, it is to put it to good use.
Ardit,
You need to measure purchasing power using PPP rate, but even still NY and SF known to be expensive areas with high tax rates.
SF engineer could earn 200k year but this money could be much low as 80k in another state if you compare purchasing power.
It's complex. The Americans can always buy a car but never foods. This become a meme in my home country.
There are always trade offs.
You need to measure purchasing power using PPP rate, but even still NY and SF known to be expensive areas with high tax rates.
SF engineer could earn 200k year but this money could be much low as 80k in another state if you compare purchasing power.
It's complex. The Americans can always buy a car but never foods. This become a meme in my home country.
There are always trade offs.
But are the trade offs equivalent?
There is a reason folks flock more to SF rather than to nowhere state. If you save 10%, it is still 20k saved compared to 8k. If you lose your job, there are 10 choices compared to one (or none), access to cutting edge of tech rather than reading about it on hacker news and so on.
There is a reason folks flock more to SF rather than to nowhere state. If you save 10%, it is still 20k saved compared to 8k. If you lose your job, there are 10 choices compared to one (or none), access to cutting edge of tech rather than reading about it on hacker news and so on.
> access to cutting edge of tech
Any examples?
I have not seen any cutting edge tech for while.
Any examples?
I have not seen any cutting edge tech for while.
The swing from most to least expensive state is about 25%, not 75%. There’s a disparity between say California and Arkansas but it’s not that high.
There are perhaps other metrics to go for, other than 'just' monetary:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2020_re...
Some other countries may have chosen to trade some personal income/wealth for other things.
Further, while there may be more money in general in the US, using averages skews things a bit due to inequality; social mobility is lower in the US than many other countries:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve
If you're not already at/near the top in the US, good luck getting there.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2020_re...
Some other countries may have chosen to trade some personal income/wealth for other things.
Further, while there may be more money in general in the US, using averages skews things a bit due to inequality; social mobility is lower in the US than many other countries:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve
If you're not already at/near the top in the US, good luck getting there.
Yeah, but that's because USA basically swims in cash because since world uses dollar as core currency for the global economy USA has to print more dollars to match the growth of global economy to avoid deflation. And once it prints dollars it does with them what it pleases. Mainly buys ton of stuff from the world, but still keeps enough to maintain status of wealthy country.
It's no wonder people can get more cash it the country that basically prints it for the whole world.
Once the global economy start shrinking or the world moves to yuan or euro USA will descend to level of Eastern European country in a generation or two tops.
It's no wonder people can get more cash it the country that basically prints it for the whole world.
Once the global economy start shrinking or the world moves to yuan or euro USA will descend to level of Eastern European country in a generation or two tops.
If there is a global switch to the euro or the yuan, American imports could become more competitive, leading to increased economic activity in the US. Dollar or not, the United States still has substantial industrial capability.
Didn't US economy mostly switch to services?
Services account for more than three quarters of the US economy, but its manufacturing sector, which still accounts for more than a tenth of its economy, is second only to that of China.
https://www.statista.com/chart/20858/top-10-countries-by-sha...
https://www.statista.com/chart/20858/top-10-countries-by-sha...
"Yet people in most of Western Europe (discounting Switzerland and Luxembourg and maybe Norway) are objectively poorer than even the poorest American states.
"
This is utter nonsense, how are you getting that?
Imagine that I offered you two deals:
1. You make $45k a year, but all your costs are 50% of the base rate. Plus health care is included that covers everything with no expenses, childcare is included, and college education is included.
2. You make $60k a year, but all your costs are 200% of the base rate. Health care isn't covered and covers nothing when you really get sick, childcare is $1500 a month per kid, and college is going to cost you half a million dollars.
Holistically Western Europe as a whole is doing way better for it's people.
"Recent studies suggest that there is less economic mobility in the United States than has long been presumed. The last thirty years has seen a considerable drop-off in median household income growth compared to earlier generations. And, by some measurements, we are actually a less mobile society than many other nations, including Canada, France, Germany and most Scandinavian countries. This challenges the notion of America as the land of opportunity"
https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpe...
This is utter nonsense, how are you getting that?
Imagine that I offered you two deals:
1. You make $45k a year, but all your costs are 50% of the base rate. Plus health care is included that covers everything with no expenses, childcare is included, and college education is included.
2. You make $60k a year, but all your costs are 200% of the base rate. Health care isn't covered and covers nothing when you really get sick, childcare is $1500 a month per kid, and college is going to cost you half a million dollars.
Holistically Western Europe as a whole is doing way better for it's people.
"Recent studies suggest that there is less economic mobility in the United States than has long been presumed. The last thirty years has seen a considerable drop-off in median household income growth compared to earlier generations. And, by some measurements, we are actually a less mobile society than many other nations, including Canada, France, Germany and most Scandinavian countries. This challenges the notion of America as the land of opportunity"
https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpe...
Why is quality of life measured on consumption crap so heavily? Personally idgaf about useless doodads that waste resources and space in my home (or mind).
GDP per capita is lower, but household wealth is higher and when you add in all the benefits received (e.g. healthcare, pensions) you would get a pretty big difference between median household wealth in most of Western Europe and median HH wealth in the U.S., with western europe holding the advantage.
Comparing Europe and the U.S. is a complex business, and I find myself offending cheerleaders on both sides.
Comparing Europe and the U.S. is a complex business, and I find myself offending cheerleaders on both sides.
The "classic american dream" I believe involves being able to move up through hard work. At least in Canada, if we are moving people up class-wise it's by the government subsidizing them more than it is by rewarding hard work. So I believe the GPs point still stands.
That is not true based on the data.
Everyone in the world tries to move up through hard work, connections, and whatever advantages they are able to press.
"Recent studies suggest that there is less economic mobility in the United States than has long been presumed. The last thirty years has seen a considerable drop-off in median household income growth compared to earlier generations. And, by some measurements, we are actually a less mobile society than many other nations, including Canada, France, Germany and most Scandinavian countries. This challenges the notion of America as the land of opportunity"
https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpe...
Everyone in the world tries to move up through hard work, connections, and whatever advantages they are able to press.
"Recent studies suggest that there is less economic mobility in the United States than has long been presumed. The last thirty years has seen a considerable drop-off in median household income growth compared to earlier generations. And, by some measurements, we are actually a less mobile society than many other nations, including Canada, France, Germany and most Scandinavian countries. This challenges the notion of America as the land of opportunity"
https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpe...
I believe people who move to the US also like the comparably low bureaucracy, as well as opportunities in some sectors. Personally, I've lost my interest in moving to the US (or even visiting it) a long time ago, around the time of Bush Jr. for various reasons, but I'm still convinced that founding a successful company with low starting capital is easier in the US than almost anywhere else. The same is true for acting, music, show business and all the support like film cutting, audio engineering, special effects, etc. Despite the increased competition, your career prospects in these areas will probably be much higher if you move to L.A. or NY than if you stay somewhere else in the world.
America is certainly the country with the most opportunity for the most people.
A shift that has occurred from the 1950s to present is that there is less of a guarantee of an upper-middle-class lifestyle through a moderate [1] amount of effort.
That easier opportunity, however, was unique to the era. Prior to 1930, immigrants knew that America was a place for exceptionally hard work and tons of opportunity and freedom - that was the American dream. Not high taxation and government-funded class movement from lower-middle to upper-middle.
[1] 40 hours a week, one full-time job for an established corporate company supporting a family
A shift that has occurred from the 1950s to present is that there is less of a guarantee of an upper-middle-class lifestyle through a moderate [1] amount of effort.
That easier opportunity, however, was unique to the era. Prior to 1930, immigrants knew that America was a place for exceptionally hard work and tons of opportunity and freedom - that was the American dream. Not high taxation and government-funded class movement from lower-middle to upper-middle.
[1] 40 hours a week, one full-time job for an established corporate company supporting a family
You all work so hard for almost nothing (apart from 'stuff', that is now mostly made in China).
In Europe people have a much more relaxed attitude to work, yet somehow pretty much everyone has a very high quality of life - judged by quality of food, things working properly (e.g. washing machines and public restroom doors!), freedom from fear (e.g. of losing their job, getting ill, or interactions with the 'police'), and time to spend with people important to you.
In Europe people have a much more relaxed attitude to work, yet somehow pretty much everyone has a very high quality of life - judged by quality of food, things working properly (e.g. washing machines and public restroom doors!), freedom from fear (e.g. of losing their job, getting ill, or interactions with the 'police'), and time to spend with people important to you.
Having grown up in (very) poor rural America (~3k population), gone to work/live in an urban area (close to 3 million metro population), and now live in an extraordinarily affluent but smallish (100k) midwest city, I really don't agree with your view of the US in the slightest.
[edit] I originally wanted to make the point that one of the things we buy is increased quality of life. Wrote the comment up and completely forgot to throw that in.
>You all work so hard for almost nothing (apart from 'stuff', that is now mostly made in China).
The hours of output from an individual varies greatly, from almost none to 120 hour work weeks (literally, I have seen the pay stubs). In addition, not all work is the same, and there are a _lot_ of cushy office jobs in which people may claim 40 hour weeks, have probably half of that is what one would call 'work.' You also imply that having a lot of things is somehow negative and that it's just 'stuff'. We buy plenty of stuff for plenty of reasons, which includes recreation and entertainment.
To further iterate on the point that it's not just 'stuff', there are a plethora of festivals, museums, theaters, outdoor spaces, theme parks, malls, and community gatherings. There is far more stuff to do than there is time in the day to do it here. I should also note, a lot of which is either completely free or at least pretty inexpensive.
To push the point home, it's also almost trivial to fly over to Europe. It's relatively normal among the middle class to take trips overseas. Airline tickets are not _that_ expensive after all.
>In Europe people have a much more relaxed attitude to work, yet somehow pretty much everyone has a very high quality of life
This is very true for many in America as well; a great deal many of the people I grew up with are still in poverty or working menial jobs... but they also are out boating every weekend in the summers, skiing in the winters, watching sports on huge flat screens. They may be cash-poor but are still reasonably rich in experiences. This is a tricky thing to measure from the economic lens alone.
> judged by quality of food
The food I've had in the US has ranged from Michelin star to Mac Donald's, both are fabulous, though one is more snobby. Perhaps in deeply rural areas with low populations, the food is more of the fast-food variety. Still, in most mid to large cities, the food has been consistently excellent across both price and quality offered.
> judged by things working properly (e.g. washing machines and public restroom doors!)
I don't think you could back this up by any data, and if I were to guess, this is based on some poor luck you had while visiting. Across the various places I've been, it's pretty unheard of not to have access to washers or dryers due to malfunction. Most areas have at least a couple of competing laundromats, and it costs no more than a couple of dollars to access them. Breakdowns happen to all equipment over time, and thankfully quality can be purchased if desired. If many still choose the initial price tag over that, so be it. Servicing a machine is cheap and easy, as is replacing one outright.
As for public restroom doors, I don't understand this at all as it hasn't been my experience in the slightest. Even in poor urban areas, doors work fine. I can assure you, the VAST majority of doors here work just fine!
> freedom from fear (e.g. of losing their job, getting ill, or interactions with the 'police'),
This entirely an individual thing; losing one's job isn't exactly the end of the world here either. Opportunity is all over the place. Maybe aside from suicidal people, everyone on earth fears getting ill. And maybe aside from high health care costs, assuming I didn't choose to pay for extra insurance, I'd still rather be 'poor' and uninsured here than most places in the world. It's not 'free' like many other countries, but if you're poor, you're typically not paying for procedures either. As for the police, is there a country where someone doesn't fear the police on some level? Is there any country that doesn't give them the right to put you in a jail cell? The statistics of unjustified police violence point to it being exceedingly rare, so much that when there is a case that it does happen, the people and media take to the streets, and every detail of the matter is covered nationally.
> and time to spend with people important to you.
All choices people make, nothing prevents someone in this country from spending more time with family. People who work insane hours wanting to provide more for themselves are making the decision to do so.
The United States is a _massive_ country, and I caution against painting it with such a broad brush. I'm not saying there are no issues, there are, but the ones you point out seem wrong to me. There are massive lifestyle differences here, and I don't see that as a particularly bad thing. If the people back in my hometown, for example, want to spend their days boating instead of working some stressful job, all the more power to them. If someone wants to burn the candle at both ends to acquire a boatload of money instead, that's great too. I suspect there is a far more significant amount of opportunity to both here than in Europe based on the data I've researched in the past.
[edit] I originally wanted to make the point that one of the things we buy is increased quality of life. Wrote the comment up and completely forgot to throw that in.
>You all work so hard for almost nothing (apart from 'stuff', that is now mostly made in China).
The hours of output from an individual varies greatly, from almost none to 120 hour work weeks (literally, I have seen the pay stubs). In addition, not all work is the same, and there are a _lot_ of cushy office jobs in which people may claim 40 hour weeks, have probably half of that is what one would call 'work.' You also imply that having a lot of things is somehow negative and that it's just 'stuff'. We buy plenty of stuff for plenty of reasons, which includes recreation and entertainment.
To further iterate on the point that it's not just 'stuff', there are a plethora of festivals, museums, theaters, outdoor spaces, theme parks, malls, and community gatherings. There is far more stuff to do than there is time in the day to do it here. I should also note, a lot of which is either completely free or at least pretty inexpensive.
To push the point home, it's also almost trivial to fly over to Europe. It's relatively normal among the middle class to take trips overseas. Airline tickets are not _that_ expensive after all.
>In Europe people have a much more relaxed attitude to work, yet somehow pretty much everyone has a very high quality of life
This is very true for many in America as well; a great deal many of the people I grew up with are still in poverty or working menial jobs... but they also are out boating every weekend in the summers, skiing in the winters, watching sports on huge flat screens. They may be cash-poor but are still reasonably rich in experiences. This is a tricky thing to measure from the economic lens alone.
> judged by quality of food
The food I've had in the US has ranged from Michelin star to Mac Donald's, both are fabulous, though one is more snobby. Perhaps in deeply rural areas with low populations, the food is more of the fast-food variety. Still, in most mid to large cities, the food has been consistently excellent across both price and quality offered.
> judged by things working properly (e.g. washing machines and public restroom doors!)
I don't think you could back this up by any data, and if I were to guess, this is based on some poor luck you had while visiting. Across the various places I've been, it's pretty unheard of not to have access to washers or dryers due to malfunction. Most areas have at least a couple of competing laundromats, and it costs no more than a couple of dollars to access them. Breakdowns happen to all equipment over time, and thankfully quality can be purchased if desired. If many still choose the initial price tag over that, so be it. Servicing a machine is cheap and easy, as is replacing one outright.
As for public restroom doors, I don't understand this at all as it hasn't been my experience in the slightest. Even in poor urban areas, doors work fine. I can assure you, the VAST majority of doors here work just fine!
> freedom from fear (e.g. of losing their job, getting ill, or interactions with the 'police'),
This entirely an individual thing; losing one's job isn't exactly the end of the world here either. Opportunity is all over the place. Maybe aside from suicidal people, everyone on earth fears getting ill. And maybe aside from high health care costs, assuming I didn't choose to pay for extra insurance, I'd still rather be 'poor' and uninsured here than most places in the world. It's not 'free' like many other countries, but if you're poor, you're typically not paying for procedures either. As for the police, is there a country where someone doesn't fear the police on some level? Is there any country that doesn't give them the right to put you in a jail cell? The statistics of unjustified police violence point to it being exceedingly rare, so much that when there is a case that it does happen, the people and media take to the streets, and every detail of the matter is covered nationally.
> and time to spend with people important to you.
All choices people make, nothing prevents someone in this country from spending more time with family. People who work insane hours wanting to provide more for themselves are making the decision to do so.
The United States is a _massive_ country, and I caution against painting it with such a broad brush. I'm not saying there are no issues, there are, but the ones you point out seem wrong to me. There are massive lifestyle differences here, and I don't see that as a particularly bad thing. If the people back in my hometown, for example, want to spend their days boating instead of working some stressful job, all the more power to them. If someone wants to burn the candle at both ends to acquire a boatload of money instead, that's great too. I suspect there is a far more significant amount of opportunity to both here than in Europe based on the data I've researched in the past.
Wasn't taxation very high during the period describe, and declining gradually since then?
I also thought home ownership was one of the main generators of wealth for families, and wasn't that government assisted in some way?
(Not a historian)
I also thought home ownership was one of the main generators of wealth for families, and wasn't that government assisted in some way?
(Not a historian)
No, taxation was not very high. Some tax rates were very high but they had an extensive range of deductions that don't exist today. The effective tax rates, what people actually paid as a percentage of gross income, were similar to today.
They lowered tax rates simultaneous with eliminating deductions, making the changes over time roughly neutral in terms of taxes paid.
They lowered tax rates simultaneous with eliminating deductions, making the changes over time roughly neutral in terms of taxes paid.
It’s harder to move to Canada though.
Canada is about to revert to the mean in a very hard way though, so I wouldn't count on that statistic too much.
I'm also curious to have more details. I'm Canadian and historically have been a big proponent of our country, to the point of smugness. But I'm currently very bearish on our future and curious to hear what others are thinking.
The continued closure of our shared land border doesn't indicate to me that you guys are headed in the direction of reason.
I would be very interested in hearing more about what changed your outlook.
Care to elaborate?
While the sentiment may be true for Americans living in America, if an American decides to emigrate to a different country then they obviously think living in this new country is better for them - unless they move back later, I don't think emigrating Americans remain "American" for long, certainly not after a generation or two.
Does the USA really offer the greatest opportunities to the greatest number of poor people as a share of the total population, of all countries in the world? Why do so many people from the USA believe this tripe without question?
It feels like the 'shining city on the hill' was extremely effective propaganda, for the domestic population.
It feels like the 'shining city on the hill' was extremely effective propaganda, for the domestic population.
Anecdotally, it feels true. I, like many Americans, know an enormous number of immigrants and poor people that moved into the middle and upper-middle class through hard work and discipline. There is still plenty of opportunity to do that US if you apply yourself. Economic mobility is very high in the US (which is distinct from social mobility).
When I've worked in Europe, it has always been evident that this is much harder to achieve there for poor people and immigrants. The entire social system is setup to limit the ability of ambitious people to rise above whatever station they were born into in a way that isn't really a thing in the US. This contributes to why engineering wages are relatively low in Europe.
When I've worked in Europe, it has always been evident that this is much harder to achieve there for poor people and immigrants. The entire social system is setup to limit the ability of ambitious people to rise above whatever station they were born into in a way that isn't really a thing in the US. This contributes to why engineering wages are relatively low in Europe.
> Economic mobility is very high in the US
Not so much. The U.S. is not even in the top 10 of countries for Economic mobility.
Not so much. The U.S. is not even in the top 10 of countries for Economic mobility.
The US ranks very high in terms of absolute mobility. Measures of relative mobility are only comparable between countries if they have similar wage compression curves, which is also partially a function of country size. US wages are much less compressed than in Europe -- see also: engineering wages -- so they aren't meaningfully comparable in relative terms.
Given two countries with the same median wage (PPP), a 20k increase in income in one country may be relatively "economically mobile" and a 40k increase in income in the other is not, even though the income increase is much larger in real terms. When average people talk about economic mobility, they mean the second case; using relative mobility is misleading.
Given two countries with the same median wage (PPP), a 20k increase in income in one country may be relatively "economically mobile" and a 40k increase in income in the other is not, even though the income increase is much larger in real terms. When average people talk about economic mobility, they mean the second case; using relative mobility is misleading.
[deleted]
“Cutting down the tall poppy”
I am an American, and I have known a number of immigrants over the years, one who won the lottery in order to come to the US. They have mostly but not all been from Eastern bloc countries.
Every single one of those people is grateful to have come here, is amazed that the people born here do not take advantage of their birthright of opportunities, and absolutely does not think that talk about the greatest opportunities is tripe or propaganda. They are also dumbfounded at the problems that we create for ourselves as a country. Yet, to a one, they all wish they could bring their parents and families here.
Every single one of those people is grateful to have come here, is amazed that the people born here do not take advantage of their birthright of opportunities, and absolutely does not think that talk about the greatest opportunities is tripe or propaganda. They are also dumbfounded at the problems that we create for ourselves as a country. Yet, to a one, they all wish they could bring their parents and families here.
I have had similar sentiments expressed to me from immigrants who have come to the country where I'm from (Australia).
It's possible that the opportunities given to migrants relocating to any highly developed nation are equivalent. That is, not a phenomenon unique to the USA.
It's possible that the opportunities given to migrants relocating to any highly developed nation are equivalent. That is, not a phenomenon unique to the USA.
> It's possible that the opportunities given to migrants relocating to any highly developed nation are equivalent.
That's an excellent point, and one I doubt even needs to be answered to any degree of certainty. Everyone wants a better life, and that can be had in many ways and places.
That's an excellent point, and one I doubt even needs to be answered to any degree of certainty. Everyone wants a better life, and that can be had in many ways and places.
I can see how during the last 30 years opportunities become fewer and fewer in Canada. I assume it is probably the same in the US. Well we have to feed ever increasing appetites of 3-percenters or whatever the number is. On top of that there are generally more and more people and less resources.
One reason they dont give up citizenship is that you are "declared" death and the IRS will come an collect there share. It can become quite expensiv for expats.
From the 1880s to 2000 this may have been the case, but I don't think it is anymore. Any country with public health insurance that is decent is more attractive than the US. People are not blind, they see Americans dying of diabetes because they can't afford insulin that they attempted to crowdfund. [1]
The US has evolved into a modern dystopia under the first-past-the-post system and cloture in the senate. I think the election of Donald Trump was the signal to the rest of the world that America's democracy may not even be a democracy. Republicans are currently digging themselves in to remove as much democracy from the American political system as possible. [2] I'm not sure where the country will end up.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane-patrick-boyle-died-a...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2021/06/the-...
The US has evolved into a modern dystopia under the first-past-the-post system and cloture in the senate. I think the election of Donald Trump was the signal to the rest of the world that America's democracy may not even be a democracy. Republicans are currently digging themselves in to remove as much democracy from the American political system as possible. [2] I'm not sure where the country will end up.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane-patrick-boyle-died-a...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2021/06/the-...
We never had a true working class party or the same kind of safety net as they have in Europe, because all the class divisions could be papered over with free stuff and money- first, a whole continents worth of free land, and then when all Europe was destroyed, a 60 year burst of huge profits. So you know, it’s material conditions in the end. Matt Christman and Sean KB did an excellent podcast on this called History is a Weapon: Q is You.
> The US has evolved into a modern dystopia
> America's democracy may not even be a democracy
> Republicans are currently digging themselves in to remove as much democracy
Here's the ideological intensity that the article mentioned. This is delusional.
The smartest, most driven people still come to the US to start businesses and seek fortune, because it's the best place in the world to do so.
> America's democracy may not even be a democracy
> Republicans are currently digging themselves in to remove as much democracy
Here's the ideological intensity that the article mentioned. This is delusional.
The smartest, most driven people still come to the US to start businesses and seek fortune, because it's the best place in the world to do so.
I'm not from the US, so I suppose I don't know. One of my uncles immigrated there and works in a VA hospital. The stories he tells me, of people dying of ailments that are common in the third world, seems to suggest otherwise.
> The smartest, most driven people still come to the US to start businesses and seek fortune, because it's the best place in the world to do so.
Rates of entrepreneurship are higher in Scandinavian countries[1].
It's also easier to start your own business in such countries because you don't already have to be wealthy enough to afford spending $36k in premiums alone each year for your family's health insurance on the individual market.
[1] https://www.oecd.org/sdd/business-stats/EAG-2018-Highlights....
Rates of entrepreneurship are higher in Scandinavian countries[1].
It's also easier to start your own business in such countries because you don't already have to be wealthy enough to afford spending $36k in premiums alone each year for your family's health insurance on the individual market.
[1] https://www.oecd.org/sdd/business-stats/EAG-2018-Highlights....
Everything f38zf5vdt said and that you've quoted here can be true (at least subjectively) while your own reply is also true. You're not actually addressing or contradicting their arguments, such as they are, just declaring them categorically invalid because "capitalism."
> The smartest, most driven people still come to the US to start businesses and seek fortune, because it's the best place in the world to do so.
Keep believing that myth.
Keep believing that myth.
If a highly-skilled individual wants to amass the most monetary wealth possible, which geographies do you think would be better than the USA and why?
>> Any country with public health insurance that is decent is more attractive than the US.
Depending on what you want to do with your life, this is mostly true. But immigration laws to countries with these kinds of welfare structures tend to be much tighter than ones without for reasons that are obvious.
Depending on what you want to do with your life, this is mostly true. But immigration laws to countries with these kinds of welfare structures tend to be much tighter than ones without for reasons that are obvious.
"Tend to", perhaps, but it's not universal, in that there are huge gaping loopholes in some places.
Every time I read about grown up men and women believing in a fairytale it makes me realize how far humanity is away from being a grown up self reflected intelligent species. And I have my doubts it will change anytime soon.
> Few people understand that most religions e.g. Judaism and Christianity have an apologetic discipline – a deliberate arm open to debate.
The range of permissible debate is quite narrow in reality, and usually start from an assumption that the core tenets are more or less true.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
You're basically defining all belief as religious belief. You're welcome to it, but it's not particularly useful or constructive. And suggesting those that don't have the belief haven't actually thought about it, or lack the tools to do so, is a bit antagonistic, really.
The range of permissible debate is quite narrow in reality, and usually start from an assumption that the core tenets are more or less true.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
You're basically defining all belief as religious belief. You're welcome to it, but it's not particularly useful or constructive. And suggesting those that don't have the belief haven't actually thought about it, or lack the tools to do so, is a bit antagonistic, really.
I had an otherwise enjoyable conversation with a just recently-turned-religious person. As soon as core tenets, as you nicely put it, where up for discussion, conversation came to a screeching halt. People who think the ten amendments must be strictly followed have a lot of cognitive dissonance to resolve, and reasoning is not welcome.
The same person asked me into great detail why vaccinations should be a good idea, and expected me to provide all the answers.
We both remained at our positions - she‘s now contemplating homeschooling her kid because of mask requirements, and I still don’t believe in a religion that says my gay friends need to become straight.
The same person asked me into great detail why vaccinations should be a good idea, and expected me to provide all the answers.
We both remained at our positions - she‘s now contemplating homeschooling her kid because of mask requirements, and I still don’t believe in a religion that says my gay friends need to become straight.
>the ten amendments
That's hilarious. I'm not sure if that's a typo or joke. It also makes me think of the US Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.
That's hilarious. I'm not sure if that's a typo or joke. It also makes me think of the US Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.
What led her to change to the religion?
Hard to tell for me what triggered this. She completely changed careers at that point it seems, maybe it was burnout.
You can't think of anything you believe in that if someone came to you to "discuss" you wouldn't react instantly negative and start calling the other person insults?
Why bother? I don’t hold any belief strongly enough to merit such a reaction, though I might react negatively for other reasons. For example, past experience showing the insincerity of their own debate tactics and a lack of patience for rehashing it all yet again.
I don't know you and can't speak for you. But my point that all the people on here criticizing people on their moral systems are baseless stands. These same people would've been in the mob in salem executing so called witches a couple hundred years ago and would have been just as certain in their beliefs then.
It is funny seeing this:
> These same people would've been in the mob in salem executing so called witches a couple hundred years ago and would have been just as certain in their beliefs then.
after this:
> I don't know you and can't speak for you.
> These same people would've been in the mob in salem executing so called witches a couple hundred years ago and would have been just as certain in their beliefs then.
after this:
> I don't know you and can't speak for you.
Explain how this is funny at all?
Not being able to speak for someone implies you do not know their thoughts or motivations.
So in the second sentence, you acknowledge that you do not know the thoughts or motivations of the person you are responding to, but the preceding sentence implies that you do know the thoughts and motivations of some other people, and what they would or would not have done a couple hundred years ago.
I.e. a very strong claim about one group of people you do not know, followed by an acknowledgement that said strong claim cannot be made for another group of people you do not know.
So in the second sentence, you acknowledge that you do not know the thoughts or motivations of the person you are responding to, but the preceding sentence implies that you do know the thoughts and motivations of some other people, and what they would or would not have done a couple hundred years ago.
I.e. a very strong claim about one group of people you do not know, followed by an acknowledgement that said strong claim cannot be made for another group of people you do not know.
I don't know the thoughts and motivations of individuals but I can make generalizations about groups. The contradiction you imagined doesn't exist.
AFAIK witch hunts were often driven by political reasons and the church lent their credibility for it. Sometimes the church initiated them. Claiming atheists would have been a part of this is a bit far fetched, to put it mildly.
Religion is dividing our society. Its reasonable to wish for an independent believe system for our whole society.
Nonetheless arguing on hn is not a mob.
But yes discriminiation of woman is a bigger problem than religion. Forced marriages, hanging gay people, raping children, religious conflicts are a huge issue still today.
Unfortunate for us, sciencse or a global believe system doesn't need to have a church. It happens trhough alignment, communication etc.
We are already more aligned through knowledge but we just don't promote that. My friend and i are not going to our science church on sunday because we don't need to. We don't need to discuss 1+1=2 because its proven. And while social norms are not that explicit, we see big progress here as well: In germany for example, we don't hang people on carcranes because they are gay.
Its just harder to keep track of this and doing the right thing if you don't get it pushed in every sunday. And indepenedent of this, in bavaria you had one hour every week christian religion in school. I grew up with plenty of assholes. Clearly religioun did not brought us as humans together.
Nonetheless arguing on hn is not a mob.
But yes discriminiation of woman is a bigger problem than religion. Forced marriages, hanging gay people, raping children, religious conflicts are a huge issue still today.
Unfortunate for us, sciencse or a global believe system doesn't need to have a church. It happens trhough alignment, communication etc.
We are already more aligned through knowledge but we just don't promote that. My friend and i are not going to our science church on sunday because we don't need to. We don't need to discuss 1+1=2 because its proven. And while social norms are not that explicit, we see big progress here as well: In germany for example, we don't hang people on carcranes because they are gay.
Its just harder to keep track of this and doing the right thing if you don't get it pushed in every sunday. And indepenedent of this, in bavaria you had one hour every week christian religion in school. I grew up with plenty of assholes. Clearly religioun did not brought us as humans together.
Nothing comes to mind, really. I call people names when they threaten my life in traffic, but that’s about it.
[deleted]
>The range of permissible debate is quite narrow in reality, and usually start from an assumption that the core tenets are more or less true.
The purpose of apologetics is to defend the faith debates with people of other religions or atheists. If there are rules about not allowing certain things to be debated that's not going to work at all.
The purpose of apologetics is to defend the faith debates with people of other religions or atheists. If there are rules about not allowing certain things to be debated that's not going to work at all.
> usually start from an assumption that the core tenets are more or less true.
You use this as a criticism of religion but I find it's true of secular people as well who have baseless beliefs that are just as deeply ingrained.
Telling someone on hackernews you are religious you will probably get a ton of criticism and downvotes. You know what will get the same reaction? Telling someone you are a moral nihilist.
Why is murder evil? Why is stealing evil? Why is anything evil or good for that matter? At least religious people have answers to these questions. (Although I don't think they are necessarily good answers, why is something good because some omnipotent being said so? what if that omnipotent being was evil?)
I feel like I'm screaming at windmills but everything people get hysterical over in our modern world is baseless. All values do not stand up to scrutiny and can be argued against using the one word question "why?"
edit: I was predictably downvoted, please don't take this as me complaining and trying to claim victimhood because it truly doesn't affect me. I just find it funny how uncomfortable my comment makes people that are supposedly open minded and critical of their beliefs but surprisingly share the same beliefs as their entire social group.
You use this as a criticism of religion but I find it's true of secular people as well who have baseless beliefs that are just as deeply ingrained.
Telling someone on hackernews you are religious you will probably get a ton of criticism and downvotes. You know what will get the same reaction? Telling someone you are a moral nihilist.
Why is murder evil? Why is stealing evil? Why is anything evil or good for that matter? At least religious people have answers to these questions. (Although I don't think they are necessarily good answers, why is something good because some omnipotent being said so? what if that omnipotent being was evil?)
I feel like I'm screaming at windmills but everything people get hysterical over in our modern world is baseless. All values do not stand up to scrutiny and can be argued against using the one word question "why?"
edit: I was predictably downvoted, please don't take this as me complaining and trying to claim victimhood because it truly doesn't affect me. I just find it funny how uncomfortable my comment makes people that are supposedly open minded and critical of their beliefs but surprisingly share the same beliefs as their entire social group.
People have spent millenia thinking about rational answers to those questions. It's easy enough to find answers, but much like with religion there is no consensus. The answers follow a much more rigorous logic then "god said so" though. I'm not a moral nihillist because that's not a thing, but I am a moral anti-realist because it's clear that there are no intrinsic moral laws. It's all preference based.
It is not all preference based, as very few moral systems lead to thriving societies that are stable and able to self-reproduce rather than collapsing back into chaos. In fact, almost none do.
Take a look at the ten commandments. "Honor thy father and mother so that it may be well with you and you may live long in the land". What happens when generation n+1 thinks they are morally superior to generation n? The same also holds for n+2, and so you do not have a stable society, you have a disintegrating society. Or half the commandments banning envy. Why ban envy and wanting what your neighbor has? Because envy-based moral systems lead to less successful societies than charity based moral systems, where the rich are told they should be generous to the poor versus telling the poor that they have a right to something possessed by the rich. It is not arbitrary -- some ethical codes lead to stable, successful societies and others do not.
One of the problems with modernism is that we have thrown away this notion of reverence and replaced it with a belief in moral progress, which has only led to an ocean of murders and social disintegration. In 10 generations, there will be no modernism left, it will be re-absorbed into more traditional societies, because modernist societies aren't able to reproduce themselves. Not biologically, not ethically, not economically. Yes, there are a few Gene Roddenberry holdouts that believe in generic liberalism as a system on which a society can be based. But the voice of LaFayette is always drowned out by the voice of Robespierre. Lafayette was a fool, thinking that whatever seemed right to him could be the basis of a society.
So it's not so much that I believe I can win an argument with someone who believes moral systems are preference based, but that those who do believe that will simply be outcompeted. Societies in which large numbers hold to such views will be unable to reproduce themselves and they will be eclipsed by societies that adopt ethical codes that form specific templates. A painter can paint a picture of any creature, but actual living, successful organisms are under strict constraints. A philosopher can imagine any moral code, but living, successful societies have to stick to what actually works.
Take a look at the ten commandments. "Honor thy father and mother so that it may be well with you and you may live long in the land". What happens when generation n+1 thinks they are morally superior to generation n? The same also holds for n+2, and so you do not have a stable society, you have a disintegrating society. Or half the commandments banning envy. Why ban envy and wanting what your neighbor has? Because envy-based moral systems lead to less successful societies than charity based moral systems, where the rich are told they should be generous to the poor versus telling the poor that they have a right to something possessed by the rich. It is not arbitrary -- some ethical codes lead to stable, successful societies and others do not.
One of the problems with modernism is that we have thrown away this notion of reverence and replaced it with a belief in moral progress, which has only led to an ocean of murders and social disintegration. In 10 generations, there will be no modernism left, it will be re-absorbed into more traditional societies, because modernist societies aren't able to reproduce themselves. Not biologically, not ethically, not economically. Yes, there are a few Gene Roddenberry holdouts that believe in generic liberalism as a system on which a society can be based. But the voice of LaFayette is always drowned out by the voice of Robespierre. Lafayette was a fool, thinking that whatever seemed right to him could be the basis of a society.
So it's not so much that I believe I can win an argument with someone who believes moral systems are preference based, but that those who do believe that will simply be outcompeted. Societies in which large numbers hold to such views will be unable to reproduce themselves and they will be eclipsed by societies that adopt ethical codes that form specific templates. A painter can paint a picture of any creature, but actual living, successful organisms are under strict constraints. A philosopher can imagine any moral code, but living, successful societies have to stick to what actually works.
There is such a wide gulf between what religious folk (well, American religious folk at least) think they represent, and how they actually act. E.g. my brother-in-law is a devout Christian and is extremely fond of saying 'What would Jesus do' and then proceeding to do the opposite.
What is tearing apart America right now? Politics? No. Evangelical politics. It does not bring stability.
What is tearing apart America right now? Politics? No. Evangelical politics. It does not bring stability.
I think you're arguing against something the grandparent didn't claim? They didn't say that various moral systems wouldn't have different outcomes, just that none of them would be intrinsically correct.
We can note, for instance, that "produces a thriving society" is a thing for which you're imposing a preference. There's no inherent reason why that's the true system, just that we think it'd be nifty if that was an outcome.
We can note, for instance, that "produces a thriving society" is a thing for which you're imposing a preference. There's no inherent reason why that's the true system, just that we think it'd be nifty if that was an outcome.
We have countries today that treat women as second class citizens and still practice slavery and they can be considered "thriving" societies which are completely different from the Western world which can also be considered to be made up of "thriving" societies.
So if the requirement for a moral system to be "true" is for it to result in a thriving society we have a problem because we still have competing moral systems.
And even if we somehow whittled down to one global system, just because people believe in it doesn't make it true (do you need me to provide examples of nearly universal beliefs that were proven untrue later?)
So if the requirement for a moral system to be "true" is for it to result in a thriving society we have a problem because we still have competing moral systems.
And even if we somehow whittled down to one global system, just because people believe in it doesn't make it true (do you need me to provide examples of nearly universal beliefs that were proven untrue later?)
> Why is murder evil? Why is stealing evil? Why is anything evil or good for that matter?
These are covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Evil in this context is any violation of rights as defined by the UDHR
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
Why resort to a religion when you can have empathy for your fellow human, seems like a waste of time :)
These are covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Evil in this context is any violation of rights as defined by the UDHR
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
Why resort to a religion when you can have empathy for your fellow human, seems like a waste of time :)
The UN does not decide what is _evil_ or not, and empathy is not some self-evident trait from which all objective morality comes from. You could possibly argue that empathy is evolutionary and aids society and in that way has some objective merit, but the GP is right, we have to accept that our moral systems are rooted in some assumptions.
It's actually very simple. There is no such thing as objective morality. However, social norms are explained by people acting in their own rational self-interest. For example, I want to live in a society where I don't get murdered. Therefore, I want to live in a society that criminalizes murder. That's all there is to it. That is your "Why?" answered.
To go one step further, the why of questions like "Why don't you want to get murdered?" are because I come from a long line of organisms that didn't get murdered because of a high drive to not get murdered. The ones without that drive got weeded out. There's still no morality involved, I just axiomatically don't want to get murdered.
To go one step further, the why of questions like "Why don't you want to get murdered?" are because I come from a long line of organisms that didn't get murdered because of a high drive to not get murdered. The ones without that drive got weeded out. There's still no morality involved, I just axiomatically don't want to get murdered.
> Why is murder evil? Why is stealing evil? Why is anything evil or good for that matter? At least religious people have answers to these questions.
Hard to answer without first defining evil (ideally avoiding Godwin's law).
Hard to answer without first defining evil (ideally avoiding Godwin's law).
When I think of religion in the context of Hacker News I think of things like Michael O. Church evangelizing functional programming or the people who challenged the epistemological paradigm of the cladistics journal which must be parsimony. So I feel confused when I see the other kind of religion here. One way you could make us feel even more uncomfortable is by sharing information we haven't considered, like a weakness in a computer system or a contradiction in a generally accepted practice.
There is an entire branch of Philosophy called Ethics that gives us better answers to these questions and a better framework for grappling with them then religion ever has. It is quite arrogant to assume that atheists have no answers at all to these questions.
Ah yeah, good argument, a field of study exists. Given you are a well educated atheist you can explain the underpinnings of your morality right?
Yes. A set of ab initio values and the golden rule as a base, and societal consensus to work out the finer details.
Yeah, I wasn't asking what your beliefs were. I was asking why your beliefs are the "true" beliefs.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27488136.
> The range of permissible debate is quite narrow in reality
What? Christian apologetics meets atheists, Satanists, Darwinists, whoever. I don't even know how restricting apologetics to a very narrow permissible debate would work, unless like the MSM one can control which opponent gets on the mic.
Christians enforce a narrow range of theological divergence acceptable as orthodox, but that is not apologetics.
> You're basically defining all belief as religious belief
No he isn't. He's defining humans as religious, and observing that the absence of affiliation with a major organized religion doesn't change this.
I live in a Communist country in which the Party sometimes explicitly substitutes for a church. In the USA, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which means that naturally a state church will evolve that denies being a state church -- both the "state" and "church" parts. Humans being both religious and hierarchical, it's often tricky to determine whether state is running church or vice versa. The ball is always under the other cup.
If you dare, I'm sure you can think of a few recently-invented blasphemies which if violated would result in censure of a progressively more official nature. Whoever can hunt witches, holds the pulpit, even if it comes with a press badge rather than a funny hat.
Remember to recycle.
What? Christian apologetics meets atheists, Satanists, Darwinists, whoever. I don't even know how restricting apologetics to a very narrow permissible debate would work, unless like the MSM one can control which opponent gets on the mic.
Christians enforce a narrow range of theological divergence acceptable as orthodox, but that is not apologetics.
> You're basically defining all belief as religious belief
No he isn't. He's defining humans as religious, and observing that the absence of affiliation with a major organized religion doesn't change this.
I live in a Communist country in which the Party sometimes explicitly substitutes for a church. In the USA, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which means that naturally a state church will evolve that denies being a state church -- both the "state" and "church" parts. Humans being both religious and hierarchical, it's often tricky to determine whether state is running church or vice versa. The ball is always under the other cup.
If you dare, I'm sure you can think of a few recently-invented blasphemies which if violated would result in censure of a progressively more official nature. Whoever can hunt witches, holds the pulpit, even if it comes with a press badge rather than a funny hat.
Remember to recycle.
You raised a good point about all belief vs religious belief.
Which beliefs do you take on faith? Which would have you outcast if you didn’t believe them? Which lead you to a personal sacrifice? Which beliefs cause great anxiety or pleasure with no tangible evidence?
Not comprehensive but those are categories of beliefs elevated to religious in nature.
For example, believing that the Lakers are the best basketball team probably is not religious, but believing that your life got substantially better or worse following an election would be a religious belief.
Which beliefs do you take on faith? Which would have you outcast if you didn’t believe them? Which lead you to a personal sacrifice? Which beliefs cause great anxiety or pleasure with no tangible evidence?
Not comprehensive but those are categories of beliefs elevated to religious in nature.
For example, believing that the Lakers are the best basketball team probably is not religious, but believing that your life got substantially better or worse following an election would be a religious belief.
Religion has a meaning, and it specifically relates to the supernatural. If something makes no supernatural claims, it's not a religion.
To whit, "believing that your life got substantially better or worse following an election" would not be a religious belief. This is because it can be tested, and would have a simple cause/effect based in physical reality. It might be an intangible "I feel better about things because I know people agree with me, and think that people in positions of political power will support my interests" -- but there's nothing supernatural about that.
As was said, if you want to redefine the word "religion" to mean "any sort of belief system", then sure, go for it. It's a great way to troll and provoke arguments.
To whit, "believing that your life got substantially better or worse following an election" would not be a religious belief. This is because it can be tested, and would have a simple cause/effect based in physical reality. It might be an intangible "I feel better about things because I know people agree with me, and think that people in positions of political power will support my interests" -- but there's nothing supernatural about that.
As was said, if you want to redefine the word "religion" to mean "any sort of belief system", then sure, go for it. It's a great way to troll and provoke arguments.
There can be natural objects with supernatural reverence like god emperors . Money, covid, climate change are all supernatural phenomenon with a material basis
So I think I came across an article which touches on what you're getting at: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/people-wit...
For me atheism & nihilism go a bit hand in hand, but there are atheists who aren't nihilists, which then have to still level their disbelief in god with faith in meaningfulness
For me atheism & nihilism go a bit hand in hand, but there are atheists who aren't nihilists, which then have to still level their disbelief in god with faith in meaningfulness
I wish we had a world where the discernment between science, axiom and ideology was a real thing ironed into the public muscle memory as much as ideology itself. Idealism.
The “science” most people believe (more accurately called scientism) is an aspect of the state secular religion.
'"Believe" in the science.'
Yeah, scientism used to be a huge problem at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century, and we seem to be there again.
It’s interesting seeing this point, which has been around the internet for at least a decade now, start to get printed in what are otherwise mainstream publications these days. I don’t know that I buy it, but I certainly understand and see the merit of the argument.
"Believe science."
Vox and others stealth-editing articles, people yelling at you if you don't blindly believe the CDC/WHO, etc.
Science by its very nature is heretical, questioning, skeptical. "Belief" in science is exactly what we should not be doing, yet is pushed by the academic elites.
Vox and others stealth-editing articles, people yelling at you if you don't blindly believe the CDC/WHO, etc.
Science by its very nature is heretical, questioning, skeptical. "Belief" in science is exactly what we should not be doing, yet is pushed by the academic elites.
I’m slightly surprised to see this line of thinking in HN. The so-called “Belief” in science is not driven by blind faith that what people are saying are true. It’s that you understand that before something is believed it goes through a rigorous system of fact checking / experimental confirmation. So if something is considered by people from different fields as true, then it likely is. But as you said, it’s questioning and skeptical so if new data is put forward then it can adjust. Science isn’t just about being right, it’s a system of truth finding and understanding.
>> The so-called “Belief” in science is not driven by blind faith that what people are saying are true. It’s that you understand that before something is believed it goes through a rigorous system of fact checking / experimental confirmation.
Right. None of which happened with the proclamations by the CDC/WHO who also had potential perverse incentives. Globally appointed scientists are not the arbiters of science. That is my biggest issue with the "believe science" movement.
Right. None of which happened with the proclamations by the CDC/WHO who also had potential perverse incentives. Globally appointed scientists are not the arbiters of science. That is my biggest issue with the "believe science" movement.
This statement clarified things; I see your point more clearly now.
> So if something is considered by people from different fields as true, then it likely is.
This is actually very unscientific, a good chunk of what we currently hold to be true within science disproved previous science. A good example of really strong, good and useful science that was later replaced is Newtonian mechanics.
In reality, science is never finished, but the prevailing view throughout time is "we have most of it figured out" and time and time again this is proven false. Hopefully it continues to be.
And it might not be comforting to confront, but yes, the vast majority of people's belief in science is not analytical or rational, it is dogmatic. It doesn't mean the particular scientific things people believe are wrong, but most people, even scientists themselves, hold a lot of beliefs dogmatically and the idea that it is rational is protection of the ego and comparable to belief in divine wisdom.
This is actually very unscientific, a good chunk of what we currently hold to be true within science disproved previous science. A good example of really strong, good and useful science that was later replaced is Newtonian mechanics.
In reality, science is never finished, but the prevailing view throughout time is "we have most of it figured out" and time and time again this is proven false. Hopefully it continues to be.
And it might not be comforting to confront, but yes, the vast majority of people's belief in science is not analytical or rational, it is dogmatic. It doesn't mean the particular scientific things people believe are wrong, but most people, even scientists themselves, hold a lot of beliefs dogmatically and the idea that it is rational is protection of the ego and comparable to belief in divine wisdom.
You only highlighted one sentence of what I said but left out the part where I said:
> if new data is put forward then it can adjust.
Which is essentially the same as the ideas you put forward.
Also, coming from a Physics background, I would argue that to say that Newtonian mechanics has been completely replaced is false. There are more accurate models of the universe especially as we go to a quantum level or levels approaching the speed of light, but for most models it still works. As the saying goes, “all models are wrong, but some models are more useful than others”. Newtonian mechanics still works, but it doesn’t work all the time.
But main thing is, we are in agreement that Science is not finished; there is a balance between being open to knowing that there might be a better model compared to what we know now, but until it disproves what we know now (or explains things out current models can’t and can be verified experimentally), there is no reason to not trust our currently accepted and verified ones.
> if new data is put forward then it can adjust.
Which is essentially the same as the ideas you put forward.
Also, coming from a Physics background, I would argue that to say that Newtonian mechanics has been completely replaced is false. There are more accurate models of the universe especially as we go to a quantum level or levels approaching the speed of light, but for most models it still works. As the saying goes, “all models are wrong, but some models are more useful than others”. Newtonian mechanics still works, but it doesn’t work all the time.
But main thing is, we are in agreement that Science is not finished; there is a balance between being open to knowing that there might be a better model compared to what we know now, but until it disproves what we know now (or explains things out current models can’t and can be verified experimentally), there is no reason to not trust our currently accepted and verified ones.
> It’s that you understand that before something is believed it goes through a rigorous system of fact checking / experimental confirmation
To be honest, the way you’ve phrased this makes it sound like you’ve totally bought in to state secular scientismic dogma.
The entire concept of “fact checking” (outsourcing your rational facilities to journalists and e-celebs) is diametrically opposed to actual scientific thought.
It’s also completely false that before “something is believed” (by which I think you mean is ensconced as scientismic dogma by the cathedral) it is subject to actual “experimental confirmation” (under any reasonable interpretation of that term). How many times has the FDA changed the official “nutrition science” dietary recommendations over the last 50 years? The entire time, they’ve claimed their approach has been evidence-based, which may be true in some narrow sense, but the predictive confidence of their claims are so bad and noisy that they keep changing the official “scientific” beliefs.
This is not unique to nutrition. Many politically relevant fields have very strong-sounding dogmatic claims made from on high with what is actually extremely weak evidence.
To be honest, the way you’ve phrased this makes it sound like you’ve totally bought in to state secular scientismic dogma.
The entire concept of “fact checking” (outsourcing your rational facilities to journalists and e-celebs) is diametrically opposed to actual scientific thought.
It’s also completely false that before “something is believed” (by which I think you mean is ensconced as scientismic dogma by the cathedral) it is subject to actual “experimental confirmation” (under any reasonable interpretation of that term). How many times has the FDA changed the official “nutrition science” dietary recommendations over the last 50 years? The entire time, they’ve claimed their approach has been evidence-based, which may be true in some narrow sense, but the predictive confidence of their claims are so bad and noisy that they keep changing the official “scientific” beliefs.
This is not unique to nutrition. Many politically relevant fields have very strong-sounding dogmatic claims made from on high with what is actually extremely weak evidence.
[deleted]
I don't really buy it, it seems to suggest that scientific discoveries are not questioned and changed constantly, when they absolutely are. It's not accurate to always refer to them as "beliefs."
scientism isn't typically practiced by scientists themselves, but atheist types who love pop-science and "science communicators" and the like. There's a ton of tropes associated with this belief system that have nothing to do with the actual process of scientific discovery. The Big Bang Theory as a show panders to this type, with physics techno-babble and guest appearances by Stephen Hawking (RIP) and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
You seem to be describing a stereotype and not an actual person, and also that seems to be conflating it with an actual view on religious beliefs (atheism). So I can't say I know what you mean.
There's no conflating. Scientism-types being atheist (or anti-theist) seems to be a pretty universal pattern in my experience. If I called someone a bible-basher, it wouldn't be conflating to say they're a Christian - it's a prerequisite. It's also a stereotype, but if I were to call somebody a bible-basher you'd (presumably) know the kinds of character traits I was implying (sanctimonious, primarily).
But this feels like describing the colour blue - if you don't already know what it is, being on Hacker News, I don't think I can help you. Familiarising yourself with the philosophy of science (like Karl Popper's ideas for a start) and then looking at the way that many redditors and HNers talk about science (especially pop-science in astronomy and physics) or treat whitepapers, "new study finds" journalism etc would make you notice the difference.
But this feels like describing the colour blue - if you don't already know what it is, being on Hacker News, I don't think I can help you. Familiarising yourself with the philosophy of science (like Karl Popper's ideas for a start) and then looking at the way that many redditors and HNers talk about science (especially pop-science in astronomy and physics) or treat whitepapers, "new study finds" journalism etc would make you notice the difference.
I'm still not really sure what that's supposed to mean or why it's not conflation, many Christians that I've met have wildly varying views on the bible. I also don't see what the difference here is supposed to be -- in general, there is not a lot of fact checking happening on public social media, and if there is, it also has a lot of its own bias. I don't see that as being specific to comments on scientific articles or evidence of any kind of "scientism," it's just the usual confirmation bias.
I mean, I agree with you, it's not accurate to refer to "science" as "[a set of] beliefs" but that's sort of besides the point. The point others are making is that "believe the science" is not the mantra of a society that actually "does science" but one that "Practices The Science^(tm)".
I think it expresses doubt in ability of a layperson to make a rational judgement on merits of a particular scientific research or process rather than on science itself.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. There is nothing in the context of "science itself" besides that particular scientific research or process. That's what it's defined as. Did you mean something like: a layperson might be inclined to place higher value on scientific research performed by a personal friend or colleague? That's probably true in some cases, but it's not "scientism."
You sure are doing a lot of not understanding in here. Let me break it down for you: the vast majority of people who say things like "trust the science" don't have the first clue about what the science actually says. It's a dogmatically held belief to them.
That isn't to say that the problem does not occur in other types, or that they're wrong about what they believe just because they don't understand it.
That isn't to say that the problem does not occur in other types, or that they're wrong about what they believe just because they don't understand it.
>You sure are doing a lot of not understanding in here.
I mean, yes? I don't pretend to know everything about everyone.
>the vast majority of people who say things like "trust the science" don't have the first clue about what the science actually says. It's a dogmatically held belief to them.
I can't agree with this, if they would change their mind about it, it's not a dogmatic belief. You seem to be generalizing about a large number of people, have you asked all of them if they would be open to changing their mind, given new evidence?
I mean, yes? I don't pretend to know everything about everyone.
>the vast majority of people who say things like "trust the science" don't have the first clue about what the science actually says. It's a dogmatically held belief to them.
I can't agree with this, if they would change their mind about it, it's not a dogmatic belief. You seem to be generalizing about a large number of people, have you asked all of them if they would be open to changing their mind, given new evidence?
Every christian that turned atheist held a dogmatic belief, changing your mind later doesn't change that it is dogmatic. And in my experience, most people need more than rational opposing viewpoint to change their minds about most things.
[deleted]
There's a difference between speculation and practicing belief, and what I see non-religous Americans practice is secular belief--that is--scientism. "Belief" in science. It's not speculation, because if it was, you might see people saying "I don't know, we'll wait and see" more often. Instead, I watch and read about people in America who are convinced of certain outcomes without any thought as to whether or not what they posit is true.
I don't know who "most people" are but if you are conflating science with values (I did a quick look up of the definition of "scientism") you are doing it wrong - and it isn't science. This reminds me of a video I watched once. An author named Sam Harris wrote an entire book titled The Moral Landscape that supposedly (I haven't read the book) makes the argument that science can precisely inform our value judgments . A physics professor named Sean Carol confronted him publicly on his views and explained the demarcation between values and science. Each time Sean would pin him down Sam would squirm around and change the topic or miss the point. I don't think most people agree with Sam Harris's view (which from what I've read embody what you are talking about) , but at the same time I don't think most people care about any of this stuff either way. :)
As someone who does agree with Sam Harris' view, I do notice that he does this thing where over explains his point to fog it up and then when confronted accuses his opponent of misattributing what he said. It is a clever but dishonest debate tactic.
Teleological thinking centers in our brain atrophy but remain active even if you denounce religion.
Teleological thinking persists regardless of whether you're secular. The "ideological intensity" in the article is partly a result of teleological drive judging every facet of modern life, even the trivial. On the left it is how X contributes to equity vs oppression, and on the right it is how X contributes to orderliness vs dysfunction.
Teleological thinking does not have to be supernatural, as long as you replace the idea of a "will" driving things towards a final state, with the idea of attractors and stable versus unstable states. You can't really deny telos and also believe in evolution as a system that fits species to their environments.
Right, telos is not purely a matter of will, which is a special case. Telos is about the ordering of a thing toward an end. You can't explain efficiently causality without recourse to telos. The fact that the same causes consistently lead to the same effects is a testament to the telos of the things involved.
Unfortunately, most opponents of telos don't really understand what it really means. They seem to hold to a mechanistic/Paleyian view of the world and assume the telos can therefore only be something in some mind external to the universe that directs things according to its purposes but that things themselves lack any intrinsic teleological character. But this is not correct.
Unfortunately, most opponents of telos don't really understand what it really means. They seem to hold to a mechanistic/Paleyian view of the world and assume the telos can therefore only be something in some mind external to the universe that directs things according to its purposes but that things themselves lack any intrinsic teleological character. But this is not correct.
It seems to be the materialist/reductionist perspective, which is based on 19th century science (despite being totally outmoded since the early 20th century and the discovery of emergent properties in physics and biology alike).
I sincerely think that it's the thing holding us back the most in the 21st century.
I sincerely think that it's the thing holding us back the most in the 21st century.
Evolution fits species to their environments in exactly the same sense (though not quite by the same mechanism) that gravity fits puddles to theirs.
That's also a teleological approach (looking at the final state of the interaction of rain, terrain and gravity) - I used evolution as an example because its the first thing that came to mind.
Evolution is also a good touchpoint because everybody who considers themselves "rational" accepts it, and yet it is taught, and reasoned about, teleologically - compared to most pop-science topics which are analytical in nature.
Evolution is also a good touchpoint because everybody who considers themselves "rational" accepts it, and yet it is taught, and reasoned about, teleologically - compared to most pop-science topics which are analytical in nature.
I don't think most people would think of puddles as having telos. Telos goes beyond what is and looks at purpose and meaning in terms of what ought to be. Puddles don't really have a purpose in that sense, and neither does evolution. Puddles fill voids, not because that's their purpose, but simply because that's what happens when you have water, gravity, and the right kind of void. Likewise for evolution. I know some people like to ascribe telos to evolution, but they're simply wrong, at least as adjudicated by the evidence.
My understanding is that telos is about the final configuration of something, the outcome of it, as well as its goals in the human sense, and that these two ideas are covered by the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic telos. Extrinsic telos, as in human purposive use, isn't what I was talking about - I meant intrinsic telos, the settled state that a system will reach if left to its own devices.
If you leave rain to its own devices, it will form puddles through gravity and the depressions in the environment. If you don't change the environment (practically impossible given species are part of the environment themselves, but hey-ho), evolution will (loosely) match the species to said environment, or kill them off, if allowed to run to infinite time.
Those examples both spell out the idea of intrinsic telos to me.
If you leave rain to its own devices, it will form puddles through gravity and the depressions in the environment. If you don't change the environment (practically impossible given species are part of the environment themselves, but hey-ho), evolution will (loosely) match the species to said environment, or kill them off, if allowed to run to infinite time.
Those examples both spell out the idea of intrinsic telos to me.
I refer you to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos
"Telos [refers] to the full potential or inherent purpose or objective of a person or thing,[2] similar to the notion of an 'end goal' or 'raison d'être'. Telos is the root of the modern term teleology, the study of purposiveness or of objects with a view to their aims, purposes, or intentions."
Puddles don't have aims, purposes, or intentions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos
"Telos [refers] to the full potential or inherent purpose or objective of a person or thing,[2] similar to the notion of an 'end goal' or 'raison d'être'. Telos is the root of the modern term teleology, the study of purposiveness or of objects with a view to their aims, purposes, or intentions."
Puddles don't have aims, purposes, or intentions.
From the teleological viewpoint, the purpose of rain is to become a puddle - or soak into the soil, or rejoin the oceans, etc etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
> (from τέλος, telos, 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason')[1] or finality[2][3] is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of, say, its cause.
> Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy, though controversial today,[5] contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree.
That's the angle I'm coming from. Especially this part, given my introduction to teleology was through learning about systems theory:
> An example of the reintroduction of teleology into modern language is the notion of an attractor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
> (from τέλος, telos, 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason')[1] or finality[2][3] is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of, say, its cause.
> Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy, though controversial today,[5] contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree.
That's the angle I'm coming from. Especially this part, given my introduction to teleology was through learning about systems theory:
> An example of the reintroduction of teleology into modern language is the notion of an attractor.
There is no specific center in the brain for teleological thinking.
It’s interesting how you’ve written so much here and not given what concrete example. Makes it very difficult to examine your argument, when you simply state that secular ideology is religious. I think it’s worth noting the definition of secular is:
> denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
> denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
One example I've noticed of a non-religious group acting similarly to a religious group is certain very online feminist communities.
Instead of original sin, they believe that society hates women, and this is the root of all society's problems.
Instead of regular repentance, they advise regularly checking your privilege / fighting your internalized misogyny.
Anyone who questions their beliefs must be a heretic who hates women and must be cancelled. Etc.
Instead of original sin, they believe that society hates women, and this is the root of all society's problems.
Instead of regular repentance, they advise regularly checking your privilege / fighting your internalized misogyny.
Anyone who questions their beliefs must be a heretic who hates women and must be cancelled. Etc.
Now you're getting it most people need and want something to believe in. But because traditional religion isn't fashionable they've found their new religion in the church of Social Justice.
With the exception of being based on analysis and generally welcoming genuine inquiry.
Any community based on analysis doesn't fall under the set I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the kind of people who would look at an abused man and assume, a priori, that he did something to deserve it, because their worldview precluded the idea that anyone other than women can be abused.
I'm talking about the kind of people who would look at an abused man and assume, a priori, that he did something to deserve it, because their worldview precluded the idea that anyone other than women can be abused.
The best example I can think of would be the Chinese cultural revolution. Millions killed and hundreds of millions had their lives destroyed because they were perceived by the "faithful" (by mostly highschool and college age Chinese, not police or military) as as not being true to Maos teaching.
That's pretty easy to understand in terms of power and secular belief, I don't see why religion is needed or particularly helpful.
The 30 years war, the 7 years war, the crusades, the inquisition, the witch hunts can also be understood in terms of power and secular belief. That does not mean they were not also powered by religous fervor.
Or the break it down: Mao is the godhead, the little black book the scripture, the gang of four the disciples, the 4 olds the devil, the red guard the clergy and inquisitors, communism the religion and promised socialist utopia the heaven. Watch some youtube videos of red guard rallies and tell me you are not watching a religious service akin to a evangelical tent revival.
Or the break it down: Mao is the godhead, the little black book the scripture, the gang of four the disciples, the 4 olds the devil, the red guard the clergy and inquisitors, communism the religion and promised socialist utopia the heaven. Watch some youtube videos of red guard rallies and tell me you are not watching a religious service akin to a evangelical tent revival.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27488136.
Many of the things in the secular world must be taken on faith (belief absent inassailable truth). Truth is difficult and unclear.
Can you give me an example or two to clarify? Many things might not be well known to someone, but could be if they wanted to track down that information. That's a little different than something which has to be taken on faith by everyone.
Well the scientific method is fundamentally faith based in that we assume that there are immutable properties of thebuniverse that can be discovered and that our perception allows us to interrogate these properties.
Yes this is a very well corroborated claim, but fundamentally faith based nonetheless.
Yes this is a very well corroborated claim, but fundamentally faith based nonetheless.
Assuming that something is true for constructive reasoning purposes is not "faith-based", it is probabilistic. I don't have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow but I assign it a high probability based on priors for the purposes of practical reasoning. We provisionally accept certain axioms because of their high utility but the axioms may be discarded at any time if the utility or correctness is in doubt. Non-axiomatic reasoning systems are a real thing, we use them in computer science.
This entire discussion is predicated on a minimalist set of mathematical axioms being valid, but there isn't even agreement on what that set of axioms is (though it may seem so to a layman). We still manage to get on in the world because we can do highly effective utilitarian reasoning without that being resolved.
This entire discussion is predicated on a minimalist set of mathematical axioms being valid, but there isn't even agreement on what that set of axioms is (though it may seem so to a layman). We still manage to get on in the world because we can do highly effective utilitarian reasoning without that being resolved.
The scientific method does not make that assumption. The scientific method only assumes/requires that doing the same thing exactly the same twice will produce the same results. Everything is built on top of that.
> that our perception allows us to interrogate these properties.
That's not about science, that's about logic. Anything that can interact with people can be detected and interrogated. It does not exclude the possibility that other things may exist but there is both no way for us to interact with those things and, as such, they have no relevance to our lives.
> that our perception allows us to interrogate these properties.
That's not about science, that's about logic. Anything that can interact with people can be detected and interrogated. It does not exclude the possibility that other things may exist but there is both no way for us to interact with those things and, as such, they have no relevance to our lives.
I look at it in a different way, like a game. Science is not a belief about the properties of the universe.
Rather, science is an inquiry into what can be learned about the universe under certain limiting assumptions. Like a game, it has certain rules, at least on a tentative basis.
To make an analogy, chess seeks to find out what kinds of tactics can defeat the enemy's King under assumptions about how the Queen can move, but does not imply a belief or faith about Queens.
Science doesn't preclude parallel games or fields of inquiry being played under different rules, such as the theologies of religions, perhaps political ideologies, literature, music, and so forth. Some people play multiple games at once. My parents were educated in theology, but became good scientists. I'm a scientist but also a musician.
In my view, the thing that makes science stick out is not its relationship to religion, but its success. I think that in the 17th century, scholars mostly assumed that science would peter out -- it would run into a brick wall, or merge with theology. That it has done neither of those things could not have been predicted at the time, and inspires a certain amount of awe today, as well as an attraction to curious minds.
Rather, science is an inquiry into what can be learned about the universe under certain limiting assumptions. Like a game, it has certain rules, at least on a tentative basis.
To make an analogy, chess seeks to find out what kinds of tactics can defeat the enemy's King under assumptions about how the Queen can move, but does not imply a belief or faith about Queens.
Science doesn't preclude parallel games or fields of inquiry being played under different rules, such as the theologies of religions, perhaps political ideologies, literature, music, and so forth. Some people play multiple games at once. My parents were educated in theology, but became good scientists. I'm a scientist but also a musician.
In my view, the thing that makes science stick out is not its relationship to religion, but its success. I think that in the 17th century, scholars mostly assumed that science would peter out -- it would run into a brick wall, or merge with theology. That it has done neither of those things could not have been predicted at the time, and inspires a certain amount of awe today, as well as an attraction to curious minds.
> Yes, this is a very well corroborated claim, but fundamentally faith based nonetheless.
This is a really weird statement to me - what is the definition of faith that you are working from?
As someone who grew up in an evangelical environment, "faith" was the belief in God and his plans ("Have faith this will work out, God would only give you what you can handle." type of thing). Outside of that context I've generally understand it to mean "believing without evidence."
A well corroborated claim is the opposite of lacking in evidence and does not require belief in God. This sounds like you are conflating "belief" and "faith," which are not the same. I believe the sun is coming up tomorrow because the preponderance of evidence says it will, that does not require faith.
This is a really weird statement to me - what is the definition of faith that you are working from?
As someone who grew up in an evangelical environment, "faith" was the belief in God and his plans ("Have faith this will work out, God would only give you what you can handle." type of thing). Outside of that context I've generally understand it to mean "believing without evidence."
A well corroborated claim is the opposite of lacking in evidence and does not require belief in God. This sounds like you are conflating "belief" and "faith," which are not the same. I believe the sun is coming up tomorrow because the preponderance of evidence says it will, that does not require faith.
It's a little more insidious than that. The great majority of people will never personally replicate a finding. They will depend entirely on the honesty of/faith in the entire chain between scientist and messanger. it just turns out it mostly works.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good?
Also the subject matter is in many cases very different, and even if someone doesn't understand the science behind something they can observe and see a tangible result.
Also the subject matter is in many cases very different, and even if someone doesn't understand the science behind something they can observe and see a tangible result.
The difference is that science, by nature, must produce testable hypotheses. I don't assume on faith that F=ma. I can make a prediction of what the force will be based on ma, and then conduct an experiment to see if that's true
I cannot test whether or not I will go to heaven after I die. This belief requires faith
I cannot test whether or not I will go to heaven after I die. This belief requires faith
Money, medicine, “tolerance”, “racism”, politically incorrect language, natural selection, “the self,” public figures (CEOs, scientists, figureheads), celebrities, recycling, wearing masks, the super bowl, the oscars, the multiverse, the big bang, psychotherapy, anti-depressants, over-eating & dieting, conspicuous traveling, visiting nature, architecture.
You can throw those into the religious categories e.g. virtue, vice, deities, origin story etc.
I should also mention “original sin” – you can guess examples of those – in america that would be “racism”.
I’m not taking good / bad position just applying religious lens to secular lifestyle.
You can throw those into the religious categories e.g. virtue, vice, deities, origin story etc.
I should also mention “original sin” – you can guess examples of those – in america that would be “racism”.
I’m not taking good / bad position just applying religious lens to secular lifestyle.
> I’m not taking good / bad position just applying religious lens to secular lifestyle.
I think your way of speaking about this doesn't do them any justice.
Frankly, reading those descriptions, I would assume you're an atheist.
I think your way of speaking about this doesn't do them any justice.
Frankly, reading those descriptions, I would assume you're an atheist.
These things typically fall under the umbrella of “culture,” of which religion is one defining aspect, to greater or lesser extents.
[deleted]
and I forgot two qualities that are both states of being & virtues: love & happiness.
Secular beliefs are invariably religious positions.
It comes down to what you believe is axiomatic about the world.
For example, asserting that life is soulless and meaningless is to take a stand on something that you cannot know. It's a religious position.
All secular beliefs stem from similarly foundationless religious positions.
Or maybe not foundationless, but without acknowledgement of the religious roots (that is, positions that require faith), which is probably worse than acknowledging that the beliefs you hold cannot be proven.
It's worse because it leads people to believe they have a leg up on those religious clods with their backwards ways. When you don't recognize the things you assume about the world require faith, there is no corrective mechanism capable of opening your mind to other possibilities. Secular people and secular beliefs are ironically very close minded.
Take all the things that you believe to be true and work backwards to first principles. What are the assumptions that those principles require to be true?
It comes down to what you believe is axiomatic about the world.
For example, asserting that life is soulless and meaningless is to take a stand on something that you cannot know. It's a religious position.
All secular beliefs stem from similarly foundationless religious positions.
Or maybe not foundationless, but without acknowledgement of the religious roots (that is, positions that require faith), which is probably worse than acknowledging that the beliefs you hold cannot be proven.
It's worse because it leads people to believe they have a leg up on those religious clods with their backwards ways. When you don't recognize the things you assume about the world require faith, there is no corrective mechanism capable of opening your mind to other possibilities. Secular people and secular beliefs are ironically very close minded.
Take all the things that you believe to be true and work backwards to first principles. What are the assumptions that those principles require to be true?
Your soul example is not axiomatic.
The actual axiom is that real things are observable/that empiricism is true. That's not even a required secular thing; secular folks can believe in souls as well, or be rationalists, where what's real does not depend on what you can observe.
But for some subset of us, the soul is not measurable, nor can youcreate a test to determine whether something has a soul or not, so souls do not exist, by comparison to something like the electrical charge.
The actual axiom is that real things are observable/that empiricism is true. That's not even a required secular thing; secular folks can believe in souls as well, or be rationalists, where what's real does not depend on what you can observe.
But for some subset of us, the soul is not measurable, nor can youcreate a test to determine whether something has a soul or not, so souls do not exist, by comparison to something like the electrical charge.
Religious faith hasn’t declined. It’s just re-branded.
As predicted by Nietzsche.
For a great modern explainer, check out Beyond Reason, by Jordan Peterson. Rule VI, abandon ideology covers this.
For a great modern explainer, check out Beyond Reason, by Jordan Peterson. Rule VI, abandon ideology covers this.
I don't know why you were downvoted for this. It's something he explicitly described. You see it in the form of "corporate values." Corporations don't have values, people have values, and the subcontext of corporate values is that leadership at those companies make their own values.[1][2]
When you hear about a corporation espousing "values," they're practicing corporate Nietzscheism. Most of the time, they're not doing it because they knowingly follow Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy, but rather that they parrot the philosophy from other corporate examples... as predicted by Nietzsche.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvaluation_of_values
[2]: https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Nietzsche_and_Values
When you hear about a corporation espousing "values," they're practicing corporate Nietzscheism. Most of the time, they're not doing it because they knowingly follow Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy, but rather that they parrot the philosophy from other corporate examples... as predicted by Nietzsche.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvaluation_of_values
[2]: https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Nietzsche_and_Values
What's interesting about stated/explicit corporate values is they are almost always based on what you'd call "slave morality", like being good, traditionally moral participants. That's because those values are for underlings and PR for the general public, though set by the top.
But of course, they are actually run under the master morality of doing what is expedient to achieve the goal (usually money).
> Most of the time, they're not doing it because they knowingly follow Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy, but rather that they parrot the philosophy from other corporate examples... as predicted by Nietzsche.
It could also be that in the modern world, most powerful institutions don't associate themselves with religion directly (like pre-modern power structures, kingdoms and empires, etc) so they have no default values to fall back on. Large corporations transcend nations and cultures, so cannot even fall back on those specific cultural values. Thus they must make their own, not necessarily to mimick others, but because having a large organization with no publicly stated values is simply confusing to us hairless apes.
But of course, they are actually run under the master morality of doing what is expedient to achieve the goal (usually money).
> Most of the time, they're not doing it because they knowingly follow Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy, but rather that they parrot the philosophy from other corporate examples... as predicted by Nietzsche.
It could also be that in the modern world, most powerful institutions don't associate themselves with religion directly (like pre-modern power structures, kingdoms and empires, etc) so they have no default values to fall back on. Large corporations transcend nations and cultures, so cannot even fall back on those specific cultural values. Thus they must make their own, not necessarily to mimick others, but because having a large organization with no publicly stated values is simply confusing to us hairless apes.
I grew up in a Protestant home (southern baptist church, 3x/week + youth activities). I have nothing against religion and I like religious people, I just don’t have strong faith anymore; the older I get the more skeptical I get of everything.
It always makes me grin how much secular political issue adherents act like religious people. You can just listen to the language (“climate deniers” etc., “the end is near in 12 years”, etc.) to tell that they are in the throes of religious fervor. I truly believe there’s something by wired into our brains to support this mode of belief, and that rationality is the exception in humans.
The problem is that religious people (including the secular ones) are not open to rational discussion critical of their beliefs. They may be polite enough to hear you out but they’re just waiting for you to take a breath so they can butt in and correct your apostasy. They already KNOW the one TRUTH and if you don’t agree on all points, you’re a heretic and nonbeliever.
You see articles from time to time how “climate deniers” should be shunned and shamed and punished for their heresy[1] (just search for “climate deniers list” or “should climate deniers be punished” or pick your issue). Same thing for lots of other issues like abortion rights[2], or gun control[3].
Christianity has had 2000 years and reformations to knock off the rough, anti-social edges. Religious doctrine has been tempered with social controls and moral codes that largely (though not completely) prevent demonizing your enemies.
Far left ideologies have a century of murdering tens of millions of people that didn’t agree with them or in some cases just didn’t cheer loudly enough.
When it comes to not murdering me or putting me in re-education camps, I trust devout Christians way more than I trust climate activists or gun control advocates or (insert advocate for secular left position here).
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/should-climate-change-deniers-be-pr... [2] https://www.liveaction.org/news/slate-hopes-watching-jessica... [3] https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/09/la-times-writer-real-es...
It always makes me grin how much secular political issue adherents act like religious people. You can just listen to the language (“climate deniers” etc., “the end is near in 12 years”, etc.) to tell that they are in the throes of religious fervor. I truly believe there’s something by wired into our brains to support this mode of belief, and that rationality is the exception in humans.
The problem is that religious people (including the secular ones) are not open to rational discussion critical of their beliefs. They may be polite enough to hear you out but they’re just waiting for you to take a breath so they can butt in and correct your apostasy. They already KNOW the one TRUTH and if you don’t agree on all points, you’re a heretic and nonbeliever.
You see articles from time to time how “climate deniers” should be shunned and shamed and punished for their heresy[1] (just search for “climate deniers list” or “should climate deniers be punished” or pick your issue). Same thing for lots of other issues like abortion rights[2], or gun control[3].
Christianity has had 2000 years and reformations to knock off the rough, anti-social edges. Religious doctrine has been tempered with social controls and moral codes that largely (though not completely) prevent demonizing your enemies.
Far left ideologies have a century of murdering tens of millions of people that didn’t agree with them or in some cases just didn’t cheer loudly enough.
When it comes to not murdering me or putting me in re-education camps, I trust devout Christians way more than I trust climate activists or gun control advocates or (insert advocate for secular left position here).
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/should-climate-change-deniers-be-pr... [2] https://www.liveaction.org/news/slate-hopes-watching-jessica... [3] https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/09/la-times-writer-real-es...
[flagged]
[flagged]
>Far left ideologies have a century of murdering tens of millions of people that didn’t agree with them or in some cases just didn’t cheer loudly enough.
There was a big debate in 2019 of communism vs capitalism among two famous professors. When one of them mentioned the communist revolution being a call for "bloody violent revolution" the audience cheered with approval. It was chilling.
https://youtu.be/qsHJ3LvUWTs?t=1295
There was a big debate in 2019 of communism vs capitalism among two famous professors. When one of them mentioned the communist revolution being a call for "bloody violent revolution" the audience cheered with approval. It was chilling.
https://youtu.be/qsHJ3LvUWTs?t=1295
Please don't take HN threads further into religious or ideological flamewar. This comment did both, god help us.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sorry Dang, didn’t mean to.
andrepd(3)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Really? How about growth and decline of Marxism vis-à-vis religion?
This thread has derailed.
A lot of people need their tribal cults ego-boosters because they can't stand on their own two feet and need the safety of a herd.
Flat Earthers, Trumpism, Bernie-ism, Tim Ferrissism, antivaxx, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, QAnon, radical political terrorism (under various religious banners), raw veganism, juice cleanse, miracle mineral solution, no maskers, forever maskers, and so on.
Flat Earthers, Trumpism, Bernie-ism, Tim Ferrissism, antivaxx, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, QAnon, radical political terrorism (under various religious banners), raw veganism, juice cleanse, miracle mineral solution, no maskers, forever maskers, and so on.
As religious faith has declined, computers have also gotten a lot faster, and there are far fewer three-camera sitcoms being shot. Also, the religiously faithful have become a lot more ideologically intense. I guess the Civil War and the Cold War were a relative time of peace compared to now, when pundits get yelled at on twitter.
Liberals (social and economic) continue to fall for the moderation fallacy and to cite the law of averages. I guess it's just six of one and half a dozen of the other, it'll all come out in the wash, and the more things change, the more things stay the same.
Liberals (social and economic) continue to fall for the moderation fallacy and to cite the law of averages. I guess it's just six of one and half a dozen of the other, it'll all come out in the wash, and the more things change, the more things stay the same.
> Secular belief contains rituals,
Wearing a mask, new weird handshaking, lockdowns.
> origin stories,
Not a leak lab, I repeat NOT a leak lab.
> deities, saints,
Pr Raoult.
> priesthood,
Doctors, CDC members.
> blasphemy,
This post.
> vice & virtue just as religion does.
(Not) taking the vaccine, (not) wearing a mask.
It's crazy how fast a new religion can globally emerge nowadays.
Wearing a mask, new weird handshaking, lockdowns.
> origin stories,
Not a leak lab, I repeat NOT a leak lab.
> deities, saints,
Pr Raoult.
> priesthood,
Doctors, CDC members.
> blasphemy,
This post.
> vice & virtue just as religion does.
(Not) taking the vaccine, (not) wearing a mask.
It's crazy how fast a new religion can globally emerge nowadays.
Is it still a religious belief if you can conclusive tell that the god exists?
Otherwise, example gods and religions include sitting on chairs
I'd agree that things like the stock market, cryptocurrency, JavaScript, hating "cancel culture", having rugs on your floors, basic arithmetic, fossil fuels, laughing at jokes, having an Instagram, having teeth, not having teeth, and so on are all religions, but religion stops being a useful definition
Otherwise, example gods and religions include sitting on chairs
I'd agree that things like the stock market, cryptocurrency, JavaScript, hating "cancel culture", having rugs on your floors, basic arithmetic, fossil fuels, laughing at jokes, having an Instagram, having teeth, not having teeth, and so on are all religions, but religion stops being a useful definition
Religious faith has declined. Social media has increased.
Atheists have faith that there is no supernatural diety.
The article says that people need not just political engagement but contemplation, standing outside the present moment and communing with something beyond. But is that a view that Americans now necessarily share? One concept that maybe has become quietly mainstream is materialism. (By that, however, I am not claiming that supporters of whatever American political camp are literally Marxists.) That is, any kind of moment away from present-day political struggles might be viewed as capitulation or as callously ignoring the plight of the oppressed.
As a non-American, I get the impression that this is a growing trend from it appearing even on e.g. internet literature forums in the last few years: poets writing abstract work at a distance from the political concerns of the present and seeking a certain timelessness and glimpse of eternity (think T.S. Eliot in “Burnt Norton”) sometimes get called, by the Americans present, socially irresponsible and doing nothing for POC.
As a non-American, I get the impression that this is a growing trend from it appearing even on e.g. internet literature forums in the last few years: poets writing abstract work at a distance from the political concerns of the present and seeking a certain timelessness and glimpse of eternity (think T.S. Eliot in “Burnt Norton”) sometimes get called, by the Americans present, socially irresponsible and doing nothing for POC.
Surely Marxism is an abstraction from present-day political struggles? Capitalism didn't appear yesterday.
If only the article included the shift from religious to environmental extremism.
That's good news! Ideology is more malleable than religion.
Well…yeah!
Religion serves a function. Even if that function is psychological.
When you take religion away, something else will fill the utility-gap.
Silly humans failing to grasp the purpose of stories/narratives.
Edit for the downvoters (who clearly don’t understand): the question “Why do science and philosophy matter?” has only religious/ideological answers.
Religion serves a function. Even if that function is psychological.
When you take religion away, something else will fill the utility-gap.
Silly humans failing to grasp the purpose of stories/narratives.
Edit for the downvoters (who clearly don’t understand): the question “Why do science and philosophy matter?” has only religious/ideological answers.
Religion is about culture, belief and community. The fading of the mainstream religions is making room for the more fundamentalist, marketing driven religious practices that are often about money and politics.
We are social animals. A religion is what scientists call a “paradigm”.
The socially acceptable ideas/paradigms of today are the religions of next century.
Hegel was right.
The socially acceptable ideas/paradigms of today are the religions of next century.
Hegel was right.
There are parts of Europe that have far more community and where people are far more social but far less religious than the US.
Religion is just a long surviving irrational belief system. It may serve a more social purpose or a less social purpose. Oppositely, the purpose of unifying a community can be served by a number of things, religion isn't necessary for that. As other mention, extreme religiosity is rising in the US even as average religion is declining but that's naturally ideological.
Religion is just a long surviving irrational belief system. It may serve a more social purpose or a less social purpose. Oppositely, the purpose of unifying a community can be served by a number of things, religion isn't necessary for that. As other mention, extreme religiosity is rising in the US even as average religion is declining but that's naturally ideological.
This is an extremely ignorant position that trivializes "religion". First of all, as I have written elsewhere, everyone is religious. The question is: how good and true is your religion? To call it merely irrational is to show a total lack of understanding of the subject. And because religions are many, it makes little sense to speak of "religion" categorically in this way because they often have little or nothing in common. You have to address and criticize particular religions for particular reasons.
Furthermore, those who defect from the religious faith on which their society or civilization was built often ride the coat tails of that religious faith without working out the logical consequences of their rejection. That is, it is better to describe the rejector as a heretic or an apostate than someone who has somehow freed himself from the faith in question and all its trappings. Many of these ideologies we're seeing are profound distortions or perversions of some selected element of Christianity or previous heretical position. That's one reason heresy was always regarded as dangerous. It comes from the Greek hairesis meaning "a taking or choosing for oneself, a choice"[0] meaning taking a cafeteria approach toward the dogmas of the faith which exist as a coherent whole. Any distortion or selectivity produces severe downstream consequences like ideology. Secularism and liberalism are examples. They are Christian heresies and cannot be comprehended apart from the Christian context within which they emerged.
Nietzsche, who was an atheist, was smart enough to see this. The "Twilight of the Idols" is all about how silly this secular triumphalism, or even just contentment, is because it fails to see that the consequences of having "killed God" are not yet fully made manifest, but eventually will be made manifest because this state of affairs is unsustainable, and that this will result ultimately in total disorientation and chaos (I disagree with Nietzsche that God was merely an instrumental idea, but he did at least grasp the parochial and myopic nature of so many atheists and secular people; for him, atheism was a terrible thing). Intellectually serious atheists are all in agreement about how terrible atheism is (i.e., not the provincial variety like Dawkins). This state produces a fertile ground for ideology, i.e., irrational half-assed false religions.
[0] https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=heresy
Furthermore, those who defect from the religious faith on which their society or civilization was built often ride the coat tails of that religious faith without working out the logical consequences of their rejection. That is, it is better to describe the rejector as a heretic or an apostate than someone who has somehow freed himself from the faith in question and all its trappings. Many of these ideologies we're seeing are profound distortions or perversions of some selected element of Christianity or previous heretical position. That's one reason heresy was always regarded as dangerous. It comes from the Greek hairesis meaning "a taking or choosing for oneself, a choice"[0] meaning taking a cafeteria approach toward the dogmas of the faith which exist as a coherent whole. Any distortion or selectivity produces severe downstream consequences like ideology. Secularism and liberalism are examples. They are Christian heresies and cannot be comprehended apart from the Christian context within which they emerged.
Nietzsche, who was an atheist, was smart enough to see this. The "Twilight of the Idols" is all about how silly this secular triumphalism, or even just contentment, is because it fails to see that the consequences of having "killed God" are not yet fully made manifest, but eventually will be made manifest because this state of affairs is unsustainable, and that this will result ultimately in total disorientation and chaos (I disagree with Nietzsche that God was merely an instrumental idea, but he did at least grasp the parochial and myopic nature of so many atheists and secular people; for him, atheism was a terrible thing). Intellectually serious atheists are all in agreement about how terrible atheism is (i.e., not the provincial variety like Dawkins). This state produces a fertile ground for ideology, i.e., irrational half-assed false religions.
[0] https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=heresy
This is an extremely ignorant position that trivializes "religion". First of all, as I have written elsewhere, everyone is religious.
-- I can't see how that statement doesn't trivialize religion at least as much. IE, if everyone is "religious", you've set a very low bar for what qualifies as religious
I think made it clear you have religious beliefs, which involve ... clearly false views of the cosmos (with the possible exception of Buddhism) and you have religious institutions, which serve a variety of social, economic and psychological purposes. A church can be club with a few nods to God or it can be something like a political party hell bent on power or it can be other things. Many American Unitarians maintain the form of religion while dropping all the God part and that's as fine as anything as far as I'm concerned.
-- I can't see how that statement doesn't trivialize religion at least as much. IE, if everyone is "religious", you've set a very low bar for what qualifies as religious
I think made it clear you have religious beliefs, which involve ... clearly false views of the cosmos (with the possible exception of Buddhism) and you have religious institutions, which serve a variety of social, economic and psychological purposes. A church can be club with a few nods to God or it can be something like a political party hell bent on power or it can be other things. Many American Unitarians maintain the form of religion while dropping all the God part and that's as fine as anything as far as I'm concerned.
> if everyone is "religious", you've set a very low bar for what qualifies as religious
And if everyone has “beliefs” then you have set a very low bar for what qualifies as belief which makes everyone a believer.
You are playing a silly power game where you dismiss other people’s conceptual schemes so you can peddle your own.
My view of the cosmos is that it is a computer simulation.
It isn’t clearly false. But it is clearly a religion. Even though it is backed up by the fact that all asymmetrical/equational reasoning (all of the Mathematics supporting Physics/Cosmology) is computational.
And if everyone has “beliefs” then you have set a very low bar for what qualifies as belief which makes everyone a believer.
You are playing a silly power game where you dismiss other people’s conceptual schemes so you can peddle your own.
My view of the cosmos is that it is a computer simulation.
It isn’t clearly false. But it is clearly a religion. Even though it is backed up by the fact that all asymmetrical/equational reasoning (all of the Mathematics supporting Physics/Cosmology) is computational.
And if everyone has “beliefs” then you have set a very low bad for what qualifies as belief.
Sure, if you look at what qualifies as a belief, it's pretty random.
My view of the cosmos is that it is a computer simulation.
It seems like the main thing this shares with religion is that it's wholly unverifiable. If you develop it in common with others and perhaps add rituals, you could qualify it along with Pastafarians [1]. But Pastafarian know it's a joke.
I might have some wholly unverifiable beliefs but I don't have a commitment to maintain such beliefs. That's where I'd locate the difference.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Sure, if you look at what qualifies as a belief, it's pretty random.
My view of the cosmos is that it is a computer simulation.
It seems like the main thing this shares with religion is that it's wholly unverifiable. If you develop it in common with others and perhaps add rituals, you could qualify it along with Pastafarians [1]. But Pastafarian know it's a joke.
I might have some wholly unverifiable beliefs but I don't have a commitment to maintain such beliefs. That's where I'd locate the difference.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
It is 100% verifiable AND falsifiable.
You can verify that Physics is captured in Mathematics.
Mathematics is a Turing-recognisable language. If the universe is Physical then it is computable. This is a trivially true belief (see Church-Turing-Deutsch principle).
You can falsify my belief by producing Physics in language other than Mathematics.
Of course, as an instrumentalist/physicist, I don’t care if my beliefs are “actually true” as long as they work.
You can verify that Physics is captured in Mathematics.
Mathematics is a Turing-recognisable language. If the universe is Physical then it is computable. This is a trivially true belief (see Church-Turing-Deutsch principle).
You can falsify my belief by producing Physics in language other than Mathematics.
Of course, as an instrumentalist/physicist, I don’t care if my beliefs are “actually true” as long as they work.
I have no idea what you conceptualise as a “religion”; or how you measure “religiosity”.
I have a very broad definition - to me any belief system (collection of concepts used for understanding the world) is a religion.
Rationalism is one religion. Irrationalism is another religion.
Any preference you have for one or the other is just your opinion. The bias that you can’t justify.
The long-surviving is statistically unlikely to be irrational. It survived the test of time - Entropy.
What is far more likely is that you don’t (yet) understand what religion is.
I have a very broad definition - to me any belief system (collection of concepts used for understanding the world) is a religion.
Rationalism is one religion. Irrationalism is another religion.
Any preference you have for one or the other is just your opinion. The bias that you can’t justify.
The long-surviving is statistically unlikely to be irrational. It survived the test of time - Entropy.
What is far more likely is that you don’t (yet) understand what religion is.
> “Why do science and philosophy matter?” has only religious/ideological answers
The question needs not be asked. But most people are not areligious, they have been raised within a context of religion where the question was asked to them. Religion begets religion because it teaches people that there are higher meanings and pushes people to seek their answers.
A true areligious person does not ponder about the meaning of life, why we are here, and what it is we need to do with ourselves. An areligious person can simply exist in peace, guided simply by ones natural desires for fun, pleasure, comfort, safety, growth and love.
The question needs not be asked. But most people are not areligious, they have been raised within a context of religion where the question was asked to them. Religion begets religion because it teaches people that there are higher meanings and pushes people to seek their answers.
A true areligious person does not ponder about the meaning of life, why we are here, and what it is we need to do with ourselves. An areligious person can simply exist in peace, guided simply by ones natural desires for fun, pleasure, comfort, safety, growth and love.
> The question needs not be asked.
That is a religious belief in denial of my factual needs.
> A true areligious person does not ponder about the meaning of life, why we are here
Great! So why does science matter to a true areligious person?
That is a religious belief in denial of my factual needs.
> A true areligious person does not ponder about the meaning of life, why we are here
Great! So why does science matter to a true areligious person?
I agree with you that in the absence of what we conventionally call "religion" doesn't mean the essential character of religion is erased. Abandoning one religion means adopting another. Abandoning a religious faith with thousands of years of refinement for some quackery invented yesterday, especially without proportional reason, is not exactly the move of a sound mind.
I also think religion serves a real need, but all real needs have real objects. And so I do not use the word "utility" here as if the content of the faith didn't matter, that religion is just some instrument that gets us this "other stuff" and has no intrinsic truth or meaning itself. A true religious faith is practiced because it is about the ultimate meaning of one's life and thus the meaning of everything else in life. Thus everything is always subordinate to one's faith. It is important for the faith to be true in order to be able to live one's life in the light of true ends, not mythical counterfeits. This does not contradict the essence of your main point, namely, the the eviction of one religion does not abolish religion. It typically just replaces it with something inferior.
> “Why do science and philosophy matter?”
I would say philosophical and religious answers. Recall that philosophy is also reflexive.
But indeed, scientism is indefensible. It is a philosophical position and thus cannot be defended scientifically. You cannot simply assert it without justification.
I also think religion serves a real need, but all real needs have real objects. And so I do not use the word "utility" here as if the content of the faith didn't matter, that religion is just some instrument that gets us this "other stuff" and has no intrinsic truth or meaning itself. A true religious faith is practiced because it is about the ultimate meaning of one's life and thus the meaning of everything else in life. Thus everything is always subordinate to one's faith. It is important for the faith to be true in order to be able to live one's life in the light of true ends, not mythical counterfeits. This does not contradict the essence of your main point, namely, the the eviction of one religion does not abolish religion. It typically just replaces it with something inferior.
> “Why do science and philosophy matter?”
I would say philosophical and religious answers. Recall that philosophy is also reflexive.
But indeed, scientism is indefensible. It is a philosophical position and thus cannot be defended scientifically. You cannot simply assert it without justification.
What is the utility of truth?
If it has none then I don’t need it.
Reflexivity is precisely where meaning/religion comes from. From the self.
If it has none then I don’t need it.
Reflexivity is precisely where meaning/religion comes from. From the self.
> What is the utility of truth?
I don't understand the question. Truth is the correspondence of the mind with the real. The value of some truths is mostly instrumental. The value of others is that it is good for us to know them for themselves. If you are using "utility" to mean "value", then maybe you accept this, but utility is typically something like a species of value, as I understand it. Pure practicality is incoherent. They needs to be a terminus.
What is "need" here? Toward what end? Need is always about ends.
> Reflexivity is precisely where meaning/religion comes from. From the self.
Meaning doesn't come from ourselves. We cannot invent meaning. Either something means something, or it doesn't. What you describe is mental illness and delusion. I also don't see what this has to do with truth/utility.
I don't understand the question. Truth is the correspondence of the mind with the real. The value of some truths is mostly instrumental. The value of others is that it is good for us to know them for themselves. If you are using "utility" to mean "value", then maybe you accept this, but utility is typically something like a species of value, as I understand it. Pure practicality is incoherent. They needs to be a terminus.
What is "need" here? Toward what end? Need is always about ends.
> Reflexivity is precisely where meaning/religion comes from. From the self.
Meaning doesn't come from ourselves. We cannot invent meaning. Either something means something, or it doesn't. What you describe is mental illness and delusion. I also don't see what this has to do with truth/utility.
> I don't understand the question. Truth is the correspondence of the mind with the real.
That is only the correspondence theory of truth.
There are many other truth-theories.
There is the coherence theory, pragmatic theory, constructivist theory, consensus theory. Why have you chosen that particular truth-theory?
I use utility in the same sense of “teleos” - end purpose.
What is the purpose of truth? What is the purpose of having a mind correspond with the real?
For your particular conception - it is impossible for any mind to correspond to the real because any given mind is only a subset of the real.
That is only the correspondence theory of truth.
There are many other truth-theories.
There is the coherence theory, pragmatic theory, constructivist theory, consensus theory. Why have you chosen that particular truth-theory?
I use utility in the same sense of “teleos” - end purpose.
What is the purpose of truth? What is the purpose of having a mind correspond with the real?
For your particular conception - it is impossible for any mind to correspond to the real because any given mind is only a subset of the real.
> Either something means something, or it doesn't.
This is a peculiar idea.
What does my cat mean?
This is a peculiar idea.
What does my cat mean?
so -
You saw sagacious Solomon | You know what came of him | To him, complexities seemed plain | He cursed the hour that gave birth to him | And saw that everything was vain | How great and wise was Solomon | The world, however, did not wait | But soon observed what followed on | It's wisdom that had brought him to this state | How fortunate the man with none
You saw courageous Caesar next | You know what he became | They deified him in his life | Then had him murdered just the same | And as they raised the fatal knife | How loud he cried "you too my son!" | The world, however, did not wait | But soon observed what followed on | It's courage that had brought him to that state | How fortunate the man with none
You heard of honest Socrates | The man who never lied | They weren't so grateful as you'd think | Instead the rulers fixed to have him tried | And handed him the poisoned drink | How honest was the people's noble son | The world, however, did not wait | But soon observed what followed on | It's honesty that brought him to that state | How fortunate the man with none
Here you can see respectable folk | Keeping to God's own laws | So far he hasn't taken heed | You who sit safe and warm indoors | Help to relieve out bitter need | How virtuously we had begun | The world, however, did not wait | But soon observed what followed on | It's fear of God that brought us to that state | How fortunate the man with none
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Brendan Michael Perry / Bertolt Brecht / John Willett
How Fortunate the Man With None lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group, BMG Rights Management
You saw sagacious Solomon | You know what came of him | To him, complexities seemed plain | He cursed the hour that gave birth to him | And saw that everything was vain | How great and wise was Solomon | The world, however, did not wait | But soon observed what followed on | It's wisdom that had brought him to this state | How fortunate the man with none
You saw courageous Caesar next | You know what he became | They deified him in his life | Then had him murdered just the same | And as they raised the fatal knife | How loud he cried "you too my son!" | The world, however, did not wait | But soon observed what followed on | It's courage that had brought him to that state | How fortunate the man with none
You heard of honest Socrates | The man who never lied | They weren't so grateful as you'd think | Instead the rulers fixed to have him tried | And handed him the poisoned drink | How honest was the people's noble son | The world, however, did not wait | But soon observed what followed on | It's honesty that brought him to that state | How fortunate the man with none
Here you can see respectable folk | Keeping to God's own laws | So far he hasn't taken heed | You who sit safe and warm indoors | Help to relieve out bitter need | How virtuously we had begun | The world, however, did not wait | But soon observed what followed on | It's fear of God that brought us to that state | How fortunate the man with none
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Brendan Michael Perry / Bertolt Brecht / John Willett
How Fortunate the Man With None lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group, BMG Rights Management
It’s spiritual, not psychological. I guess there are some connections between those two though
This is mirrored in the precipitously dropping support for freedom of speech in the US, especially among youth. As ideology becomes more intense heresy becomes less acceptable, and it seems if people can't quell heretical speech with threats of fire and brimstone they'll do it with legislation and police.
Freedom of speech isn’t a “non-ideological” ideal, and there’s not one single definition. For example, most liberals (in the classical sense) support free speech but are not absolutists; a libertarian might see that as repressive, while a progressive might see it as dangerous.
No it basically is. Nor does it have multiple definitions. The only people who claim it does are those trying to smuggle censorship in while calling it "freedom of speech".
So you think sexual harassment at work, child porn, libel and death threats should be legal? You think platforms should take no action against spam, doxxing or revenge porn? Those are all examples of censorship.
Fair points; I'm trigger happy from progressives demanding people be fired for liking a tweet and am unwilling to let them weasel their way into stupid demands but those examples that surround actual legality are fair counters.
Not that I disagree with you, but you're improperly combining the censorship actions of private individuals and of governments. Freedom of speech has never limited what actions private platform holders can take against users.
I agree with that, but rarely do I see the nominally “free speech” crowd on HN make that distinction.
We need a shared culture or believe system that will continue to shape our understanding of how we relate and treat one another.
One of the primary reason we setup FaithCircle - https://thefaithcircle.com - to connect Christians locally and globally.
One of the primary reason we setup FaithCircle - https://thefaithcircle.com - to connect Christians locally and globally.
Uhhh... this article is really out of touch with the world and I'm pretty sure they totally didn't understand at a minimum half of what they're talking about.
I'd really like to point out something that's just a fact, that was told to me, while I was abroad, by non-US citizens:
The USA is the only country where you can move to and say you're from. I can't ever move to France and call myself French. I can't move to Germany and be German, no more than I can ever move to Japan and call myself Japanese. One can however, move to the United States, and call themselves American.
There is something binding to America, much greater than religion, and it's the idea of freedom. Not even real freedom, just the god damn idea of it.
> As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen
ROFLCOPTR. Next you're going to try and sell me a tool to predict stock prices based on the weather (and I did read more after laughing my ass off at the sub heading).
To assume that religion is what held together America is itself fucking stupid. I could accept greed, war mongering, or pretty much anything except the bullshit veil of religion. This was obviously written by someone who has no lens without religion and so applies it everywhere they can. It'd be more accurate to title this article "let's blame the problems of the world on the decline of religion, because I'm to stupid and willfully ignorant to accept the complex dynamics of modern society."
I'd really like to point out something that's just a fact, that was told to me, while I was abroad, by non-US citizens:
The USA is the only country where you can move to and say you're from. I can't ever move to France and call myself French. I can't move to Germany and be German, no more than I can ever move to Japan and call myself Japanese. One can however, move to the United States, and call themselves American.
There is something binding to America, much greater than religion, and it's the idea of freedom. Not even real freedom, just the god damn idea of it.
> As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen
ROFLCOPTR. Next you're going to try and sell me a tool to predict stock prices based on the weather (and I did read more after laughing my ass off at the sub heading).
To assume that religion is what held together America is itself fucking stupid. I could accept greed, war mongering, or pretty much anything except the bullshit veil of religion. This was obviously written by someone who has no lens without religion and so applies it everywhere they can. It'd be more accurate to title this article "let's blame the problems of the world on the decline of religion, because I'm to stupid and willfully ignorant to accept the complex dynamics of modern society."
> The USA is the only country where you can move to and say you're from.
North of the border there's a vast, mythical place called Canada - about 20% of Canadians were not born there [1].
Yes, this feeling of "acquired origin" is not true of every country, but the US and Canada are seldom the only place.
In my experience, the same would happen in many South American countries if one is successful in integration - there's no snobbery about not being born there.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s-foreign-born-populat...
North of the border there's a vast, mythical place called Canada - about 20% of Canadians were not born there [1].
Yes, this feeling of "acquired origin" is not true of every country, but the US and Canada are seldom the only place.
In my experience, the same would happen in many South American countries if one is successful in integration - there's no snobbery about not being born there.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s-foreign-born-populat...
Huh? Maybe France is a bit special, but I'd wager you could move to Germany, the Netherlands or Scandinavia and call yourself [insert local identity] just as quickly as you could in the US. At least in the cities (but then again, try being a Syrian refugee in rural Alabama).
Sure, it doesn't happen on day one, but it doesn't in the US either.
Sure, it doesn't happen on day one, but it doesn't in the US either.
> The USA is the only country where you can move to and say you're from. I can't ever move to France and call myself French. I can't move to Germany and be German, no more than I can ever move to Japan and call myself Japanese. One can however, move to the United States, and call themselves American.
Not the only country, the same is true of Australia. I mentioned in another comment the Australian politician Kristina Keneally, who was born in Nevada, grew up in Ohio, didn't move to Australia until her 20s. To me, she's an Australian. I think most Australians would probably say the same thing.
Not the only country, the same is true of Australia. I mentioned in another comment the Australian politician Kristina Keneally, who was born in Nevada, grew up in Ohio, didn't move to Australia until her 20s. To me, she's an Australian. I think most Australians would probably say the same thing.
The United States has the world's largest Christian population, and its founding was directly influenced by religion; the Church of England and the Puritans.[1][2][3][4]
To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore not only history, but the present.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Colony
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_England#Establ...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Massachusetts_Bay
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Massachusetts_Bay#...
To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore not only history, but the present.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Colony
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_England#Establ...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Massachusetts_Bay
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Massachusetts_Bay#...
This isn't really the whole story. Many of the founders were Deist and/or practically irreligious.
The other important distinction is that the Church of England is essentially a state church. In many ways the U.S. Constitution, on which Nonconformists had far more influence, is its antithesis. [1] Puritanism/Nonconformism views religion as a personal or at most a local matter.
One of the references you shared has an interesting quote to this effect stating that when England tried to impose it's unelected colonial official rule, Puritan officials "were of opinion that God would never suffer me to land again in this country, and thereupon began in a most arbitrary manner to assert their power higher than at any time before." [2]
A much more accurate picture of what the U.S. started out as and has become today would be a mosaic or a patchwork of various religions and/or philosophies where one always has a choice whether to participate (or abstain).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_England#Dudley...
The other important distinction is that the Church of England is essentially a state church. In many ways the U.S. Constitution, on which Nonconformists had far more influence, is its antithesis. [1] Puritanism/Nonconformism views religion as a personal or at most a local matter.
One of the references you shared has an interesting quote to this effect stating that when England tried to impose it's unelected colonial official rule, Puritan officials "were of opinion that God would never suffer me to land again in this country, and thereupon began in a most arbitrary manner to assert their power higher than at any time before." [2]
A much more accurate picture of what the U.S. started out as and has become today would be a mosaic or a patchwork of various religions and/or philosophies where one always has a choice whether to participate (or abstain).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_England#Dudley...
That's so far from the truth, that it's a fraudulent historical claim. They were almost all religious, and the early population of both the proto-United States, and the then-declared independent states were predominantly Protestant.
I think it's a contestable claim, sure, but fraudulent is a bit doth protest too much in this case. Out of curiosity, what does being religious actually mean in the way that you used the term above?
Besides the purely superficial, "I believe in such and such" (and not backed up by any inner conviction) sort. Because a purely nominal religiosity is hardly evidence of any substantive cultural or political influence. It takes more than that to count as influence IMO.
Besides the purely superficial, "I believe in such and such" (and not backed up by any inner conviction) sort. Because a purely nominal religiosity is hardly evidence of any substantive cultural or political influence. It takes more than that to count as influence IMO.
One aspect of religion I appreciate is that these aspects are well codified and debated – i.e. much more explicit.
In the secular world these aspects exist but they are implicit, making them difficult to debate and attack.
Few people understand that most religions e.g. Judaism and Christianity have an apologetic discipline – a deliberate arm open to debate.
The secular world would benefit from adopting more formal definitions of their belief system. I think that would reduce the conflict and neurosis that comes from engaging a nebulous system.
If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.