ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
20hr ago
I'm still pretty doubtful that if one examines the continental->critical philosophy pipeline that developed into wokeism, one would find a pool of Christian theologians doing Christian stuff, even if heretical.
Scoop out the Holy trinity
There are still plenty of non-trinitarians, and they aren't the ones who created wokeism, either. You have to go full atheism first. At every step of the development of wokeism, it's people who went full atheism first. As The Rightful Caliph observed later in the process:
Most movement atheists weren’t in it for the religion. They were in it for the hamartiology [the study of sin, in particular, how sin enters the universe]. Once they got the message that the culture-at-large had settled on a different, better hamartiology, there was no psychological impediment to switching over. We woke up one morning and the atheist bloggers had all quietly became social justice bloggers. Nothing else had changed because nothing else had to; the underlying itch being scratched was the same. They just had to CTRL+F and replace a couple of keywords.
I suppose one could try to argue that it's impossible for an atheist sect to have a hamartiology, but I think it would require argument for why Scott is wrong.
Do you really think that if one scratches the likes of Marx, Gramsci, Adorno, Marcuse, Derrida, Foucault, etc., one primarily finds a bunch of Christians doing Christian stuff? Nah, they thoroughly rejected any sort of god-based anything, went full atheism, and then built an atheism-based epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics. They weren't Christians doing Christian stuff and deciding to just scoop out the trinity and keep what remains. It's incredibly different on almost every level, down to the base. It seems that there's maybe one kinda similarity if you squint really really hard, but even that has a totally different basis and totally different implications.
ControlsFreak
1d ago
You missed answering the second part. What is "most"? What is the denominator? Can you count them on one hand? I hate to do it, but if you persist in avoiding the question, I probably have to assume that you've only ever read one, and that one was probably cherry-picked to make you angry rather than thinking rationally.
ControlsFreak
1d ago
Were those a requirement of the funding agency?
Yes. And the funding agencies were (and maybe still are) routinely including this stuff. Maybe the government ones aren't now, but they will again as soon as a Democrat is in charge. There's no way to keep that from happening without dismantling the system entirely.
Then the "system" that you're referring to dismantling entirely here is the government, right? Right?
Most of the ones I've read were fed to me... by people outraged at their being canceled because there was clearly no DEI in there. But there was.
"Most of the ones". I'm trying to parse this. If you've only seen one, and it was 1/1, then that would be more of an "all" than a "most". If you've seen two, and it was 1/2, I'm not sure that's "most" rather than "half"; if it was 2/2, probably we're back to "all". Maybe you've seen three, and it was 2/3? Were these two fed to you by someone else filtering and pointing you specifically to those two folks complaining about being canceled, at which point you read the proposals and saw that there was, in fact, DEI in them? How'd you come across the third? What was it like?
ControlsFreak
2d ago
Were those a requirement of the funding agency? I'm pretty sure the last time we did this, people got hung up on a telescope or something in South America that threw in, "Maybe some $nonwhite$ locals will, like, tour our facility and get interested in science or something," just to try to placate the gov't. I was pretty happy placing that blame entirely on the gov't, as I doubt the proposal writers cared other than to put something in there to satisfy the gov't requirement.
But I also doubt you've seen "enough". Can you count them on one hand? Were they fed to you by a selection process that was specifically picking the problematic ones, or was it something of a random sample? I'm sure there are other academics who were happy to do it or even wanted to do it more, but let's get some info on your sample. Have you read any that were primarily just about engineering/math? Or did you just get some cherry picked ones?
ControlsFreak
2d ago
The grants are politically or ideologically written, peer review is largely logrolling, papers are nonsense (Replication Crisis).
How many engineering/math grant proposals or papers have you read? Peer review is broken, though.
ControlsFreak
2d ago
Yeah, I know a guy who makes and sells mini (micro?) jet engines in his garage. TBF, he has nice fabrication machines in his garage, but still. I'd have to confirm how much thrust they actually produce, but production at that level of sophistication is probably sufficient for something that needs to take one attack drone on one trip, without significant efficiency concerns, and a reasonable failure rate is acceptable.
I don't think that was the matter in question. The way you had originally put it was, "what base theology did Wokeism form from"? This is quite the shift of goalposts.
If this is the test for the original question, then don't we have to conclude that your own particular sect of atheism also formed from the base theology of Christianity? Or did you uniquely possess tabula rasa into adulthood in a world otherwise full of mere mortals? It's making the question meaningless. Certainly not about theological development.
More options
Context Copy link