site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In my circles on twitter, the Mystical Christianity conversation is cropping up again. It tends to come around every few months, at least for the past year I've been on the site.

Tyler Alterman writes a long post on it that is mostly summed up here:

There’s an emerging branch of mystical Christianity that is very intriguing. I think of it as “Imaginal Christianity” (IC). You could also call it Mythic Christianity or Jungian Christianity

IC’s main selling point is that it’s compatible with a scientific mindset. I list the tenets I’ve observed below. By doing so, I try to document what I see ppl practicing. (I am not an Imaginal Christian.)

God = the ground of being. It is both presence and void, shows its love by embracing all things that exist & affording the path to salvation through communion with it

“The Lord”: a useful anthropomorphism of god. ICs use imagination to turn something incomprehensible (god) into an imaginal presence that we can speak to and which speaks to us through words, silence, and beyond

Jesus of Nazareth: a person who came much closer than most people to theosis – ie embodying how god would behave if it acted in human form with full recognition of its own nature. By doing so, Jesus genuinely did show us a path to salvation. (Although – here’s the heretical part – other people like Gautama Buddha might show us a complementary paths.) Thanks to the degree that Jesus was charismatic and the degree to which his followers admired him, they created and/or realized an imaginal being called Christ

Christ: a mind that continues to guide humans to salvation, directly inspired by Jesus of Nazareth (whose body is now dead). There are many names for the nature of this type of mind: thoughtform, tulpa, egregore, archetype, living symbol, yidam, memetic entity. His metaphysical status is similar to the way Tibetan lamas seem to regard their deities, as manifestations of Mind. This doesn’t make him less divine; he represents a latent divine potential available to all people. We see archetypes similar to Christ manifest across cultures: Osiris, Dionysus, Krishna, etc. However, Christ is is our culture’s instantiation of the archetype – his specific teachings and the story of his life are meaningful to us


Now to broaden this outside of just Christianity, I'm curious what the Motte thinks of symbolism as a whole? I will admit my own path back to religion came via a symbolic pathway, although I believe it goes far deeper than this.

That being said, from my short time here it seems like most of the Christians on this site aren't that into symbolism, and tend to be more "rationalist" and materialist in their worldview. Again, might have a mistaken impression.

I know this is a rationalist offshoot forum so not sure I expect a ton of mystical/symbolic discussion, but I'm kind of surprised by how little there is given how many professed religious folks there are here. And I do think from a Culture War angle, that materialism is definitely losing steam (especially amongst the right) as we see more and more cracks form in the edifice of Expert Scientific Opinion(tm).

On a deeper note, the symbolic worldview is all about seeing the world through the language of God (or meaning if you prefer), in a way that helps people bind together and understand events in the same way. Right now we are in "darkness" symbolically because, well, nobody can interpret events the same way! I personally think a return to the symbolic is inevitable given how confused everything is at the moment, although the transition may not be smooth or easy.

This is basically just the modern progressive Christianity that dominates many denominations in the US and Europe, with a shiny new label. (American Christianity in particular is very fond of coming up with shiny new labels for not particularly new ideas.) I would say that the majority of these congregations don't really "believe" in any serious way, either emotionally or intellectually. In the abstract, they believe in God because the universe is a big dark scary place without some supreme being giving reason to it all, and they believe in an afterlife because just ceasing to exist like a snuffed candle after a few brief years is a pretty scary thing to wrap your head around, and they believe in Jesus because he said we should all be nice to each other, which is nice. But do they have any serious expectation that they will ever witness miracles or angels, or hear God speaking to them, or really think about whether heaven and hell are real places? I don't think so.

I am more familiar with Protestantism than Catholicism, but I suspect it's not dissimilar there; the Catholic Church at least puts on an outward show of being more Serious about the whole thing, but I'll bet even the average Catholic priest doesn't really, truly believe in angels and demons and would freak out as much as any secular person if he experienced something actually supernatural.

So I remain unconvinced by this attempt to reconcile religion and reason. You might as well call it "Secular Christianity."

There are people who are very serious and sincerely believe, and on the one hand, I have a little more respect for them for really committing to the bit, and also find them a little less trustworthy.

I understand the concept of a "God-shaped hole," but I think it's mostly both a desire for a shared community (I do not doubt all the surveys showing religious people are on the whole happier and mentally healthier than secular people) and the need for Answers (see above, the fear of death and an empty, unfeeling universe that doesn't care about a speck of atoms like you).

I was never an Angry Atheist, but I did go through my smarmy, condescending Internet Atheist phase where dunking on creationists and born-agains was fun. Since then I have mellowed out and I have more understanding for the religious, and am kind of perversely fascinated with @WhiningCoil's trajectory, but while I've gone through phases where I've thought that joining a church might be "good" for me in some sense, I remain a materialist atheist and it's very unlikely anything will convince me to change. @FCfromSSC writes some very cogent criticisms of materialism and I get his point that materialists often base their "knowledge" on constructs no more inherently trustworthy than faith, but that just tells me no one can really "know" anything. Maybe for some people that leaves belief wide open as a choose-your-own-adventure, but I find myself unable to just make myself believe things. "You don't have an answer for how the universe started, therefore Jesus" is such a huge leap that I don't understand how people get there, though clearly many do.

No argument will convince me to just "reason" my way into accepting Jesus or Mohammad PBUH or the Tao. (Don't try; you do not have an argument I have not heard before.) The only thing that would trigger a conversion in me is witnessing something with my own eyes. Show me an angel, so to speak. Which means going to a church would always seem fake and disrespectful to me, even if the church somehow accorded with my beliefs in every other way and my intentions were pro-social.

So back to this "Mystical Christianity." I could get more or less the same experience at a United Methodist church. Or, stripped of even the pretense of Christianity, a Unitarian Universalist congregation. (I've actually checked them out. They are nice people but the utter lack of seriousness makes me think I'd rather become Mennonite or Mormon if I were going to go that route. At least those people really believe something. Also, UUs are the very wokest of wokes nowadays.) Freemasonry, yeah, has some of that mysticism and ritual but strikes me as sort of Boy Scouts for areligious grownups.

Does being "religious" actually change anyone's beliefs or behavior? Not really. I've long been of the opinion that being religious has almost no impact on an individual's character and says little about him. Christianity seems particularly adept at molding itself to the beliefs of the believer, but in essentially every religion, you see that kind, compassionate, charitable people say their religion tells them they are supposed to be kind, compassionate, and charitable, and cruel, judgmental, and punitive people say that their religion says they are supposed to be cruel, judgmental and punitive. That God always has a tendency to coincidentally agree with his followers' beliefs is not a new observation. That some people want to believe there is some kind of God-shaped thing that doesn't actually make any demands of them, either to believe uncomfortable things or change their behavior, is also not new. It's "spiritual but not religious" dressed up as being kinda religious because they like the costume. I think these people grasping for "mystical Christianity" or some other dressed up weak tea New Age spirituality should either commit and go to a real hardcore trad church that will make them study and do some theology, or admit they just want a social circle that will help soothe their existential angst.

but I'll bet even the average Catholic priest doesn't really, truly believe in angels and demons and would freak out as much as any secular person if he experienced something actually supernatural.

You're probably not wrong, sadly! I don't have a ton of experience with the Catholic church so I can't say one way or another, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct here. 100% with Protestants, I don't think most of them genuinely believe at all.

I will say though, it is different with Orthodox clergy! Again, insofar as my own experience is a guide. The Orthodox clergy I have talked to genuinely believe, discuss supernatural phenomena happening to them and other congregants, and are incredibly committed to the preternatural as a part of their worldview. Now, this doesn't mean all the laity deeply believe and that's a separate problem, but I have noticed a big difference.

I remain a materialist atheist and it's very unlikely anything will convince me to change. @FCfromSSC writes some very cogent criticisms of materialism and I get his point that materialists often base their "knowledge" on constructs no more inherently trustworthy than faith, but that just tells me no one can really "know" anything. Maybe for some people that leaves belief wide open as a choose-your-own-adventure, but I find myself unable to just make myself believe things. "You don't have an answer for how the universe started, therefore Jesus" is such a huge leap that I don't understand how people get there, though clearly many do.

Hmmm, I'm not sure you are fully grasping the point @FCfromSSC is making. I may be butchering it, but the basic idea is an invitation to interrogate your own axioms. You may say nobody can really "know" anything, but regardless, to live and function in the world you do have to "know" things and have some axioms. Perhaps this idea that nobody can "know" anything is an axiom itself. Once you start to dig deeper into the structures of your beliefs, you find that a lot of them are built on houses of cards.

As for the leap - it's not as ridiculous as it may seem. It does take some reading and some genuine motivation and learning, but I'd recommend some books on Biblical symbolism like The Language of Creation, or Peterson's Holy are We Who Wrestle. If you want a deeper, historiographical lens, check out Violence Unveiled - Humanity at the Crossroads.

No argument will convince me to just "reason" my way into accepting Jesus or Mohammad PBUH or the Tao. (Don't try; you do not have an argument I have not heard before.) The only thing that would trigger a conversion in me is witnessing something with my own eyes. Show me an angel, so to speak.

These beings don't necessarily appear to us everyday, especially if we don't try to reach out to them. Our minds can be quite closed. Have you tried fasting, or camping alone in the wilderness for 3+ days? Or, alternatively and frankly much riskier, you could try psychedelics and pray to an angel and ask for a sign. He who seeks shall find, and to he who knocks, it shall be opened.

Does being "religious" actually change anyone's beliefs or behavior? Not really. I've long been of the opinion that being religious has almost no impact on an individual's character and says little about him

My conversion dramatically changed my own actions and character, in concrete ways. I have seen and heard many other stories of this being true. I do agree in general though that too often Christianity is worn as a sort of facade of piety while doing whatever you want. Christ had that in his own day, and I'm sure we will always have religious hypocrites amongst us. I am hypocritical in my own ways. That doesn't mean that He isn't alive, and active in the world.

Sigh. Yes, as I said, I've heard this before. Most nonbelievers or lapsed believers who've made a sincere attempt at belief have. "Read these books. Try meditating. Try prayer. Try fasting. Try LSD." It's always that one thing you haven't tried that will convince you, and if you have tried them, well, you didn't do it right, or you didn't approach it with a truly open mind.

My conversion dramatically changed my own actions and character, in concrete ways.

I believe it changed your actions. I doubt it really changed your character. Were you a bastard who turned into a nice guy? Or did you just stop swearing and cheating on your wife? I mean, I've heard of people who went from amoral monsters to devout good samaritans after a road to Damascus experience, but it seems pretty rare and most often involves coming off a drug or alcohol addiction, which brings into question whether it was the drugs or the lack of religion making them a bastard before

Sigh. Yes, as I said, I've heard this before. Most nonbelievers or lapsed believers who've made a sincere attempt at belief have. "Read these books. Try meditating. Try prayer. Try fasting. Try LSD." It's always that one thing you haven't tried that will convince you, and if you have tried them, well, you didn't do it right, or you didn't approach it with a truly open mind.

Just curious! Not trying to do a gotcha. I'm impressed you've tried all of that my man. Sad to hear that you didn't have the same experience I had. Not out of like, contemptuous pity or anything but I genuinely do find my life is way better. I wish more folks were able to find more meaning in their lives.

Not that you necessarily did anything wrong. Not sure what to tell you, I'm not an expert on these matters.

I believe it changed your actions. I doubt it really changed your character. Were you a bastard who turned into a nice guy? Or did you just stop swearing and cheating on your wife? I mean, I've heard of people who went from amoral monsters to devout good samaritans after a road to Damascus experience, but it seems pretty rare and most often involves coming off a drug or alcohol addiction, which brings into question whether it was the drugs or the lack of religion making them a bastard before.

Hmm I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "character" here. My conversion did help me overcome some drug and alcohol issues, so perhaps that had something to do with it!

But when it comes to "drugs or lack of religion," and if the religion is the only way to overcome the pull of drugs, how does that invalidate the power of religion?

Oh, I didn't say I've tried all that. Definitely not the LSD.

Oh.... well why are you so contemptuous about it all? If you haven't tried the suggestions people have offered to open yourself to the supernatural, what makes you so confident that you are right?

I said I haven't tried everything (like LSD). I certainly did try some things. I'm not contemptuous, but I am pretty confident, and you're doing exactly what I predicted: if there's one "opening yourself to the supernatural" that I missed, then clearly I'm just contemptuous and didn't really try. Like I said, I have heard all the angles and apologetics.

Hmm I suppose I am, though from your reply it sounded like you had done none of those things.

I could go down a whole rabbit whole on history and the symbolic worldview versus materialism etc but idk I don’t want to evangelize if you aren’t into it hah. Thanks for following up.

I have tried all of them except the LSD, which Im not going to. Didnt do shit.