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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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:
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.
I’m a believer in Biblical historicity: actual resurrection, actual flood, actual week of creation, actual Trinity, actual Holy Spirit working in the world through the love of born-again Christians who are less than avatars and more than paladins, occasionally though miracles.
These “secular Christians” or “Imaginal Christians” seem to be the Sadducee equivalent to Evangelicals’ Pharisees: the former not believing in resurrection but nonetheless attempting to increase the general welfare and wisdom in the world, the latter proclaiming the glory of the miraculous and spiritual… as long as all the rules are followed.
What was old is new again.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link