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 -
Interesting to note that miracles which can withstand scientific scrutiny are exclusively associated with Roman Catholicism.
This is backwards reasoning though. The only miracles that are investigated with scientific scrutiny are ones associated with the Catholic church, because a full investigation is required if a miracle is to be used as grounds for beatification. This is because Catholicism has a deep history of scholasticism and the supremacy of reason, where the other traditions tend to lean more towards mysticism. Not exclusively, but that's my understanding of the general trend.
Protestants don't scientifically investigate miracles to that level, period, although there are plenty reported. I would instinctively consider it almost sacrilegious to do so. Likewise with the Orthodox, and some of theirs have a similar level of attestation (look up e.g. Our Lady of Zeitoun). Could it be that... all Christians who pray to God can receive miracles?
It may be that poor orthodox organization leads to their miracles going uninvestigated, but there are also some high profile orthodox miracles which are confirmed fakes(eg thé Easter fire. Now thé odd pious fraud is not proof against, but there is AFAIK no counterbalancing from well-investigated phenomena.
Protestant miracles seem like a general mish mash, and in fact using the term ‘Protestant’ in such a way seems like a sin against proper argumentation. Y’all are a varied bunch- is there a branch/denomination/movement within Protestantism that has repeated verifiable miracles? Any equivalent to the blood of st Januarius or thé spring at Lourdes or the series of Eucharistic miracles?
Mormonism’s supernatural claims have been investigated and falsified. The golden tablets are, per their own internal investigation, gobbledygook.
I can only speak to my experience. I grew up Catholic and was part of the RCC until I was about 33, at which point I left for essentially non-denominational Protestantism. Not for a specific doctrinal reason, but because it's where God was drawing me. That's where I met my wife. Now we attend a Calvary Chapel, which is nominally non-denom but with its own specific distinctives.
In my entire time in the RCC, I never encountered anyone who had experienced a miracle (as far as I know, they may have just kept quiet about it). In contrast, in the evangelical world I hear quite often about miracles taking place in people's lives, healings, financial provision, frankly I consider my marriage a miracle but I won't go into the details that convince me of this. But if I were to suggest to someone at my church that we should bring in some scientists to prove these were miracles, they would (I think rightly) consider that ridiculous and sacrilegious. In the same way that doing a double-blind study to determine if prayer works at improving health outcomes is both ridiculous and sacrilegious. To quote Jesus quoting the OT: you shall not test the Lord your God.
Catholics just have a different mindset about these things. They want to understand everything. That's what leads to thinks like trans-substantiation (we have to know exactly how the Eucharist works, it can't be a mystery).
What you're referring to is what Catholics would probably call 'guardian angel stories', which nobody's going to investigate. 'My guardian angel got me this job interview or stopped a car accident or whatever'. Do evangelicals point out miracles that didn't happen to them, more than on the level of FOAF tales, like Catholics or Orthodox do?
That 'didn't happen to them'? Of course. I'm not sure what level of attestation you're looking for specifically.
Here's an interesting question. Do you consider gifts of the spirit to be miracles? Most Evangelicals believe that gifts like prophecy and speaking in tongues are still extant among the church, and I've heard pretty credible anecdotes of these gifts - for instance, a pastor at a conference spoke in tongues, but there was no interpreter so they all moved on, only for the Iranian bartender to come up afterwards and reveal the man had been praising God in Farsi (he ended up converting). That's the kind of miracles I hear about, multiply attested but still personal, and oriented towards people's salvation and faith. Maybe Catholic miracles are the same? I'm not entirely sure. Seeing a ghost, to me, wouldn't be something that reinforced my faith or built my relationship with God. I wonder if Hispanic populations are more likely to be moved by things like apparitions which is why they all seem to happen in Hispanic countries?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What miracles can withstand scientific scrutiny?
An incomplete list would start with the tilma of Juan Diego, thé healings associated with Lourdes, and the consistently similar Eucharistic miracles. There are lots and lots of others, these are just unusually well studied(and in some cases repeated) miracles.
More options
Context Copy link
The existence of the universe?
Exclusively associated with Catholicism?
Serves me right for replying from the raw comment feed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Creation myths have a pretty terrible track record for scientific scrutiny.
If you’re suggesting that being unverifiable counts as “withstanding scrutiny,” then I have a bridge to sell you.
I'm saying the exietence of the universe will never be answerable by science. You can't get an answers for "why is there something rather than nothing" by looking at it from within the something.
It's not even a particularly controversial observation from what I understand.
Okay, sure. I still can’t see what that’s got to do with @2rafa’s request.
If I try to sell you a bridge, and I don’t allow you to see it, if I insist that it cannot be seen at all, I’m not withstanding your scrutiny. I’m avoiding it.
I do have a bad habit of replying directly from the comment feed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To my layman understanding of miracles there has to be an established understanding of a secular mechanism which is then defied by the alleged miracle. The existence of the universe does not match this because we have no established understanding of a secular mechanism according to which the universe couldn't (or could) exist.
Can that which encompasses all ever be extraordinary?
I don't think that this is the definition of "miracle" used by the Bible, or any other religious text, written before the scientific method was established.
Isn't that literally what secular humanism was trying to sell as an alternative to religion?
I do not think "you can't explain what is literally beyond known existence" is a criticism that destroys secular humanism.
I'm saying that "existence is amazingly extraordinary" (backed by hours of hypnotic monologues by Sagan, Dawkins, or Tyson) has been literally what secular humanists were saying in order to generate a sense of awe similar to that of religious epiphanies.
Your particular argument destroys any such attempt. Even if secular humanism remains ubdeboonked, it's left barren of any higher goal.
I don't know about lectures, but I've heard the vastness of the universe as a kind of awe. I don't think most secularism is sold on miracles anyway and when most people say miracles they are more talking about supernatural feats of wonder.
Regardless multiple faith traditions are filled with people having religious epiphanies indeed many religions have been started based on religious epiphanies so those don't seem very useful in discerning Truth.
More options
Context Copy link
I see. Personally, it's plenty good enough for me. I notice a pattern where I get into an argument with someone who is against secularism/materialism, and every time it's some variant of "those guys back then made all those promises about it". I never needed to hear those promises or believe in them to prefer secularism to religion.
Conversely, if the promises of religion about eternal life in heaven are not true, then is the preaching and the faith not completely in vain?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And God said, "Let there be a Big Bang."
according with recent Webb observations
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link