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 -
And yet you’re insistent on dating women who are part of communities dedicated to those principles, and considering yourself a part of them.
I assure you, the women I am dating in those communities don’t have a strong opinion either way about the age of the Earth. These churches are not the kinds of churches to have lectures on things like “20 proofs the Earth is under 10,000 years old”.
If you’re making an argument that people still seriously believe the sun rotates around the earth, that kind of nonsense only exists on YouTube, and I’m pretty sure flat earth advocates are actually trolling us.
I guess I should begin by stating I’m not making an apologetic for young earth creationism — only for Christianity understood as a set of creeds, period.
The larger context of your post was that the Bible is not reliable, the existence of Jesus is flimsy, and historic Christian creeds are not reliable. That kind of language is rarely limited to purely views on Genesis, and taken to an extreme leads easily to the deconstruction of the whole religion. It’s more that general viewpoint, rather than any particular belief, that I find it hard to believe religious women are interested in. But it’s possible you hail from the more mainline/theologically modernist traditions, where those views are common — in which case, boy, should you hear what evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics think of them. If you think what they say about the LDS is bad, you should hear how they describe Episcopalians.
My view, fundamentalist as it is, is that a faith should live or die based on its truth claims, and if historic creeds are false, the faith should crumble into dust and be buried by history. So perhaps we bring a different psychology to the table, which explains are tension with each other’s viewpoints. I’m actually a big admirer of empiricism, and I suspect we agree far more than you may think — but I do think ideas deserve to be taken all the way, and have a great deal of respect, actually, for the classical liberals who said, “death to religion,” and started forcefully disestablishing churches. I respect a strong opinion held strongly.
I see how a reader could read my earlier comment as a direct discussion of age of the earth or heliocentrism debates — but my point is rather that “the Bible is not reliable and religion must bend to empiricism” isn’t exactly a popular point of view in Christian circles, and I have an inherent suspicion — which may well be untrue and unnecessary in this case! — of people who try to join religious communities to try to get with religious women, while avoiding actual commitments to the community and joining in the beliefs that shape and ground it. I dislike milquetoast or opportunistic religion about as much as you dislike fundamentalism — but I am, after all, a child of evangelicals who went atheist and then back to Christianity… taking religious ideas intensely seriously and deconstructing and reconstructing them to the fullest possible extent is rather my thing.
It’s not really relevant, but I do have a friend who’s a flat earther, and believes that NASA was founded to cover up the conspiracy. Boy, is he wrong… but boy, is he fun to talk to!
Actually, I believe in two levels of standards of evidence:
I believe in a low bar of evidence when giving people emotional support and guidance. The Bible is reliable in so much as it gives me comfort or allows me to make a point which emotionally comforts someone.
I believe in a very high bar of evidence when the Bible is used as a hammer to make one feel superior to another person. If someone is going to use the Bible to say something like, for example, that Mormons are all going to Hell, I’m going to bring out the point that the Bible is so unreliable, we can’t even be sure Jesus existed. [1]
The Catholics believe the Bible is inspired and not inerrant, and it makes a lot more sense to see it as an inspired book. When we make the Bible inerrant, not only do we have to embrace things like young earth creationism, we also have to believe things like Jesus cleared the temple twice (John 2:15 vs. Matthew 21:12-13/Mark 11:15-17/Luke 19:45-48).
[1] I do believe in Jesus’s existence, and that he was God, but I don’t let those beliefs get in the way of the connection I have with my very close friends who are Muslim. Indeed, I do Muslim prayers with them and give them spiritual comfort.
You’re entitled to your spirituality, but “I tell you comforting things I don’t really believe if it helps you feel better” is a point that’s pretty incompatible with truth, and truth-seeking. I respect sincere atheism more than I respect therapeutic moralism that decides what is true based on what feels good.
I also am guessing I was correct in arguing you’re mainline, or at least come from a more modernist/liberal theological tradition.
I’m not sure we’re going to see eye to eye. That’s fine. But I strongly disagree that the point of religion, or irreligion, or ideas in general, is to make people feel good and not cause harm — sometimes the truth hurts, and that’s good! Living in accordance with truth is the highest duty of man, even if it hurts.
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