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 -
This reaction - this visceral defensiveness, this searing chip on the shoulder, this hyper-vigilance that reads contempt and derision into any insinuation that people like you have different optimal life strategies, different skill sets, different strengths and weaknesses than people like me - is a pattern that I observe constantly, and it reinforces my thesis. Not a single thing I said was intended to call anything about your lifestyle worse than mine; in fact, I explicitly acknowledged that for a vast number of people, the Shire life is better and more fulfilling than life in the hyper-complex modern city. This is not because those people are dumb and bad, while I’m smart and good. These people have much stronger moral fiber than I do, and they are incredible at the roles which they perform, both in their local context and within civilization as a whole. Their life path is lower-variance than the big-city striver’s life path, and as someone who basically lit my twenties on fire in pursuit of the high-variance path and am now figuring out how to pick up the pieces, I am acutely aware of the very obvious upsides of your preferred life path.
I believe - at least, my reading of history and my good-faith observation of the world around me leads me to tentatively favor the belief that - humans have largely-hereditary proclivities which make a given individual better suited for some life paths than others. While I absolutely do believe that some people have particular proclivities which make them unworthy of life in any society which I want to live in, I also think that the vast majority of people have important roles to play, and that a healthy society uses subtle social engineering to, as effectively as possible, sort people into the roles which suit them best. In the case of the small town life, that role is fairly broad, in contrast to the more highly-specialized roles needed in complex urban life. It is an admirable and vitally-important role. I wish there was a way I could have this conversation without you guys immediately detecting derision and contempt, and I’m still striving in earnest to figure out a way to do so, but as I said, your optimal strategy is to over-detect outside threats from arrogant social engineers who want to exploit you and destroy your way of life, so it’s natural for you to detect that in me, regardless of what I believe I’m trying to do.
What’s complex about modern life? A mass the size of a paper clip can destroy entire cities. Giant metal machines move things around. We’re surrounded by a ‘concrete jungle’ most of our lives. There are constant loud noises and smells and all sorts of things we didn’t evolve to adapt to.
The key is that Christianity hasn’t evolved to adapt to this either. Religion must reconcile itself with the philosophical issues science and mass industry bring to the fore. Is God logical? Well Protestants destroyed that idea long ago.
Does God like science? If we fully read from the book of Nature, do we become God?
Why would god create a world where we can have atrocities like WW1 and WW2? I know I know the problem of evil has been endlessly rehashed. But clearly the philosophical answer was not good enough to keep the faith for most people after those wars. Modernity has broken our spirituality, and so religion must adapt if it wants to fulfill its role.
Or you can try and win through a fertility race or something, but as @aqouta points out that’s gonna be a bad time for all involved.
I’m trying to make a larger point about how the power and understanding we’ve gained from scientific knowledge have fundamentally changed our relationship with the world. The average slob can’t escape this cultural change, it’s “in the water” so to speak.
Maybe one day I’ll take time to summarize the slow demise of meaning in western society.
I was trying to evoke the dramatic changes to our understanding of the world that science brought in with poetic language.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your thesis is that the radical changes of modernity demand changes from philosophy and religion. From my perspective, the problem is that none of the claims you're making seem accurate.
Humans still grow and love and die, exactly as they always have for all of known history. They still have an innate hunger for meaning and justice, chase ambitions, nurse hatreds, exact revenge, offer forgiveness exactly as they always have. A mass the size of a paperclip could destroy entire cities then as well as now (presuming you're referring to hypervelocity meteorites or something, because otherwise it can't do this now either...), and further, the destruction of cities by war, plague or disaster is not a novel development. people were living their lives in profoundly disagreeable, unnatural environments since the invention of slave labor.
I defy you to describe an actual philosophical issue raised by science or the modern world generally. It does not seem to me that such issues exist. Atheism is at least as old as the written word; people reasoning about the chain of causality is at least a few thousand years old. Nothing we have developed has actually cracked the fundamental question of how an entropic universe can originate itself, or offered any answer to the questions that plagued the ancients. Nothing we've developed has in any way changed human nature or the fundamentals of human existence in even the slightest way.
...Beyond this, I suppose it comes down to how one reads the history of modernity, and what lessons one draws. We agree, at least that modernity pushed Christianity out of its central place in society, but we disagree strongly on how and why this was accomplished, and therefore on our conclusions about what is likely to happen next. You see Christianity failing when confronted with questions it couldn't answer. I see people turning away from Christianity in pursuit of a series of dazzling lies, which are now unsustainable. If you are right, Christianity will continue to decline and eventually go extinct. If I am right, modernity will implode, and we Christians will be left with the work of picking up the wreckage.
"Is the scientific method a useful tool for uncovering reliable knowledge about the physical world?"
Religions generally make claims about moral truths and historical truths, and the scientific method isn't competent at measuring either. But philosophy covers all types of knowledge and claims to truth, and both science and religion fall under its broad sweep, if in significantly different sub-areas.
That's a fact, not an issue, I'd say. There never has been significant disagreement over it from any side.
Modernism disagreed, and claimed that since the material was all that exists, nothing in the cosmos fell outside its purview. It claimed that Science, properly applied, could engineer away the problems inherent to the human condition. Christianity claimed it would not, in fact, be able to do that. A century later, it's pretty clear Christianity was correct and the modernists were wrong, and it only took murdering a hundred million humans and enslaving and immiserating a few billion more to establish that.
Hypothetically, sure. In practice, it doesn't seem to me that philosophy as a formal discipline actually delivers much in the way of actionable insight, certainly does not do so better than the best of religion, and in fact seems to converge on religion when it is operating well.
In some cases, yes. In others, no. Death by childbirth has been a plague on humanity since forever; in Genesis, a painful and dangerous birth is listed as one of the common curses of humankind up there with mortality itself and the need to work to eat. Yet, while this particular plague is not yet fully healed, I daresay we have been making some good progress on that front. There was a time, not so long ago, when it was completely normal and unremarkable for most parents to have to bury most of their children, and even a young and perfectly healthy woman had to seriously fear death every time one was born. In wealthy parts of the world, that is now virtually forgotten. So that's one.
Are you taking Communism, specifically, as sole representative of Modernism as a whole? Because I'd argue that the Green Revolution and smallpox eradication have at least as good a claim of representing the application of science and rationality to society, and the number of lives those saved far outstrips the number taken by the most murderous regimes.
More options
Context Copy link
Certain people claimed that we could engineer away certain problems inherent to the human condition. Some of them were right on certain matters (e.g., certain diseases), and others were wrong (various utopians). Why is that such an indictment of materialism or the Enlightement or science or Science or whatever? I don't understand why you tar them all with the same brush.
The basic idea of the Enlightenment is that the scientific method is a reliable way to discover truths about material reality, and we can use those discoveries along with reason to try and improve our lives and solve problems. That seems straightforwardly obvious to me. I also don't think there's a bailey concealed under that anywhere. The fact that some people said "Hey, using my reason, and using what I think are some facts I think I learned from science, I believe I can engineer human nature to excise the nasty bits like greed and jealousy and perfect us" is no more an indictment of science/materialism than "Hey, I think these cardboard arm flaps will make me fly" is an indictment of aeronautics, or, for that matter, that, "Hey, I think the good Christian thing to do is burn witches and kill baby Native Americans so their innocent souls will go to Heaven before their society misleads them" is an indictment of Christianity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The framing/definition of 'issue' here seems to be the issue. I'd say the biggest issue raised by science is that people don't believe. Once a critical mass of people don't believe, the transformative power of religion, the ability to get people to self reflect and change, loses out. Religion without that is, to me, essentially pointless. You can call that science or "dazzling lies" or whatever you want to, but if you read the history of the scientific revolution many great thinkers, esp. Pascal, John Stuart Mill, Marx, etc predicted the exact crisis of meaning we have now if we couldn't reconcile Christianity and science. Turns out we couldn't.
I'd ask that we Christians try and fix the ship now, instead of picking up the wreckage. We seem to have strong disagreements on what that means however. I somehow don't think Jesus would approve of this whole ethos you're espousing, essentially: 'they brought this upon themselves, we'll let them kill themselves and look down in our smug superiority. Then we'll come in and say 'I told you so!.'
I believe. So do the ~1k people who show up at my church every sunday morning, and a sizable fraction of the dozens of millions of people who claim to be Christian nation-wide. Clearly whatever harmful effect Science has had has somehow missed us all.
You appear to want religion to deliver broad-based social benefits, but broad-based social benefits are not the point of Christianity. It delivers those as a fringe benefit of its core mission. Trying to make them the center only compromises the core mission, resulting in the loss of the fringe benefits as well.
Marx and Mill at least were foremost among those selling the lies. I reject their critiques categorically, because they based their ideologies on predictions and those predictions have been thoroughly falsified. Science has not, in fact, materially altered the human condition as the modernist prophets insisted it would. We are having the problems we're having because we built our society around the idea that their prophecies would come true, that science and reason could solve our most serious problems. Well, it turns out that was a mistake, so maybe you should take it up with the people who scrapped a functional society on the promise of utopia through the limitless power of human reason.
If you have a functional way of preventing our society's suicide, I'm all ears. The only caveat is that it needs to actually work, not just sound good. I think I have a pretty good understanding of both Christianity and Modernity, and I am very confident that attempting to reconcile the two is not actually going to work. Still, if you think I'm wrong, there are no shortage of purported Christians attempting the project, so maybe they can help you out. I'm going to stick with trying to convince people to stop chugging poison.
I do not think I am being smugly superior. The culture war is maddening, and deeply corrosive to the soul, and I am attempting to find a reasonable response to it. I appreciate that "I told you so" is not a nice thing to hear, but we did in fact tell them so, repeatedly, and they've been shouting us down for more than a century. It does not seem hard to me to predict the general direction all this is moving in, nor that most people will refuse to change course right up until they run headlong into some of the more immovable parts of reality. And even then, most of them will not learn.
Read Hosea, or any of the prophets. We all, at the end of the day, have it coming. None of us deserve peace and happiness; when we get these things, it is a mercy, and temporal mercy is not infinite. Sooner or later, we have to account for the choices we've made, and that accounting is often collective.
How about the idea that the best way to order society and our individual lives is to do as Christians do, just without believing any of the supernatural bits? For example, emphasizing the importance of community, family, marriage, and children; discouraging sexual promiscuity; encouraging the virtues of humility, modesty, grace, charity, etc.; being skeptical of sudden changes to long-held traditions and ways of life. To name but a few.
And isn't it by the very use of reason that we can even come to the conclusion that those things are worth normalizing? I feel like you're using "reason" in some strange "capital-R" way that I'm not getting. What's the alternative to reason? And, whatever it is, are you not using reason to propose that we use that alternative? It's completely incoherent.
Your issue seems to be with people and ideologies who use flawed reasoning to advocate for shitty ideas, like Communism and Fascism. Well, I must confess - and I don't care who knows it - I am not a fan of people using flawed reasoning to advocate for shitty ideas. "But," you might protest, "how would we guard against convincing-sounding shitty ideas that we perhaps don't yet know are shitty?" Well, how did Christianity do it? Reason! They had reasons for supposing those ideas sucked (or at least that we should be wary of them), with perhaps a healthy dose of conservativism (in the sense of risk-averse and traditional). What are you proposing Christianity adds to that? Why not keep the reasoning and skip the middle man (Christianity)?
What you are describing is a reductive, simplified version of the Modernists' plan from the start, one framing of the core Enlightenment idea. There have even been various detailed plans of how to implement it, one of which was Communism. It's obvious to me that any one of these plans would work marvelously if we actually could implement them. It's also obvious to me that we can't actually implement them, and all attempts to do so fail catastrophically. If you want to override the atavistic desires of the self, it appears you need something outside one's personal context to measure those desires against, a fixed point of reference amidst the turmoil and constant shifting of one's internal reality. God works better than anything else I've seen of in this role. Without a convincing God-analogue, people do what they want, or convince themselves that what they want is actually virtuous, or any of a million other permutations of faked compliance, malicious compliance, or non-compliance. If there's nothing higher than you, there's nothing that can't be lied to, and so people lie. Using a state or a king or an ideology as the God-analogue fails because these things are ultimately dependent on other humans.
The short version is that if this actually worked, you wouldn't see the significant relative benefits accruing from faithful Christians compared to non-Christians, because non-Christians would actually catch up. I consider this weak evidence of the truth of Christianity.
I don't think so. "Worth", that is to say Values, seem to me to be pretty clearly upstream of our rationality. Reason can play values against each other, but doing so necessarily involves appealing to a greater value over a lesser, doesn't it? If you reason that one thing is better than another, you're measuring them against some standard, an "Ought" not derivable by reason's "Is". Further, the "Is" itself, the core function of reason, is bound by sharp limits in memory and comprehension, by bandwidth available for the assimilation of data, and most cripplingly by lack of available data. We are relatively good at reasoning, compared to stones and fish. We are not actually good at reasoning even on the information available, and most information is not available.
Reason works quite well when its limitations are respected. When people treat it as a fully-general solution, as the Enlightenment demands, the results seem to me to be quite poor. Examples include any big-brain conversation applying utilitarianism to large-scale social problems, or the history of planned economies, or the history of technocratic government generally.
Again, values can be reasoned from, but do not seem amenable to reason themselves, operating more like axioms. Human will, likewise, appears to me to direct reason, rather being directed by it. Hence motivated reasoning, which in its subtler forms is likely inescapable. This last bit leads me to conclude that abstract beliefs are meaningfully chosen, not forced, since I observe that many questions are evidently undecidable from pure evidence, and yet people evidently still decide them. The popular interpretation is that such questions have one right answer, which is obviously the one I personally hold, along with many wrong answers foolishly derived by everyone who disagrees with me. After a lifetime of arguing difficult questions with people, though, I've concluded that for any moderately-abstract question, it's values and the will that decides whether an argument is adopted or rejected, while the effect of reason and evidence is marginal at best.
I don't think any of this is incoherent, though it certainly runs counter to much of mainstream thought and received wisdom. I'm confident that I can "prove" any of the above, to the level that proof in such matters can exist; I can demonstrate specific experiences that I'm confident most people here have had, that amply demonstrate the pattern. But then the whole point is that evidence can only be presented; there is no way to force others to accept its validity. To a first approximation, people believe what they want to believe.
This doesn't mesh with the history I observe. In all these cases, Christianity did not reason itself into its positions from scratch, but rather reasoned from its axioms. The germinal ideas leading to Communist and Nazi ideology were not rejected because Christians did a careful assessment of relevant objective factors, but because these ideologies were analyzed against Christian axioms, and were found to be incompatible with them. Likewise, Christian arguments were largely rejected by the contemporary intelligentsia, because they had no interest in those axioms, and preferred an objective, rational assessment of the available data.
Preponderance of the evidence is a bad standard, because you do not often have the evidence you need. "we'll do it unless we find a convincing reason not to" is a terrible heuristic, not least because it treats "convincing" as an innate property rather than an inherently subjective one. People are bad at collecting evidence, weighing evidence, accounting for their biases and preconceptions and bigotries. They suck at reasoning generally. "Well, we'll do better!" isn't a workable answer. No, you most certainly won't, because, as above, reason and evidence don't actually work the way the modernists want them to. Your reasoning needs guard-rails and axioms or it will fail catastrophically when applied at scale. With the guard rails, it will probably only fail badly, and perhaps if you are very lucky might even fail gracefully.
Christianity provides an excellent set of axioms. Unfortunately, it also appears to require belief, or it doesn't work, and most people have bought into the idea that belief is forced by objective assessment of evidence. It's quite the pickle.
I don't think it's possible to replace Christian axioms with reason from first principles. I see little evidence that people could do so in the past, and no evidence we can do better now or in the future.
Thanks for your response! I've always respected you, and I share so many of your beliefs on the culture war, so I am very interested in figuring out why I differ from you so much on this. Your time and patience is greatly appreciated!
I don't see how communism and other post-Enlightenment ideas were trying to "do as Christians do, just without believing any of the supernatural bits", which seems to be what you're saying, unless I misunderstand you. My impression is that these ideologies repudiated Christianity and everything Christians stood for. Isn't that sort of what you acknowledged later when you said "these ideologies were analyzed against Christian axioms, and were found [by Christians] to be incompatible with them"?
I agree that humans are fallible, susceptible to motivated reasoning, and usually start from their values and try to reason from there. But how are you not using reason when you decide what you value, or, if you prefer, when you decide which axioms are convincing? Presumably there's some reason you think that slavery is wrong, or that marriage is a good idea, or whatever else. Or, if those are downstream of some more abstract axiom, presumably there's some reason you think that axiom is convincing.
That's fair on some level, but again, it seems to me that Christians still used reason when deciding to adopt those axioms. So, what is inadequate about using reason to propose that Christian axioms are convincing (and/or adaptive, or whatever else), therefore we should live our lives and operate our society as Christians would, just without the supernatural bits?
What makes you think it requires belief (presumably you mean belief in the supernatural claims) to work?
Why? Surely a non-Christian can sincerely believe that monogamy and marriage are a good idea, to take one example?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link