site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36363 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023

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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!.'

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.

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.

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)?

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

"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!

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.

What are you proposing Christianity adds to that? Why not keep the reasoning and skip the middle man (Christianity)?

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!

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?

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 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"?

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 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.

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.

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 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.

"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!

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.

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?

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.

What makes you think it requires belief (presumably you mean belief in the supernatural claims) to work?

What are you proposing Christianity adds to that? Why not keep the reasoning and skip the middle man (Christianity)?

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.

Why? Surely a non-Christian can sincerely believe that monogamy and marriage are a good idea, to take one example?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats