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 -
I find it interesting that The Motte tends to treat atheism with kid gloves that are not reserved for other belief systems. For example, the idea that there is no difference in intelligence between different genetic groups of humans is widely called out here as being simply wrong. Which it almost certainly is, in my opinion. But consider the idea that methodological constraints actually are a metaphysical theory, or further implying that shoes are atheists. These ideas are, I think, even less likely to be true than the idea that there is no difference in intelligence between different genetic groups of humans (at least the latter can be empirically shown true or false; the former is just a category error). But atheism on The Motte is usually not met with accusations that it is as absurd, indeed perhaps more absurd, as any flavor of wokeism. Nor is the history acknowledged that New/Internet Atheists almost certainly led to a willingness to embrace relativism everywhere and ultimately wokeism by the masses of "laypeople". Wokeism gets often and in my opinion properly pilloried on here for being nonsensical on the level of correspondence to objective reality, but atheism typically gets a free pass. Even the philosophers on here mostly refuse to really call it out as being absurd when the topic comes up.
Does this happen because atheism is largely not viewed as a threat anymore (since its birth of wokeism is already in the past) and because since wokeism is this community's main out-group and atheism is vaguely internet-weirdo-aligned in the modern West, people here tend to follow the principle of "the enemy of an enemy is my friend"? Or, to be more charitable, maybe it is because wokeism can fairly easily be criticized on the level of normal scientific investigation, whereas the claims that atheism makes go so far beyond typical constraints of the scientific method that one actually does just quietly make an exception for it because its claims are fundamentally viewed as being orthogonal to scientific investigation (and people just fail to ever mention such)?
Ok, try Agnosticism now.
The claim that "I don't have full knowledge of the origins of the universe and its current metaphysics, but I see enough reason to not believe any of the explanations of any of the major belief systems regarding either of things" is extremely strong against most apologist theological jibber jabber.
This is independent of the analysis as to what programming is the best for a population if you want to optimize for variables such as long-term survivability, social cohesion, "meaning", etc. Just a statement about the truth value of the origins of the universe and its metaphysics. The mistake Atheists make is failing to acknowledge this and dumbly asserting that ---- Religion != Literally True, therefore Reglion (based cultural programming) = bad software----
I wouldn't even say the above is bad reasoning. Your disbelief in the truth comes at a great cost an overwhelming majority of the time. This cost might not be bourne by an individual in a lifetime, but it will inevitably arrive, randomness will eventually produce a version of you that is ceteris paribus but with access to the truth.
Agnosticism is for the most part an attempt to plead neutrality and evade involvement in a culture war. It is functionally the same as atheism in terms of revealed preference (less likely to be involved in a community, less likely to be married/have children, etc), and would only be tolerated in a secular society.
From a POLITICAL point of view, maybe. But as an intellectual model of reality, it is a valid model as any, in fact, one that I hold myself. That's where I was pointing at.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem with Agnosticism isn't so much the position itself as it is the Agnostics, who don't seem to realize the full implications of the position they're taking. Pleading ignorance of the metaphysical is one thing (or, to take it a step further, pleading man's incapability of anything but ignorance), but Agnostics themselves rarely ever act as though they are ignorant; most true Agnostics are simply irreligious and wouldn't define themselves as anything. Self-described Agnostics are usually relatively intellectually active. And while this doesn't prevent them from being able to analyze what programming is best for a population if you want to optimize for certain variables, it does prevent them from offering an opinion on what variable we should be optimizing for. If we drill down far enough, all of our positions are based on certain fundamental assumptions. But the Agnostic, by definition, is unable to make any of these fundamental assumptions precisely because they are mere assumptions and not observations. And since every assumption is as equally likely to be true as any other, the Agnostic has no reason to prefer one over another.
This all seems kind of academic until you think of something like the Taliban government in Afghanistan. This government is attempting to enforce a strict reading of Islam at the expense of economic, social, and cultural development, and has accordingly drawn the opprobrium of nearly everyone outside of Afghanistan and of a large number of people within it. But the Agnostic has no basis upon which to criticize. The Taliban are acting upon a set of fundamental assumptions about the world, and these assumptions are equally as valid as any other set of assumptions. Most self-described Agnostics wouldn't go so far as admit this, however. They would continue to criticize the Taliban, or take any other position they wished to take, but simply state that they do have a set of fundamental assumptions, just that those assumptions don't rely on the existence of God. They may even sweeten the deal by explaining that their assumptions don't foreclose the possibility of God's existence and even share a lot in common with those of major religions. The problem is that unless the existence of God is necessary to these basic assumptions then the person is effectively an Atheist. What's the contention here supposed to be? "God may or may not exist, but if he does, his relevance is somewhere below Vanilla Ice's 2005 album Platinum Underground and the 14 day extended forecast"? How does an irrelevant God work, theologically speaking? It's certainly a strange theological position to take. So, no I can't really argue apologetics with Agnostics. But I can't take them seriously either.
Your point seems confused to me…. Just because agnostics don’t have a belief in a higher power doesn’t mean they can’t have morals and object to certain actions.
My understanding is that you’re saying you need God or “fundamental assumptions” to have a moral code, but I can’t tell exactly. Could you clarify?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So, even if we don't ridicule the agnostics, why don't we ridicule the atheists more?
What's the difference? Both atheists and agnostics take, practically, an atheist understanding of and orientation towards everything.
I mean, so do a surprising number of liberal Christians, depending on the meaning of "practically" and "everything". Maybe if you tried to pin them down on some particular thing that you thought worthy of removing the kid gloves, you could get a different response, but I think we can here, as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you are proposing a ridiculous question.
Who is this "we" and what is this "ridicule"? For the vast conversation space where ridicule is a viable and effective strategy, the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is far too technical, the pragmatic prescriptions of both being the same doesn't help either. And in a space where the technicalities matter, ridicule doesn't work.
What do you want done exactly? If you are proposing that Atheism is just as ridiculous as Wokism, then I'll register that I don't actually agree and probably a large chunk of the Motte doesn't agree either, hence the lack of ridicule towards Atheists, the type that you see towards wokes.
Why not? And why did you immediately retreat to agnosticism instead of robustly defend it in the first place?
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