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 -
You might have missed the line about mistaking methodological constraints for a metaphysical theory. That's pretty darn close to the central claim of most atheists, especially the ones 'round the internets who would be most apt for not-kid-gloves treatment.
But that's kind of the whole point. They created the corpse! They knew what they were doing when they killed it. But like any social fad, they shrugged it off, thinking that nothing could possibly go wrong. Only after they saw the fruits of their labor did they start feeling uncomfortable about the whole thing. Let's put it this way, I've seen arguments that Christianity is to blame for wokeness, and some of those arguments are actually not all that bad. But if you look at, like, a random Protestant 'barely believer' church that is now headed toward wokeness, you probably wouldn't say that they caused the rise of wokeness. You certainly wouldn't use that in particular to claim that Christianity in general caused the rise of wokeness. But you might say something like, "Look at these churches who have basically abandoned any real faith, are honestly basically agnostic already, don't even really believe in any sort of real morality. Those choices have left a corpse of a church which was just too vulnerable to 'woke mind virus'." In a sense, those choices caused wokeness to rise up in those churches rather than in others. In the same sense, that's what a lot of the 2010s atheism did to large portions of the masses.
I didn't miss that line, but I can't follow it.
The central claim of Christians is that Jesus is LORD, therefore his teachings and code of behavior ought to be privileged. When that code conflicts with material concerns, religion takes precedence. The central claim of atheism is that the Christians (or other theists) are wrong, therefore their teachings, and Jesus' teachings, are not worthy of privilege. It does not construct its own code.
Goodguy asked why the Motte doesn't pounce on this whenever someone makes decisions based on those teachings. By analogy, you could ask why the Motte doesn't pounce on us every time we make decisions...not based on those teachings? But there's a trivial answer to that one, because atheism just says to fall back on material reasoning, which allows actual evidence. If you want to know why a Western Internet forum is willing to tolerate the classical-liberal concept of evidence, I'll wave vaguely in the direction of the sidebar and mutter something about Descartes.
I mean, this is a part of it. They generally have significantly more at the core. It takes about two questions of asking "why is that" to get to it. (Hint, they're usually appealing to methodological constraints, which they're sneakily confusing for a metaphysical theory.)
Actually, he didn't. Not a word about making decisions. Just about Christians being Christians in general.
You keep citing a difference between "methodological" and "metaphysical." I get that atheists tend to attack Christianity on methodological grounds, like citing the "absence of evidence." I also understand that this doesn't disprove the spiritual claims of afterlife, souls, et cetera. But Christianity does make material claims, too! I don't see the problem with atheists using Christianity's failure to deliver on such claims as evidence--not proof!--against the unfalsifiable spiritual claims.
What are the two questions you have in mind? If I'm understanding your dichotomy right, I think I can probably give answers that don't run afoul.
As for Goodguy--you are correct, and he didn't make it about decisions. I think it would have been a better argument if he had.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Atheism says nothing intrinsically about moral systems. It clashes with Christianity on account of superstitions.
The argument you're making sounds to me like this:
Atheism attacks religion on grounds of superstition --> Declining religion means religious morality also declines through collateral damage --> People go looking for a new form of morality, and some decide on cultural relativism --> cultural relativism (sort of) gives birth to Critical Theory (proto wokism) --> proto wokism evolves into the modern monstrosity that wokism is today.
That's a long and strained chain of causality. Why not attack any of the links before getting to atheism? It seems like you have an axe to grind specifically against atheism, but since it's difficult to attack atheism directly you instead equate it to relativism and wokism, which it emphatically is not.
I didn't say they were one in the same. I more directly attacked the inherent absurdity in atheism. It's just a bonus that the atheism movement very likely set up the conditions for the very thing OP was complaining about to spread so quickly and so widely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What does this mean?
Why would it matter? The truth value of a statement or belief stands independent of whatever it may engender.
Science has methodological constraints; it makes certain assumptions and speaks only to things within the constraints of those assumptions. But instead, folks want to claim that those are not constraints on the method; they're constraints on reality. Rather than building an actual metaphysical theory, they just declare that their constraints handwave the whole problem away.
To be as flippant as the commenter two posts up in this thread, because the atheists are wrong. /thread
It's only bonus badness that their wrongness led to one of the very things the OP was complaining about.
It boils down to the fact that it is incoherent to assert that only what is empirically verifiable can count as knowledge. To demonstrate this, simply attempt to apply the proposition's criterion to itself.
More options
Context Copy link
Aaaaand here we have one in the wild, folks. This is like maybe five comments away from someone saying this is a weak/straw man.
Listen man, see Entelecheia's comment. Then go back to rippin' your bong all you want.
No, it's an argument against your proposed criterion of knowledge on the basis of it being self-contradictory.
That's because it's an argument whose goal is to figure out what knowledge is, not whether God exists. If you want arguments that advance the notion of God existing, you should look at those, rather than looking at an argument about knowledge and observing that it doesn't prove that God exists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you sure the constraints on science are not actually constraints of reality? How could you tell from the inside? You say thats what they do, but you haven't made that argument.
Are you sure that in a world with magick, science could not quantify the heat of a fireball and trace where the energy came from? and in a world with djinn, science could not measure how many wishes they can give and when?
And are you sure that in a world with a God, science could not see Him? Perhaps Hubble would see His face in the sky or microscopes would indeed see angels dancing on the head of a pin?
Can we not prove God because He is unprovable or because He does not exist? What evidence (scientific or "other") would sway you?
Yes? If only what is scientifically demonstrable is knowable, then we have no way of knowing that science is a valid source of knowledge, because a scientific demonstration of the validity of scientific knowledge would be circular.
That means we can't be sure that they ARE actual constraints of reality. Not that we can be sure they are not. Those are not the same thing.
It means that if we have any knowledge of anything, then we can be sure those are not the actual constraints of reality. Either our item of knowledge K is not scientifically verifiable, in which case the point is proved, or it is scientifically verifiable, in which case in order to count as knowledge, the scientific method must be known to be reliable, which cannot happen by scientific verification.
Well, we don't have any knowledge of anything if you use such a demanding definition of knowledge.
Actually I'm not sure if I've been interpreting this argument correctly up to this point. My objection is to a kind of methodological materialism or ruling out a priori the possibility of knowledge from philosophical methods. I'm not sure that's coherent because of the obvious issue with stating that one knows this. Perhaps one could deny that one knows it but say it is possibly true, but I don't think that makes any sense, because advancing that proposition (p = "I don't know if the scientific method is the only way to knowledge, but it could be true") is effectively asserting knowledge of p, and one does not know p scientifically.
If what @SSCReader or you mean is just that metaphysical materialism may be true - that it may turn out to be the case that materialism is right and we can make philosophical arguments for and against that and evaluate them according to philosophical methods to arrive at knowledge - then I have no objection.
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
I'm sure that the irrational confidence in the converse is irrational.
Given how incredibly low-effort and standoffish nearly every one of your comments in this thread have been, why should any of us engage more charitably with you? Do you believe that you’re presenting the best possible face for your position right now, given that - as you correctly identified - your position is a minority one in this space? Or did you just want to use this whole thread to indulge your smug and petty side, since you seem to perceive that this is the way many people here treat your beliefs, and you want to have a “two can play at that game” kind of lark?
I mean, I'm mostly gathering comparative data, and I can now include the way you've responded here as part of that data set.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But you haven't made any arguments it is irrational? You are assuming it is. Is it irrational to focus on the measurable and observable?
It MIGHT be but i think you have to make that argument.
There's a difference between "focusing on" and "mistaking it for a metaphysical theory".
Aren't materialism and naturalism metaphysical theories though?. So why are they more or less irrational than any other?
They are. They can be argued for. Not all that conclusively, though. Similarly, people can argue for various Christian positions, and I imagine you would say that such arguments are similarly not conclusive. Yet one of these things is to be ridiculed. Which one?
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
I'm still not clear what you mean when you say that people are claiming science's constraints are constraints on reality. Do you mean something the thermodynamic laws? The evidence supports them fairly strongly from what I can tell.
The assumptions science makes can be wrong, but they're often intended to bring us as close to reality as possible (though in some cases, simplifying reality makes for easier work).
I again don't follow. You argued in the OP that atheists are not criticized for leading people to a place where "wokism" was able to thrive. I am asking why you think it makes any difference in the first place. The religion arguments of the late 2000s and early 2010s were carried out on the atheism side by people who were not part of an organized movement. It was an informal group which was united by its rejection of religion, not by its affirmation of any particular creed or organization. There was no Church of Atheism because the people within were too disunited to ever go for it.
They simply handwave away the possibility of any form of being/existence that is not squarely within the purview of one specific tool: science. That tool has significant methodological constraints, like observability, repeatability, testability, etc. There are others, and they can be presented in a variety of ways.
I mean, I'm left asking, "Who cares," in return? Like, does the diversity of Christianity and the fact that there are a bunch of disparate groups somehow change things?
What exactly do you mean by "science"? Is it the bunch of institutions and traditions known as "science"? In this case there are obviously things beyond its purview and you won't find many (any?) people who'd deny it here. This could explain the lack of mockery you find so puzzling.
Or do you use "science" more generally to mean pursuit of understanding through the examination of experience and use of reason to build models with explanatory and predictive power? In this case, what would atheists need to do so you'd get off their back about handwaving the possibility? Do they need to write long soulful posts about how they can never know the eldritch truth beyond the limits of their experience? The problem is that seems super irrelevant and a waste of time. Why would you expect people who don't see any reason to believe in your religion to pay tribute to it?
Sure, maybe a guy who had an ecstatic vision of Jesus and the angels really got into contact with the incomprehensible Divine and he knows the good stuff, but what does this have to do with me? If I got directly blasted with the holy light, I'd likely join him as a fellow devout co-religionist. But I haven't, so best I can do is conclude that people can be very strongly affected by trippy hallucinations.
Your hypothetical God created a universe in which salvation is conditioned on faith in him, following some precepts, performing rituals, whatever. Then he put people in this world made it look really mechanistic and explainable by reason from the inside, creating strong incentives for using reason as a primary tool of understanding what's going on. He didn't elaborate and left. Very chad of him, but what am I supposed to do about any of this?
Maybe instead of trying to restart obsolete flamewars on Internet forums, you could use the direct line to God you seem to have access to, and humbly ask Him to be less cruel to those less fortunate than you, those who are trapped in this vast soulless machine? Tell him to grant us eyes and deliver us from our beastly idiocy.
Nah, basic engagement with metaphysics would probably be sufficient.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's how belief works, right? As far as I can tell, even the religious cannot actually prove that the gods of others don't exist, they take it on faith. Facts about the supernatural or morality seem unobservable, as far as I can tell. Though maybe I'm engaging in the same thing right now.
It sounds like your problem is with materialism, not atheism, because science is fairly broad and accepting of materialist explanations for anything. Existing paradigms can and will be changed as new materialism-based evidence comes in.
I don't see how the inversion does anything for you. In this scenario, people would be blaming Christianity at large for...something that only a portion of its variants did?
When atheists attacked religion, they were going after (for the most part) beliefs that are central to those faiths. It doesn't matter if you are a progressive American church or a conservative Ghana church, the belief in the existence of God is the same.
But you're not doing the same. You're not arguing against atheism's core belief (the idea that there is no god), you're arguing that they were wrong because they enabled a worldview you see as wrong. Or, if you want to say you want to see more criticism, then you should reframe your question to be about that, because then we could have a discussion about the role of New Atheism in facilitating the spread of social progressivism.
Christianity and atheism have truth values that stand independent of whatever they engendered. In a world where, for example, Islam was destroyed online by a diverse set of Christians, only to be replaced by something worse, I would argue that attacking Christianity's truth value would be wrong.
I think mistaking methodological constraints for a metaphysical theory is pretty darn near to the core belief for most atheists.
If your argument is that atheists don't believe in the existence of non-material things (i.e things that cannot be explained solely by materialism), then...okay? It's not any different that a religious person saying "Atheists believe that god can't exist, so they can't know!"
I would point to the strength of the assumptions being made by either party and note that the atheist's is far weaker. The atheist does not assert the existence and many details of a god or gods, which the religious tend to do.
And ultimately, this much more an issue to the religious person than the atheist. If you want, we can all be super strict and say "well, we can't discount the existence of that which is not wholly materialist in nature". But if you were at all fair in applying your skepticism, the religious come out in shambles when they assert a 100 things and none can be proven as they claim can be.
Nope, not an argument about the object level. About the meta level.
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
More options
Context Copy link