site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

Are you saying that I'm engaging at the metal level, or that I'm engaging at the object level and I should be at the meta level? Or are atheists at the meta level?

You're engaging at the object level and you should be at the meta level.

...How? Your claim is that atheists aren't held to account for conflating science's constraints with reality's constraints. I'm arguing that while this may be true, that's not much a rebuttal. Seems to be about the object-level.

What is the meta-level discussion here?