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 -
As a Catholic/Christian, I don't get to judge the sincerity or not of her conversion. It may be that she is speaking about it publicly in ways to convince non-believers as to why she converted, and the more efficient way to do that is list off secular advantages. How many atheists in the debates of the 2000s were ever convinced by believers giving accounts of mystical experiences?
If she says she believes, I have to take her at her word. I can't see into her heart or mind to judge if she's lying about any of it. And "yeah right she's converted, I don't see any belief there" is a very atheist way to approach the angle of "I can't imagine any reason a non-idiot would convert to believe in crazy fairy stories, so she must be lying about it".
She wrote an essay called "Why I am now a Christian" (https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/) and left out any argument as to why Christianity is true, so it's natural to conclude that the truth-value of Christianity was not an important factor in why she is Christian.(And she references the title in the beginning of the article, so it's not just one of those stupid headline writer things.)
As it happens, I don't suspect she's lying. She just seems to think "I am Christian" means "Christianity is useful", which is just another form of the common practice of confusing what is nice to believe with what is actually true. This practice is seen all the time, including in both sides of the Christian-Atheist debate. It's not a lie, but it's sloppy logic around what Christianity actually is, so I concur with OP's use of scare quotes in reference to her "conversion" at least based on the best available information to me.
As it also happens, I am not Christian, but I believe Christianity is useful and probably even load-bearing for the USA.
I think that this whole schtick about "truth" of Christianity to me is a tactic used by New Atheists but also some other people as kind of mud fighting tactic. This is what we mean by truth, so then come down to mud with us where we can use common juijutsu techniques to overpower you.
To evade the topic of religion and existence of god, we can have a question of "Does Sherlock Holmes exist?". The New Atheist position on this matter would be something like - he is fictional character, he is invented and therefore it is false to say that Sherlock Holmes exists. There is no grave of Sherlock Holmes, he did not do any of the things described in books as he is not real. Okay, but another position can be that actually Sherlock Holmes may be the most famous of all the detectives, more people know about his character compared to any living detective and that he was important in shaping real lives of many people including kids who became detectives.
Moreover also this prioritization about truth in atheist and also sometimes in rationalist circles is not what it seems. One obvious example is that of correct model usage. One model can be useful in one situation and misleading in another situation, it may not be that easy to just say that the model is true or false. Which is actually pretty close to the above paragraph - Christianity is maybe "useful" as metaphilosophical system that binds and points certain ontology, teleology, epistemology, axiology and sociology toward some outcomes you may even agree are good from the outside-of-christianity view. In that sense it is useful and this at least in some sense "true" model of the world, in similar sense as Sherlock Holmes may be useful model of the world of detectives let's say.
Additionally and related to above, it is also hard to just say that "Truth" is supposed to be the ultimate good. For instance Sam Harris is also know for his utilitarian stance where he thinks that people "should maximize human flourishing", that is his teleology of people. He also thinks that even if you are epistemologically uncertain of how to define maximization and flourishing, you can at least say that you want to prevent suffering at the very least in certain negative thinking. But then this begs the question: what if the best way to minimize suffering and maximize human flourishing is for people to be Christians and believe something that is not "true" in the strict sense?
I think that atheists and also rationalists to large extent are too quick to point out hypocrisy in moral systems like Christianity let's say when it comes to their beliefs in truth of biblical events like the flood or creation. What us ommitrd is that everybody is hypocritical about something, we do value "usefulness" even above truth in a lot of our actions.
More options
Context Copy link
She writes earlier of the doctrines she learned as a Muslim and how becoming atheist freed her of such fears. I think if she's now saying atheism is no longer enough, then the old doctrines of God, heaven, hell, and the rest of it must be making a re-occurrence.
She's writing for a secular audience. A Southern Evangelical style testimony of how she found the Lord and was convicted of being a sinner until she accepted Jesus into her heart is not going to be taken seriously by them any more than if a TV preacher recounted the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link