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 have a bit of a different perspective than the other two here, but perhaps it will help you understand them.
If I ask you why you did xyz, you can probably give me an answer. In what sense is that answer true, if the reasons you give me didnt cause you to take the action? If you agree that they caused the action, congratulations, thats all the determination materialism requires. This is an unconventional perspective to take on actions, but a common one on beliefs. It is in this sense that people say they dont choose what they believe; my reasons are as they are, and they cause me to believe as I do. And for me, "I would really like believing it" is not one of the reasons that convince me (at least, not a very convincing one) - so it may be that I want to believe something but dont believe it. I dont know what "observation of free will" you think contradicts this, but IME people are unable to describe it in non-circular terms.
Those are some very heavy guns for what in this case amounts to a very simple argument: What reason is there for thinking the uncaused cause is embodied in a human born around 0 AD? Not a cosmological reason; because it is quite different from the phenomena which are visible cosmology, and would be complex to nail down based on them (try if you dont believe me!). By contrast, there could be cosmological evidence for a seamless loop; a big crunch for example may just imply it as a straighforward application of ordinary physcial laws. There are other things which could be proven by cosmology, even if none of them are currently - but christianity is not one of them. If there are reasons to think the first cause is the christian god specifically, they are not about cosmology, and would likely be just as convincing without making the first cause argument to begin with, so dont.
More options
Context Copy link