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 think the there is an opening along the culture war’s line of contact in the zone of religious behavior. Specifically, that the non-left has the opportunity to take ground among the growing percentage of persons who do not believe in god.
I assume that there is general agreement on the following points:
religiosity, in general, is on the decline. Pew’s longitudinal religious landscape study tracks associated metrics, as do many others.
many individuals and groups are experiencing negative outcomes due to the overall decline in religiosity. There is the often talked about crisis of meaning, the declining birthrates particularly among the non-religious, etc.
putting aside the question of whether or not the leftism is a religion (a proposition I support), that the general decline in religiosity is broadly favorable to leftists.
Taken the above as weak, but broadly agreed upon, I would also argue that, similar to @erwgv3g34 post on Scott’s Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning, the cat is largely out of the proverbial bag on the question of whether or not any particular diety or similar set of theological claims is true. To be clear, I don’t think that every single person will inevitably believe that god doesn’t exist. I do think, however, that there is sufficient atheism, and scientific thinking and knowledge in our society that significantly many people cannot be convinced to believe or to feign belief.
The avowedly religious probably think that this state of affairs is an unalloyed, net negative, but is it? Returning to the generally agreed upon points at the top, there is a growing number of people who don’t believe in god, but are suffering and seeking out the type of benefits that religion classically provides. From the perspective of these atheists, all religions are obviously false in the sense that god doesn’t exist, but religiosity is still important and desirable.
Accordingly, I think there is a lot of ground to be gained by offering these people a way to participate in religion that doesn’t, in Scott’s words, make them insist that lightning comes after thunder. I think there is an opportunity for something like a Christian Atheism, where people can feel connected to the obviously Christian origins of American culture, can participate in group rituals and be supported by a moral framework that they obviously desire, but without the humiliation of professing that thunder comes first.
Is there a good analogy for something like this? I’m not sure. Secular Judaism is the model that comes to mind but I’m sure there are other examples.
Is this optimal from the perspective of the faithful? No. But so what? The devout are hemorrhaging adherents and the only other game in town is the enemy’s.
If I was the Catholic Church or [insert non-Catholic denominational leadership], I would be funding such groups as hard as possible and conditioning my political donations on candidates plugging the idea in their stump speeches. Obviously, I would prefer them to come to Jesus. But if they aren’t coming to Jesus anyway, surely I would prefer to funnel those people into a group where they can proudly and honestly proclaim that ‘of course Jesus isn’t real, but that’s not the point; the 10 commandments have served our people well for 2 thousand years because they work and you should follow them too.’
I think a well crafted message along these lines could be highly effective in the current environment.
You need something stronger than an argument for the historical usefulness of Christianity to give people the “type of benefits that religion classically provides”. Because so many, perhaps all, of the classical benefits require belief. If Christianity is just an elegant story from the past, then there’s no expectation of reward, no reason for prayer, no judge of behavior, no individual and communal purpose, and nothing that can bond people together under the dominion of a Great Leader. Belief is a prerequisite for all the tangible benefits of religion, like stress reduction, delayed gratification, peace of mind and better communities. (Maybe this is why Jesus’ healing in the gospel is always predicated on faith). The most that a “Christian atheism” can say is that behaving Christlike is best for the common good, by making the dead Jesus a role model for the community. The immediate problem is that no one is motivated to imitate “just another Jew who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and was killed for his troubles”, to quote Ben Shapiro. Even atheists can see that Jesus was a moral paragon, but this hardly compels them to study his words or imitate his moral character. Let alone stave off nihilism, etc.
IMO there are only three viable avenues for reintroducing religion with all of the old benefits among the desacralized West: (1) A willful, poetic, decidedly unscientific faith belief, which comes from pure unadulterated social influence and contagion. I think this can be accomplished with social pressure, but I don’t think this is preferable, because it will always result in the negation of science. (2) Debunking scientific thinking where our evolved social nature is concerned; this would be an argument against rational thinking where rationality has no utility. This is complicated, will not persuade normal people, and is not a positive argument for Christianity specifically. (3) An emphasis on symbolic and mystical truth: the events in the Bible are believed because they mysteriously represent the reality of human nature. They are non-literally true, yet truth is “revealed” upon belief, like a mathematical proof may be revealed under assumed premises. This allows someone to believe in their heart that Adam and Eve are the first humans, while also believing that materially speaking humans evolved over millions of years. I am partial to this last one.
I think the last one is the best option.
Similarly, I think #3 would work particularly well because other red-coded, Anglo-coded, and American-coded thought patterns are so similar. The common law and our natural rights, for example, are a system which Anglos believe to be the best system of law in large part because it evolved with the culture for so many thousand years and thus represents the reality of who Anglos are as Anglos, etc. I think these concepts and sentiments can easily be combined or messaged along side your #3.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link