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 are asking for the supernatural to be proven under a naturalist framework. I am asking you to demonstrate that the natural can be proven under a naturalist framework. This does not seem to be an unreasonable request to me.
And again, this is not an endorsement of supernatural claims. If someone tells me they have done or seen a miracle, I assume that they are mistaken or lying for what seems to me to be very solid reasons. What I am arguing against, what I will always argue against, is the idea that beliefs are a deterministic product of evidence. They are generally not, and ironically this belief is one of the few which can actually be proven pretty solidly with strong evidence, only it doesn't matter because beliefs are not formed by proof.
I don’t know what you mean by “demonstrate that the natural can be proven under a naturalist framework” when I’m asking for evidence of the mere existence of some claimed phenomenon. “Supernatural vs. natural” is a red herring because the claim is that there is an effect on the material world. Calling “can I see evidence of it” a “naturalist framework” is not even wrong. It’s just common sense to not merely take someone’s word for it.
We have used science to discover tiny things and invisible forces by extending our powers of observation. We’ve had theories make predictions that we can later observe to be true as technology improved. We may not have a full understanding of say quantum physics, but we have experiments that allow us to observe the effects.
If the supernatural touches the natural, we should be able to observe evidence of the interaction. Holy books are full of accounts of such interactions. People today often claim such interactions happen.
And yet, we just can’t quite seem to get good evidence such things happen.
I’m not sure if I’m parsing the meaning of your last paragraph correctly, but if it’s something along the lines of “people don’t form their beliefs logically” then, logically, I can’t change your mind. Obviously, humans are not consistently rational in their epistemology. Religious beliefs are sacred/anchor beliefs married to trapped priors and most people are immune to contradictory evidence. But not all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link