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 hadn't thought of it until your comment, but this is another argument in favor of deeply held personal belief in a transcendent value system.
Yes, I'm talking about Christianity. Or, more inclusively any sort of tradition rooted religion.
Back to the main point - I think it's close to common knowledge that everyone develops a sense of identity throughout their life. Failing to do so, in fact, is recognized not only as a major developmental failure, but potentially a mental illness. What you anchor that identity in is incredibly important.
With the fall of religiosity and the rise of secular humanism, I'd say it's a safe assumption to make that people are now anchoring more and more of their identities in politics and culture. These aren't inherently bad things on which to build an identity. The problem is they can and will change. The above post makes this clear. For a long time, being a "good progressive" meant militant support for drug legalization. That happened and it failed. So ... which part of the identity gives? The past-identity that was pro-legalization, or the now-identity that is using evidence to update beliefs? Either way, it's a loss, because you'd have to point to your identity at some point in time and go "I was wrong." This is destabilizing even for the most ... stable person.
How does religion solve this? Religiously informed beliefs are, at their core, transcendental. They are most important in an after-life situation and can neither be confirmed nor disproved in this life in this world. That's a sort of summation of the notion of faith in general. From an identity perspective, this lets believers commit themselves to something they known will never change because it never "was" in the same sense that material things are. I'd be remiss not to tag @TheDag at this point given his post on materialism from earlier today.
The summation here is straightforward; castle made of sand, shifting foundations et cetera. Build "who you are" (whatever that means) on things that are, frankly, eternal. I've seen people who have rooted their identity in seemingly "forever" things have some nasty reality checks; military dudes ("I'll always be a Marine!"), career A-types ("Nobody can take away the fact I was the youngest VP in corporate history!"), and even family ("My sister and I will always be close").
Hot take: the unfalsifiable identity anchor thing is behind the evolution of Wokism to Transism. You can argue with citations about the forces of Whiteness™, but when trans ideology comes down to gender as a metaphysical / spiritual thing which someone experiences, rather than physical sex or physically detectable brain or hormonal abnormalities, it enters the realm of unfalsifiable identity anchor. Previous attempts at having Whiteness or The Patriarchy fill the role of unfalsifiable spiritual force are less personal, and more antagonistic, whereas Transism is about personal identity.
That's not a hot take, that's the entire point of the argument. Unfalsifiable identity anchors are natural for humans, they're not just behind Wokism and Transism, they're behind Chrstianity, Islam, Buddhism, national identities, etc. New Atheists promised that if we get rid of the Unfalsifiable identity anchor of religion, we will usher in a new era of rationality. Christians warned that people will simply replace it with a new one ("god-shaped hole"), and there's a good chance it will be worse than any of the traditional religions. Time seems to have proven them right, and the most depressing thing about the whole ordeal, is that this is hardly the first attempt yielding the same result.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What?
Assuming you’re correct about needing this particular thing you're labeling “identity”—which I don’t think is quite the right word—that’s still a terrible reason to believe something false.
Embrace any of the existing traditions, and you’re anchoring your “identity” back to material, falsifiable beliefs. Now you can be shaken by schisms and sex scandals!
If those are off the table, you don’t have a “religiously informed belief.” You have some personal experience that you decided to parse as transcendent and meaningful. In short, vibes. There’s no guarantee that those will stay, either. Job 1:21.
From my very secular perspective, it’s far better to pursue a durable, secular philosophy. Something that allows updating your beliefs without too much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Something that lets me adapt to the truth without grasping it too jealously. I think a religious version of this acceptance is possible; I don’t believe you’ll get there by anchoring to a transcendent belief as if it were your football team, or your political allies. You need a healthier relationship with the belief, and with your belief in belief.
That's fine. May I solicit an alternative term or concept definition?
Big issue here. Schsims and sex scandals relate to belief and/or allegiance to an institution (to wit, the Catholic Church). My post argues that's a a bad thing to wed yourself to. Values are where it's at. As much ire as I have for secular humanists, it's quite likely I have more for legalistic Catholic doctrine Nazis who seem to view the Catholic faith as SCOTUS arguments on steroids.
I agree with this passage on its own, but I get a little lost in how it threads into your overall argument. I am sorry for not catching your point.
What is the rubric for durable?
Is it possible to fully known "truth"? I'd say both religious tradition and secular philosophy (Popper comes to mind here) would argue it is not, though we may approach it.
I agree with this. If you turn a transcendental belief into something materialist, worldly, and immediate, you've ruined its value. The Christian proverb here is "Be in, not of, the world"
Prayer traditions are largely based on constant re-examination of belief-in-belief.
This makes me quite happy.
Alright, I've been chewing on this for a bit. I appreciated your response, and I'm still not confident that I've done it justice.
The reason I wouldn't choose "identity" is because I believe there are two phenomena at work. Identity as prediction and shorthand for social-interactions: call it "role." Identity as a set of value judgments: call it "touchstone."
Roles support if-then reasoning. If I go to this party, then I'll be associated with the cool kids. If I mention these talking points, then my tribe will know I've got their back. If I experience a certain emotion in church, then it's something understood by my tradition, and I can feel comfortable sharing it with my fellow Christians.
You can't apply the same reasoning to touchstones, because they're operating at a different level. I value associating with the cool kids. I value my political tribal alignment. I value my fellow Christians.
I think your points about developmental failure and mental illness make sense for roles, but not touchstones. A person who fails to model others' reactions has a serious disadvantage. One who picked unwise touchstones? Not so much.
Picking transcendental beliefs is only addressing touchstones. The question, then, is whether stability comes from the touchstone or from the role. If the latter, then holding an unfalsifiable belief--an immutable touchstone--would still leave one exposed.
When I talked about "durable" philosophy, I was thinking about the ability to adapt to new evidence. Whether this is accomplished through serenity or courage, it demands a certain resilience. I don't think this comes from the touchstones, but from how one reasons about them. Consider the Homeric heroes, oath-bound to besiege Troy. The cosmological beliefs are set dressing. Their particular honor culture was one of countless that followed the rule: if one swears an oath, then one must keep it. I'd call that a role.
This is awesome. Very well said.
I think the only addition I might offer is to ask the following; is there a risk in confusing or, maybe a better word, misplacing a touchstone value for a role based value?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why does this very nothing to do with religion post deeply remind you of Christianity? Because there are policy mistakes/changes happening being linked to causes/luxury virtue signaling beliefs? These beliefs being disprovable unlike the bedrock trueness of one of 10,000 religions? That is a pretty weak segue into a sermon.
Regarding people being upset when their reality changes vs religious people. As you say, hard to have a reality check if you don't accept reality.
What about when religious people become atheist or leave their religion. Have you see what that can do to families and people? Especially in those many many religions that treat an apostate like garbage.
Is that not a greater risk as rather than updating a small part or even a large part of your political or scientific world view? Your whole unchangeable/unchallengeable forever belief system has crumbled to dust instead. Often taking with it your family and friends.
Never asserted this. In fact, a major thrust of my original comment was that religious belief is neither provable in a positivist sense nor falsifiable. Faith itself is an ongoing and continuous act.
Bad things are bad, I agree. But my comment wasn't looking at people-within-social-circles, it was looking at the self and identity (the self-concept of self).
Forgive me for nitpicking. A belief system is one thing, the anchor to an identity is another. I agree with you that a belief system ought to be informed by rigorous epistemic evaluation. I think identity is a separate concern that cannot be totally built on a simple amalgamation of "facts." It put it up there with abstract concepts like "justice" - these are not definable in a mathematic proof sense.
Couldn't agree more.
The fact that abstract concepts exist doesn't mean we should believe in actual magic. Also something being abstract doesn't make it worthy as an identity touchstone. Lateness is an abstract concept, it doesn't follow that we should anchor our identity on being punctual.
Fine say you're not shunned when you lose your faith, your world has still be turned upside down and now your concept of self is shattered if that is what built your identity on. Unprovable and unfalsifiable is the same as not existing at all, and should be treated with the same weight.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for the tag! For what it's worth, I wrote about my conversion experience below, and this was another factor that helped me along the way. I have had many various ideologies I've tried to pin my identity to throughout the years, from communism to anarchy to libertarianism to effective altruism. Ultimately I've found that Christianity has been far more 'stable' for me, in part because it's transcendental, and in part because there is plenty of room for doubt and even periods of lack of belief while still being welcomed back such as with the parable of the prodigal son.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link