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 -
The problem with Agnosticism isn't so much the position itself as it is the Agnostics, who don't seem to realize the full implications of the position they're taking. Pleading ignorance of the metaphysical is one thing (or, to take it a step further, pleading man's incapability of anything but ignorance), but Agnostics themselves rarely ever act as though they are ignorant; most true Agnostics are simply irreligious and wouldn't define themselves as anything. Self-described Agnostics are usually relatively intellectually active. And while this doesn't prevent them from being able to analyze what programming is best for a population if you want to optimize for certain variables, it does prevent them from offering an opinion on what variable we should be optimizing for. If we drill down far enough, all of our positions are based on certain fundamental assumptions. But the Agnostic, by definition, is unable to make any of these fundamental assumptions precisely because they are mere assumptions and not observations. And since every assumption is as equally likely to be true as any other, the Agnostic has no reason to prefer one over another.
This all seems kind of academic until you think of something like the Taliban government in Afghanistan. This government is attempting to enforce a strict reading of Islam at the expense of economic, social, and cultural development, and has accordingly drawn the opprobrium of nearly everyone outside of Afghanistan and of a large number of people within it. But the Agnostic has no basis upon which to criticize. The Taliban are acting upon a set of fundamental assumptions about the world, and these assumptions are equally as valid as any other set of assumptions. Most self-described Agnostics wouldn't go so far as admit this, however. They would continue to criticize the Taliban, or take any other position they wished to take, but simply state that they do have a set of fundamental assumptions, just that those assumptions don't rely on the existence of God. They may even sweeten the deal by explaining that their assumptions don't foreclose the possibility of God's existence and even share a lot in common with those of major religions. The problem is that unless the existence of God is necessary to these basic assumptions then the person is effectively an Atheist. What's the contention here supposed to be? "God may or may not exist, but if he does, his relevance is somewhere below Vanilla Ice's 2005 album Platinum Underground and the 14 day extended forecast"? How does an irrelevant God work, theologically speaking? It's certainly a strange theological position to take. So, no I can't really argue apologetics with Agnostics. But I can't take them seriously either.
Your point seems confused to me…. Just because agnostics don’t have a belief in a higher power doesn’t mean they can’t have morals and object to certain actions.
My understanding is that you’re saying you need God or “fundamental assumptions” to have a moral code, but I can’t tell exactly. Could you clarify?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link