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 kind of mind that is capable of brilliant modern scientific and technological feats like maintaining the sort of nuclear program and advanced army that allows you to control a piece of land that a bunch of people want to remove you from is generally not compatible with the kind of mind that genuinely cares about building a Third Temple. I think that is a big part of 2rafa's point.
Renaissance Europe is a very obvious example of a civilization which was both very scientifically/technologically advanced, and also deeply interested in religious/devotional matters. This is a culture that pioneered advances in architectural theory in order to construct some of the best churches and temples the world has ever seen. This dichotomy you seem to continually insist on drawing between backward religious/nationalist societies vs. forward-looking secular/globalist societies is very obviously fake and I have no idea why you’re so committed to it.
Intellectual work in renaissance europe was very different from today, the primary mode of argumentation was appeal to authority: they "knew" earth was spherical because aristotle said so, they "knew" it like they "knew" that nerves connected to the heart (not the brain), that planets were carried by large solid spheres of quintessence and that heavy objects fell faster.
They were doing "science" (the word is anachronistic in this context, but whatever) the same way they were doing theology: commentary on a small corpus of approved authors that were assumed to be nearly infallible and to contain the totality of all possible knowledge. It's no wonder that intellectual work and religiosity was compatible.
The cathedrals are beautiful but they are also not designed by intellectuals but by semi-literate head masons. And, tbh, when you understand why all the flying buttresses are really there they start to look kind of ugly.
More options
Context Copy link
Just because it worked in Renaissance Europe does not mean that it works now. Clearly it is possible for people to be both religious and very intelligent. It is easy to find thousands of examples. However, just as clearly, in today's world there is a correlation between high degrees of religiousness and scientific/technological/organizational backwardness. I do not know why the correlation exists, but I see that it does exist. And of course even today it would be easy to find individual counterexamples, but that does not mean that the correlation does not exist on a group level.
In short, I am committed to the dichotomy in part because to me it does not seem fake. I also largely agree with 2rafa's idea that nationalism is antithetical to Darwininan meritocracy. The question of whether nationalism is still justified for moral reasons is, however, a separate one. Just because there exists a Darwinian rat-race of various nations that compete with each other over who can build the most advanced economies and instruments of destruction so that they can defend themselves from each other and expand their own power does not necessarily mean that for the sake of winning such competition we should throw some of our countrymen to the curb. That is a very different question.
That said, you would be right if you perceived that my distaste for religiousness is in part driven by unpragmatic motivations. I just find, say, Christianity to be false on a literal level the same way that I find Scientology to be false on a literal level, so it offends my intellectual conscience. I am not a physicalist reductionist. I do not think that consciousness can necessarily be explained in terms of matter. I find much to be repelled by in simplistic materialism and in dogmatic scientism. But the truth claims of all organized religions have little appeal to me, although I can see that some individuals are capable of compartmentalizing their religiousness and their truth-seeking and thus doing brilliant scientific work despite also believing in the literal truth of some religion.
I’m interested to know: how many Mormons have you spent time with? I ask because I know many - half of my family is LDS, as are several of my very close friends - and I think that they’re a brilliant illustration of the dichotomy falling apart. The juxtaposition of the profound irrationality - at least, from an epistemic/historical/materialist perspective - of many of their beliefs with their evident success within the modern technological/financial rat race could not be more pronounced. The remarkable success and spread of the LDS faith is especially surprising when you imagine what sort of people, in terms of neurotype and personality, must have been attracted to Joseph Smith’s preaching (and in many cases obvious confabulation) in the first place. From extremely inauspicious beginnings, this religious community of hardscrabble pioneers and gullible converts grew into one of the most successful religious/ethnic groups in the world. I understand that they are only one example of many, and that there are plenty of counterexamples, but I do want to point them out as an example of a modern people who clearly illustrate that there is no necessary inverse correlation between falsity of religious beliefs on one hand, and ability to thrive in the modern world on the other.
The exact kind of intelligence and uncompromising desire to understand everything that discovered evolution, physics, and modern civilization is the thing that undermined religion. Believing in grand religious moral claims requires you to care less about the above. It'll also make it harder to understand, respond to, shape, or fight future technological and social developments that'll clash with our current rough understanding of morality - whether that be transhumanism, AI, gene editing, or just the ambitions of technological civilization. Believing something like 'it is God's Truth that Man And Woman must Marry' is both confused and actively harmful if AI takes over, or even rejecting embryo selection or gene editing because it's not God's Plan when that happens. It's like believing in the traditional divination for the time to plant your crops ... after you've discovered irrigation.
More options
Context Copy link
I have not personally known any Mormons. I acknowledge their ability to thrive in the modern world but I think that they are an outlier that does not invalidate the existence of the correlation that I have written about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link