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 mean the issue with trying to set out to create a religion is that it only really works if people take it seriously or see it as in some way truthful. That is to say that if everyone involved knows that it’s something made up to fill a void, it’s not really religion it’s a LARP of religion. And LARP can’t really invoke the awe required for it to have either a psychologist or moral impact on the group.
Now I could see using ancient region that way, Zarathustrian religion is basically deism. Or Gnostic interpretation of Christianity that don’t even technically require that Jesus walk the earth, and focus on hidden wisdom. I’m not up on Sufism, though I’d imagine they’re somewhat like Gnostics. There are plenty of possible options to reinterpret or simply dust off that work just fine.
I somewhat agree with this, something important is lost if you don't take it (at least aspects) literally. But, I go to AA. For many, religion in AA is a larp, but one that they adhere to, er, religiously. Not just in terms of alcohol, or admitting yourself powerless and in need of God, but in every aspect of their lives. And the transformation this enables can be remarkable to witness, and goes far beyond not having a sip of alcohol.
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen variations on the secularizer pitch before. Many arguments for the value of some religion but none have imo satisfactorily put to bed Paul's challenge, or the question of what would have happened to Christianity if he'd believed as they did:
Religion requires some sacrifice and discipline to have staying power. Here we have perhaps the most successful evangelist in human history saying as much. Is he just wrong?
If this is true for evangelists, it's still true today for religion on a much smaller scale. You can say that Christianity has succeeded enough that you can just coast on the existing credibility and hardly worry about ending up in the Coliseum but this is self-evidently insufficient (identification and religiosity has been dropping for a while) but, even were it so, where does that leave new versions of "faith"?
More options
Context Copy link
People take things seriously which have some benefit to them; my assertion is that the mental practice of God is greatly beneficial. Once someone learns the benefits they would pursue it with seriousness just like they would with weight-lifting, the silly fictional shows they like, their video games, etc. If God is the mental practice of imagining the most serious possible state of mind in relation to the most important Being, then that alone is a good reason to take it seriously.
I think we forget that many statistically “devout” people are not doing daily prayers or giving away all their possessions or what you would expect someone who “literally believes” to do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link