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 need something stronger than an argument for the historical usefulness of Christianity to give people the “type of benefits that religion classically provides”. Because so many, perhaps all, of the classical benefits require belief. If Christianity is just an elegant story from the past, then there’s no expectation of reward, no reason for prayer, no judge of behavior, no individual and communal purpose, and nothing that can bond people together under the dominion of a Great Leader. Belief is a prerequisite for all the tangible benefits of religion, like stress reduction, delayed gratification, peace of mind and better communities. (Maybe this is why Jesus’ healing in the gospel is always predicated on faith). The most that a “Christian atheism” can say is that behaving Christlike is best for the common good, by making the dead Jesus a role model for the community. The immediate problem is that no one is motivated to imitate “just another Jew who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and was killed for his troubles”, to quote Ben Shapiro. Even atheists can see that Jesus was a moral paragon, but this hardly compels them to study his words or imitate his moral character. Let alone stave off nihilism, etc.
IMO there are only three viable avenues for reintroducing religion with all of the old benefits among the desacralized West: (1) A willful, poetic, decidedly unscientific faith belief, which comes from pure unadulterated social influence and contagion. I think this can be accomplished with social pressure, but I don’t think this is preferable, because it will always result in the negation of science. (2) Debunking scientific thinking where our evolved social nature is concerned; this would be an argument against rational thinking where rationality has no utility. This is complicated, will not persuade normal people, and is not a positive argument for Christianity specifically. (3) An emphasis on symbolic and mystical truth: the events in the Bible are believed because they mysteriously represent the reality of human nature. They are non-literally true, yet truth is “revealed” upon belief, like a mathematical proof may be revealed under assumed premises. This allows someone to believe in their heart that Adam and Eve are the first humans, while also believing that materially speaking humans evolved over millions of years. I am partial to this last one.
I think the last one is the best option.
Similarly, I think #3 would work particularly well because other red-coded, Anglo-coded, and American-coded thought patterns are so similar. The common law and our natural rights, for example, are a system which Anglos believe to be the best system of law in large part because it evolved with the culture for so many thousand years and thus represents the reality of who Anglos are as Anglos, etc. I think these concepts and sentiments can easily be combined or messaged along side your #3.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link