Against Game of Thrones Christianity
To truly care about virtue is to recognize that it matters how you win: Ends don't justify means.

For many members of the so-called New Right, one thing is clear: Classical liberal principles are not getting the job done.
The left, after all, has no compunction about using the state to go after conservatives. As far as those illiberal progressives are concerned, Catholic hospitals should be forced by law to perform abortions, and social media companies should be threatened with regulatory action if they don't agree to scrub their platforms of ideas and information unfavorable to the Democratic Party.
So instead of a principled commitment to limited government and individual liberty, the argument goes, conservatives who "know what time it is" should be willing to use public power to attack their foes. Anything less amounts to unilateral disarmament or even suicide.
The stakes, in this telling, are existential. It's not uncommon to hear that a future of Soviet-style persecution awaits those who refuse to embrace a sufficiently "muscular" response. A New Right influencer once told me that the liberalism of the American founding, by making conservatives squeamish about fighting fire with fire, was apt to land her in a gulag. Like the famous maxim from Game of Thrones, it's a vision of politics as a literal war in which you win or you die.
But how like Westeros is the United States? Are American leftists really plotting to round up religious traditionalists and Republican voters? If they were, would they stand a chance of getting away with it under the American system as it exists?
Perhaps the leading argument for classical liberalism is that it turns down the temperature of our politics. By ensuring that the rights even of minority groups are respected, good institutions can remove, or at least significantly reduce, those supposedly life-or-death stakes. Meanwhile, Americans by all accounts want a government that protects basic rights and liberties, not one that imposes a single moral orthodoxy on the country, however much some progressives might wish to do so. Given all this, perhaps the worst thing conservatives could do is to tear down the liberal institutions and norms that keep the left's worst impulses in check.
New Right rhetoric is saturated with talk of the need to restore traditional Christian virtue, by force if necessary. Several prominent New Right voices, including law professor Adrian Vermeule and journalist Sohrab Ahmari, are Catholic converts who dream of subordinating civil government to the church in pursuit of "a public square re-ordered to the common good" and possibly even "the eventual formation of the Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe." At this year's National Conservatism Conference in Miami, a major New Right gathering, one speaker after another lamented "the things that we've lost" under liberal modernity: God, Scripture, nation, family.
The irony is that the approach to politics outlined by these new, militant conservatives is flatly at odds with authentic Christian virtue. The New Right implies that religious traditionalists have a choice: They can either be the ones inside the gulag, or they can make sure their enemies are. Jesus never would have accepted that bargain.
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy,'" he says in the Gospel of Matthew. "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father." These are probably the most radical words in the Bible and almost certainly the hardest to live by. Yet the very heart of Christian teaching (if not necessarily the heart of Christian practice) has always been self-sacrifice, self-emptying, "taking up your cross," and "laying down your life for your friends."
That radical, countercultural message is far too often absent on the right today. As the Catholic writer Leah Libresco Sargeant puts it, "A lot of social conservatism has defined virtue down to 'refraining from certain modern errors' rather than 'living a life shocking in its generosity, courage, etc.'"
To truly care about virtue is to recognize that it matters how you win: Ends don't justify means. If conservatives ever did have to choose which side of the barbed wire to be on—as the gulag inmate accepting persecution or the victor carrying it out—there would be only one right answer from a Christian perspective. It isn't the New Right's.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Someone in my lifetime said: I do not choose to be a victim or an executioner. I do not remember who.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I'm willing to bet someone else chose for him.
Jesus may have told us to love our enemies, but he never told us to forget that they *are* our enemies.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
I’ve profited $17,000 in just four weeks by working from home comfortably part-time. I was devastated when I lost my previous business right away, but happily, I found this project, which has allowed me to get thousands of dollars from the comfort cfs06 of my home. Each person may definitely complete this simple task and earn extra money online by
visiting the next article———>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
Jesus may have told us to love our enemies, but he never told us to forget that they *are* our enemies.
This may legitimately be the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone say about Jesus.
Please explain. Do you have any examples of Jesus exhorting armies to throw down their arms in the interest of loving their enemies?
Of course not. He told us to love our enemies. He didn't tell us our enemies are our friends. Love them or not, your enemies remain your enemies, and nothing in Scripture tells us we should deal with them as anything but.
Do you have any examples of Jesus exhorting armies to throw down their arms in the interest of loving their enemies?
Pretty much the whole New Testament, dude. You do understand that everything Jesus said was said against the backdrop of a violent anti-Roman revolutionary movement, right?
No, that isn't what the New Testament says. If you expect that claim to not be laughed out of court, you'd better provide some specific examples.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
--Matthew 10:34
Ooh, you found that one line! Now read the rest of it. He's got another famous line about swords actually, specifically from when one of his followers attempted to use violence to save him from arrest by the Romans, which is pretty directly pertinent to the argument you're making. And not in a good way.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that. In turn, I'll point out there was also at least one incident where Christ himself was not shabby at turning over tables and cracking his enemies with whips.
The point here being, that while Jesus exhorted us to love our enemies, he in no way negated the concept of enemy. Violent resistance to enemies has always been an integral part of Christianity, from the founder on down, the hippie pacifist version being pawned off since the 1960s notwithstanding.
I’ll point out there was also at least one incident where Christ himself was not shabby at turning over tables and cracking his enemies with whips.
I think by "at least one" you mean "exactly one." Not a sign of great confidence in your position. He made a "whip of cords" and chased the money changers out of temple. Brutal.
Now remind me of all of the exhortations for his followers to spread out among the Romans and do violence to them? Or where he tells his followers "rise up and tear down this temple?" Wait - remind me again who Jesus said was going to tear down the temple?
And where is the line that says "love your enemy, but never forget he is your enemy," anyway? Me, I remember a lot of stuff about "you will be persecuted, mercilessly, and you will suffer it patiently."
"a lot of stuff about “you will be persecuted, mercilessly, and you will suffer it patiently.”
For here I stand, I can do nothing else.
Jesus as presented in the New Testament is a rather inconsistent character. He comes off mostly as a Jewish Buddhist, but then he goes around flipping tables. Then there are those last words, which one might call inconsistent with his message of absolute faith- "why has thou forsaken me?"
Soooo...Basically God talked to himself according to The Bible, amirite? 🙂
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ:) GOOD LUCK.:)
Just open the link————————————–>>OPEN>> USA JOBS ONLINE
Now we see the violence inherent in the Christian system!
Fuck off, Witch-Burning Nazi!
Yeah. Merry Christmas!
Ben Franklin no doubt had this possibility in mind when he invented the Franklin Stove insert.
And Samuel Colt had that in mind too when he invented "The Great Equalizer."
Midnight Creeps like Putin can't get past things like these.
Fuck Off, Witch-Burning Nazi!
You're the atheist, not him.
Wasn’t Jesus. He chose to be a victim.
No. He chose to pretend to be a victim, knowing He had a secret weapon that would insure His victory in the end.
Essential to Jesus’ crucifixion story in the Bible is he had to genuinely be a victim and suffer for mankind’s sins. If it was just a trick it would undermine the entire meaning of the story.
Correct.
He just regenerated into his second body.
I get paid over $451 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.
Here’s what I’ve been doing… https://ukincome6.blogspot.com/
It might have been Camus, in his 1946 book, Neither Victims nor Executioners.
To truly care about virtue is to recognize that it matters how you win: Ends don't justify means.
If you dishonest charlatan scumbags and scumbagettas truly believed this, then you wouldn't support the fraudulent election shenanigans that are now becoming sinstitutionalized in half the country. You would support genuine election integrity.
But like practically every word that comes out of your fikthy mouths these days, it's just another lie.
Reason's lack of self awareness is astonishing... and typically leftist/progressive.
The clumps of cancer writing this agitprop are truly evil.
Super and Easiest 0nl!nee Home open door for all. make 90 Dollars for every hour and Make 17485 Dollars for each month.All you essentially ed335 Need an Internet Connection and a Computer To Make Some Extra cash. visit below website….
HERE====)>OPEN>> GOOGLE WORK
"the fraudulent election shenanigans"
Like what?
And actual factual information please, not just a random person on an anonymous message board who heard it 3rd hand from another message board.
"If they were, would they stand a chance of getting away with it under the American system as it exists?"
Well No and Yes. Yes they do have that chance as purely demonstrated by their willingness to thwart the "American system" (US Constitution) for their "our democracy" National Sozialist(Nazi)-Empire (as it currently seems to be going lawlessly). No; Under a *REAL* USA where politicians honored their oath of office and the SCOTUS wasn't a hack.
Principled commitment to limited government and individual liberty is the prominent part of the Republican Party as WELL demonstrated by the omnibus bill votes.
Religious puritans and certainly not RINO'S don't belong to the Republican Party and they should be shoved-off. They are nothing but the opposite-side of the EXACT same coin (Power-Mad Gangsters) Woke-Religion Puritans vs Not-Woke-Religion Puritans. Call it a culture war if you want; It's no different than a religious war where one's "beliefs" instead of reality is being dictated.
This article is actually very good and Puritan-Republicans (seems to be of the Catholic flavor) would be very wise to heed to it. That said; The writer gives the VERY SLIM MINORITY Puritans more credit than they deserve. I highly doubt even those who speak of God, Nature, Scripture and Family don't understand that Gov-Gun force of those beliefs is not the correct way forward.
Are you auditioning for the reboot of the OBL franchise?
The Republican party is better than the Democrat party in this regard, but that's like saying Mussolini wasn't as bad as Hitler.
Principled my ass.
They are far more principled than the media gives them credit for.
https://reason.org/commentary/republican-backed-marijuana-bill-is-an-important-step-toward-legalization/
Plus, "The Republican National Committee issued a memo on Sept. 13 that acknowledged 80% of voters are 'not pleased' with the Supreme Court’s decision to cancel Roe v Wade."
"If conservatives ever did have to choose which side of the barbed wire to be on—as the gulag inmate accepting persecution or the victor carrying it out—there would be only one right answer from a Christian perspective."
At the Battle of Lepanto, Christians didn't choose either option. They inflicted a defeat on the enemy.
Christianity has traveled a long way since "Deus Vult". Most of it backwards.
Crusader Kings, while a great resource for understanding feudalism, is not in-and-of-itself a complete guide to history.
Which went against everything Christ taught.
Making every month extra dollars by doing an easy job Online. Last month i have earned and received $18539 from this home based job just by giving this only mine 2 hrs a day. Easy to do work even a child can get this and start making money Online. Get this today by.
follow instructions on this website……………. http://Www.onlinecash1.com
Every iota of your existence goes against everything Christ taught. You’re the antithesis of freedom and decency.
The words Jesus wrote for “Onward, Christian Soldiers!” lost some of their power when translated into English. Aramaic had fifty different words for violence.
Jesus would want all Christians to be conquered by the Ottomans!
"Convert to Islam! Repent later."
"You have taught me a great deal about religion, Your Eminence."
Do I, the atheist, need to be the one to start quoting Bible verses:
Matthew 24: 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
We would rather you shut your lying Marxist mouth and repent for all your evil works.
I may be an atheist now but I was raised in church and I know my Bible. There is nothing in there where Jesus says: “Be concerned for earthly affairs like wars. Make sure you win even if it means taking your eye off your heavenly rewards and loving your fellow man!” Not even close.
Kind of like how you’re a leftist sociopath raised around humans, so you k ow about empathy and emotions, even if you do not possess the capacity for such things?
Jesus would want all Christians to be conquered by the Ottomans!
Jesus would want the Ottomans to learn the error of their ways by observing the long-suffering patience and forgiveness demonstrated by Christians.
Jesus would want you to stand by and watch children be raped, mutilated, and or murdered?
Genuinely curious.
Are you saying, contra previous comments, that a Christian should take action, even violent action, to stop such abuses?
Genuinely curious.
That's up to the person who finds themselves in that situation.
But the question is if the duty to turn the other cheek applies when innocent others are wronged.
Fwiw, I don't think Jesus would have a great answer.
But the question is if the duty to turn the other cheek applies when innocent others are wronged.
Jesus is pretty clear about it actually. It's not as if his era was free of atrocities against innocents.
We may not agree with Jesus, but that's a different discussion.
"As far as those illiberal progressives are concerned, Catholic hospitals should be forced by law to perform abortions"
Wow. Reason's resident anti-abortion Catholic should find it easy to vote against any political movement that promotes such depravity. And yet...
I've been vacillating between sitting out this election, as I did in 2016, or voting for Joe Biden.
Life is tough when the party that supports #AbortionAboveAll is also the party that supports your billionaire sugar daddy's "import cheap labor" agenda. 🙁
It was also a vote against the AOC wing of the Dem Party.
...did not seem to work out too well.
Edit: Below not meant in reply.
To truly care about virtue is to recognize that it matters how you win: Ends don’t justify means.
Hey, Stephanie, you going to quote the actual Bible in your moralizing to Christians/Conservatives? Or are you just going to quote lawyers, professors, and contemporary social activists?
Are you going to quote Smith or Bastiat or Hayek or Rotbard or Hegel or Locke or Nietzsche that “no ends are justified by any means” or are you just going to lie by ambiguity and slander the virtues to which you claim to cling in an obvious attempt prostitute your assumed virtues in order to attempt to Saul Alinsky conservatives’ arguments against themselves?
Having done all that and proven that you aren’t a capitalist, for whom the ends justify the means all the time, or a Christian, for whom the redemption is worth the worship, or a rationalist, for whom human actions engaged in always make sense, but just a lying whore who doesn’t actually believe in anything at all… was it worth it?
Excellent characterization of her.
Thank God I'm an atheist so I really don't care what Jesus said. I'll worry about the Christian Right when they become a threat to imposing their religion upon me the way the Left is hell-bent on imposing their religion upon me, Freezing to death or starving to death for the sake of Mother Gaia and the elimination of carbon dioxide is not my cup of tea, nor is having my dick cut off and still fucking little boys to prove I'm not transphobic.
Geez, look at Mr. Libertarian here.
Who do you think started the whole War On Victimless Crimes we live with today? And who do you think is trying so damn hard to make every womb into a national resource and trying to bring back official sexual morality that is pre-Lawerence v. Texas and pre-Obergafell?
Being Atheist is not enough. You have to have situational awareness too.
Government.
If you think that atheist governments are kinder and gentler on abortion and homosexuality, you really don't know your history.
Governments run by Religionists seeking to impose their morality upon all of society. Is that so hard?
And I didn't say Atheist governments were better and made no mention of them at all. Is that so hard?
The massive explosion of laws against victimless crimes in the US was rooted in progressivism, not Christianity.
Well, when complaining about government policy, you always have to compare it to the available alternatives. So, do better next time and explicitly include the "compared to what" part.
There is a government that makes better decisions about imposing morality on its citizens. A secular government, which is a very different thing than an atheist government.
Republicans don't seem to like that idea.
(1) You fail to distinguish levels of government.
(2) Can you describe where you see the distinction between "secular" and "atheist" government?
(3) Can you give examples of where "secular government" has ever been successful in the long term?
Government has absolutely no authority to impose morality of any kind upon it's citizens, yet they try to do this through all the laws they pass.
God gave man agency, or the ability to act for himself and make his own decisions. Government is trying to take away our agency by telling us who we can marry, whether we can have abortions and who must perform them, and redistribute tax funds in an unfair manner.
We are in an ugly cycle of government wanting to control our morality and if we don't speak up loudly, it is going to continue.
If a country has a deeply religious culture, government has no need to impose morality.
However, in a country that is shared by many religions and atheists, moral judgments necessarily start creeping into laws.
We are in that "ugly cycle" you mention because the country has become more secular and religiously more diverse.
+1, perceptive, wrt the bargain currently being offered.
Personally, I've never had a religious bone in my body, but I'm old enough to remember when there were still TV commercials nagging us to attend the church of our choice.
Somehow, we let ourselves be convinced that if we drove the Church Lady out of the public square, we would somehow be more free.
Instead, the Church Lady has been replaced by the Drag Queen Story Hour, and our freedoms diminish by the day.
Between the two, I'd rather have the Church Lady back. Thank you.
...and if you had "Church Lady" back in the public square, you think your freedoms would magically be returned? If you do, then you've got way more magical thinking going on than just believing in the imaginary sky fairy who created the world in seven days.
But you know that's not what he's saying, Shrike. He's saying that the church lady was less dangerous, censorious, authoritarian, vicious and hate-filled than your Woke lot.
Now go be disingenuous somewhere else, shitweasel.
There is nothing more evil than Marxism.
Stuff it up your ass, disingenuous pile of shit.
If you think that progressives and socialists don't take away your sexual and personal freedoms far more than the worst Christian theocracy once they are securely in power, you really don't know your history.
As a gay man, I'd rather live in a moderately conservative Christian nation than an atheist socialist nation.
Huh? What sexual freedoms have been taken away by left-leaning governments in the West?
I will say that I don't want a nation to have an atheist government, but a secular one. Big difference.
Historically, it was the progressive movement that wanted to apply science to either "cure" homosexuality through conversion or eliminate homosexuals from the gene pool through castration.
Democrats and leftist European governments remained hostile to homosexuality until popular opinion changed sometimes in the 2000s.
You're really stretching things to a fairly ridiculous degree to pin homophobia on the modern political left. Democrats and left European governments were not nearly as hostile to homosexuality as the right in the second half of the 20th century, and the right is still hostile to it. Democrats such as Bill Clinton wouldn't go all the way with LGBT rights in the 90s, they weren't openly hostile to LGBT people the way that the Republican Party usually is. Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA were essentially compromises that Clinton made to not completely turn off the more religious and socially conservative Democrats in the South that were still with his party. Same thing with Obama sticking with a talking point opposing marriage equality.
But after the rapid shift of public opinion that occurred after he took office, Democrats are pretty solidly in support of LGBT rights, whereas the GOP is desperately trying to whip up anti-LGBT sentiment with fearmongering over drag queen story hours and medical and psychological treatment for children with gender dysphoria. And it is the GOP that will defend the legality of conversion therapy supported entirely by conservative evangelicals.
If you have to go back to the progressive movement of the early 20th century America to find people that identified as progressive with views and policies that were homophobic, then you're just looking for whatever thread you can find to connect it to the modern left. You certainly aren't basing it on anything that has happened in my lifetime.
So you are saying that Clinton and Obama lied to voters about their true beliefs and passed anti-gay legislation in order to get elected. How is that "pro-gay"? I don't give a f*ck about their intentions, I care about what they actually did.
The very concept of "LGBT" is anti-gay. As a gay man, I have no more in common with transgender people than your average straight man. Progressives have hijacked and destroyed gay and lesbian organizations and are using them for their political ends.
And you better believe that I oppose "drag queen story hour" and giving hormones and castrating teenagers over gender dysphoria. Psychological treatment for gender dysphoria should be the same as for any other body dysmorphic disorder.
The term "conversion therapy" is used by progressives to describe any attempt to change a person's sexual orientation. As a gay man, I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It is perfectly reasonable to attempt to try to help a Kinsey 4 or lower to lead a traditional heterosexual family life.
Any form of "therapy" that is coercive or abusive is, of course, wrong; but that is true whether that "therapy" aims to change someone's sexual orientation or prepare someone for sex change.
Again, it's funny how many Atheists regard:
When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.
as some sort of personal attack rather than recognize the objective mutual history, the common ground, and the untold universe of far, far more stupid and evil shit out there. And, further, don't realize that such a kneejerk is at tell of their "Don't Say Irrational Death Cult" mentality.
The statement itself plainly indicates that you don't have to believe in God to realize how stupid believing in anything is. But the kneejerk opposition indicates that you don't care how morally or factually wrong or evil the belief in anything is, as long as it's not a belief in God, it's OK.
The statement itself plainly indicates that you don’t have to believe in God to realize how stupid believing in anything is.
No, that is not what it says at all. It is presenting belief in God as a bulwark against believing in anything. But someone that doesn't believe in God is not more likely to believe in "anything" than someone that does believe in God. Quite the opposite is true, for many atheists. For myself, I come to atheism due to skepticism of things for which there is no objective evidence or other rational basis. Belief in the supernatural has no evidence to support it, nor does it hold up to scrutiny by any other rational standard. Never mind any of the claims and theology of specific religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, or anything else.
The moral and ethical teachings of religions are still worth considering, but the supernatural aspects of them only serve to cajole or coerce people into adherence. That makes them tools for control of individuals by the powerful at the top of the religious institutions, not roads to enlightenment or salvation.
This steaming pile of lefty shit supports murder to keep people from possibly doing something bad in the future:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Nice rebuttal to his statement. I mean, complete non-sequiturs are the best.
I've had Sevo muted for a long time, since all he does is paste in the same thing in replies to comments I make. I'm grateful for the mute function just for him.
I agrre 100%. Him, Rev. Kirkland, and Nardz were my first foray into the mute function. I quickly realized the joy it could bring.
Adopting a materialistic world view and rejecting any information that can't be tested with naturalistic methods requires willfully ignoring the reality of consciousness. All of us know the supernatural exists because we experience our own consciousness. The scientific method requires setting that knowledge aside, along with stipulating to other foundational assumptions of science.
Adopting a materialistic world view and rejecting any information that can’t be tested with naturalistic methods requires willfully ignoring the reality of consciousness. All of us know the supernatural exists because we experience our own consciousness. The scientific method requires setting that knowledge aside, along with stipulating to other foundational assumptions of science.
^ ^ ^
Why is consciousness supernatural rather than natural?
We have many historical examples of phenomena that were not understood but were eventually explained with completely natural explanations.
Why is consciousness supernatural rather than natural?
The central point is more that consciousness is itself deliberately excluded from the practice of scientific explanation. It is therefore beyond scientific explanation by definition.
“consciousness is itself deliberately excluded from the practice of scientific explanation”
I didn’t know that it has been excluded. I guess I didn’t get the memo. 🙂
Imagine trying to test a phenomenon in a laboratory if the phenomenon didn't WANT to be tested.
Why cannot consciousness be explored in a laboratory. We already study one aspect or level of consciousness in laboratories already: sleep.
It is obvious consciousness is not a simple on/off phenomenon, but consists of levels: when we are asleep our self-awareness seems to go away and it is like we are dead, but some level of our brain is paying attention to temperature, sounds, threats; when we are dreaming we experience self-awareness but sometimes memory fades seconds after the experience; when we are tired, we miss noticing a lot; when we are awake and alert, we clearly have self-awareness; still we can be completely oblivious to noticing or seeing certain things until they are brought to our attention; and then there are reported states of drug-induced or religious “higher” consciousness.
That our supposedly god-created, supernatural self-awareness turns off every night when certain chemicals build up in our brain is a tip-off that the whole phenomenon isn’t supernatural at all.
Sleep is literally the opposite of consciousness.
Why cannot consciousness be explored in a laboratory.
When you figure out to do that, let us know, and then go collect your Nobel Prize.
“ Sleep is literally the opposite of consciousness.”
Not so. That claim cannot be reconciled with the common experience of dreaming and remembering what one dreamt.
“ When you figure out to do that, let us know, and then go collect your Nobel Prize.”
I’ve already given a real world example: I’ve personally had two sleep studies where a lab technician attached electrodes to me to detect whether I was awake or not. I was able to correlate their measurements with whether or not my self-consciousness was switched on or off at various times during the night.
Personally I buy into the idea that there are higher or more aware states of consciousness than the level we normally walk around in during the day.
For example, one’s experience of reality is drastically different when adrenaline is at higher levels. Or another example, if you buy a red VW bug you will suddenly be aware of all the other red VW bugs you encounter while your consciousness used to filter them down to background noise.
There are less simplistic examples such as having a sudden insight into how to solve a problem. An awareness is there that want previously there. Aha!!!
@Mike
How do you know that anyone other than yourself is ever conscious? How would you distinguish between another conscious being and one that merely convincingly simulated the behavior of a conscious being?
Not sure what the relevance is, but I of course have no way to know if anyone else is conscious. This is the classic solipsism dilemma.
Still it is more useful to assume others that appear to be like me have consciousness that operates like mine.
Why do you ask this question? Is it leading anywhere?
I'm pointing out that your assertion that consciousness itself is being studied in sleep labs is false because consciousness cannot even be shown to exist by scientific standards. Is it leading anywhere? Probably not, because I'm wasting my time conversing with a thick-skulled pedant.
Oh, well. Here come the ad hominems. Back on mute for you…
“consciousness cannot even be shown to exist by scientific standards”
You are making a weak argument, by the way. There are all kinds of subjectively-experienced phenomena we explore scientifically: seeing color,
experiencing pain, emotions, and on and on.
Poltergeists in particular are nasty in that way.
"Imagine trying to test a phenomenon in a laboratory if the phenomenon didn’t WANT to be tested."
And here's where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle pops up to let us know our limits.
I didn’t know that it has been excluded.
It is excluded as an explanatory principle, specifically the concept of will. The whole point of "natural philosophy/science" is to find passive explanations of natural phenomena - i.e. to detail only and exactly those parts of existence that operate independently of will. Once we have found an explanation of a phenomenon that excludes will in every way, we consider it "scientifically understood." Thus will/consciousness is beyond the ken of science by its very nature.
Wait a second. We were talking about consciousness. Will is a separate concept.
We were talking about consciousness. Will is a separate concept.
Not really.
Edit: at least, I would challenge you to define one without reference to the other.
I’d have a hard time defining will without consciousness, but vice versa no difficulty.
We have all kinds of real world examples of people being conscious of actions they are taking contrary to their will: eating that one last cookie or skipping their workout, schizophrenia, brain parasites that compel behavior, maybe hypnosis (if it is real), there’s a long list.
One of the articles I found in a quick search for the science of consciousness talks about a new hypothesis/framework proposed by one group of researchers for the relationship between our consciousness and our actions. The idea is that experiments and experience suggest that we actually decide to act subconsciously and then become consciously aware of what we decided about half a second later. Really, we are remembering what our unconscious minds decided to do, according to this hypothesis.
They seemed to come to that tentative conclusion by noting how some tasks simply could not be done with conscious thought, as that would be too slow. (Playing music, many athletic activities, etc.) Training and “muscle memory” are really just analogous to hard-wiring those tasks to be done correctly by our unconscious minds. It also explains why it can be difficult to break habits, overcome addiction, or just to have the self-control to avoid eating a whole bag of potato chips. This sounds a lot like what Mike was referring to.
I don’t know if that idea has scientific merit, but it certainly shows that people are trying to study and explain consciousness scientifically.
What would be supernatural would be to suppose a “soul” or to otherwise assume that our conscious mind is separate from our bodies to any extent. It is not necessary to define consciousness as existing separate from the material or to include the concept of humans having free will separate from our material bodies. As far as I can tell, you are the only one defining consciousness that way. If you can show me that it is a consensus among psychologists and neurobiologists and the like that consciousness necessarily includes free will independent of biology, then you might have an argument that consciousness would be outside the realm of science.
Yes, there have been a couple episodes of Russ Robert’s Econtalk podcast where brain scientists talk about findings that our conscious brain observed what our subconscious does and tries to rationalize our subconscious actions after the fact.
Yes. Thank you.
The central point is more that consciousness is itself deliberately excluded from the practice of scientific explanation. It is therefore beyond scientific explanation by definition.
That may have been true for most of the history of science, but there have been scientists at least trying to study consciousness scientifically for around three decades or more. And they are making more and more headway as technology improves and knowledge builds.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1
To put it another way, “consciousness” is what is doing the studying. One can study traces, symptoms, and the like, but science only studies what science can study.
Here’s a famous allegory of what I’m talking about.
I'm not seeing how that is an allegory of what you're talking about. Your link is to an article about a painting by William Blake. The painting is of Isaac Newton, naked apparently at the bottom of the sea. It depicts him ignoring his surroundings to focus on the abstract and analytical, with him using a compass to draw or examine a geometric diagram. It really seems an odd choice to bring into this argument, as Blake seems to have been critical of the Enlightenment and its values of using reason to understand the world, whereas he valued imagination and creativity.
To say that consciousness can't be studied scientifically because it is what does the studying is an interesting point, but I don't think it is at all fatal to the idea of a science of consciousness.
All of us know the supernatural exists because we experience our own consciousness. The scientific method requires setting that knowledge aside, along with stipulating to other foundational assumptions of science.
The scientific method only excludes the supernatural because the word supernatural means things that don't obey natural laws. Methodological naturalism, as practiced in science, presupposes that whatever is being studied obeys some form of natural law. This is necessary in order to interpret the results of experiments in a way that could lead toward learning what those natural laws are. If something could act outside of the laws of physics to make a baseball move according to its will alone, rather than through actions subject to scientific testing, then there would be no way to discover the laws of motion for that baseball with any reliability.
In that sense, "will" is not something that can be scientifically studied, because the way we usually use that word means that will exists independent of the material. But psychologists and neuroscientists don't assume that. When they study people's behavior, they assume that "willpower" means thought processes and sensory inputs rooted in their nervous systems. They do not consider the possibility that they have a soul or something like it that makes decisions separately from their brains.
Consciousness does not require setting aside materialism. Nor does materialism require excluding consciousness from scientific study. It is certainly difficult to study consciousness scientifically, since you need to find ways to observe it in the third person. But as someone in this thread pointed out, I think, I can never be sure that my conscious experience of the color red is identical to yours. The color that you perceive a ripe strawberry to be might look quite different than what I see. But we will both agree that they are red because it appears similar to other things that we would agree are red. In that way, the perception of color can be studied scientifically. We can learn to understand color blindness and other differences in vision between people even though we can't observe what other people are actually perceiving directly.
Methodological naturalism, as practiced in science, presupposes that whatever is being studied obeys some form of natural law. This is necessary in order to interpret the results of experiments in a way that could lead toward learning what those natural laws are.
Precisely. This is circular reasoning.
In that sense, “will” is not something that can be scientifically studied, because the way we usually use that word means that will exists independent of the material.
Exactly.
But psychologists and neuroscientists don’t assume that.
See, you get it.
It is not circular reasoning, since the assumptions of methodological naturalism are not there to try and prove that the universe is purely naturalistic. It is only an assumption adopted to distinguish what can or can't be studied scientifically.
See, you get it.
Are you saying that you think that I have agreed with your proposition? I am distinguishing the concept of consciousness from the concept of "will" (as in having free will to make choices rather than our behaviors being entirely a consequence of brain chemistry). If will is defined as existing separate from our physical bodies, then it could not be studied scientifically because it would not be subject to the limitations of natural laws. If we assume that consciousness is a consequence of how are brains work and interact with our environment, then it would be subject only to natural laws and could be studied scientifically.
To reiterate, the methodological naturalism of science does not contradict or disprove the existence of anything beyond the material. It just requires that the possibility of there being anything beyond the material be discounted as one engages in studying something scientifically.
While that limits science, it is a strength overall because scientists never stop working on a problem and throw up their hands and say, "Well, we can't explain it, so it must be God doing it." Believing that consciousness cannot be studied or understood scientifically would mean not trying to understand it in any verifiable way at all.
Getting back to the original idea I was expressing, rather than this tangent about whether consciousness can be studied scientifically -
I don't automatically reject everything that can't be tested with naturalistic methods. That would be the kind of hyper-rationalism that sometimes gets parodied in fiction. (Think of the character Bones in the TV show of that name, or of Vulcans in Star Trek. There's even a trope named for creating characters like that with the intent to demonstrate the superiority of emotional responses or of religious faith - the Straw Vulcan)
What I do with assertions, claims or information that cannot be verified objectively is to treat them as less reliable than what can be tested objectively and independently. If there isn't a way to gain information that is objective, then I will consider the assertions and claims for how consistent they are with things that have shown themselves to be objectively reliable. The supernatural claims of religions (miracles, origins of the Earth, humans, or the universe as a whole) are completely inconsistent with hundreds of years of scientific experiments and observations. So I reject those because of that. Moral teachings of religions can be evaluated by the same standards I would evaluate any moral or ethical claims, so I don't reject them without considering them. Though, I would certainly be unlikely to follow a moral or ethical rule from a religion just because God commanded it.
And that really is the big takeaway here. Following a set of religious rules for human behavior because God commands it is just doing what one is told. And one would be following the commands not of God, but of whatever chain of human beings have been passing down those commands in oral traditions and written forms for centuries. When some talk about believing in anything, that is certainly what believing in a religion looks like to me.
Brilliant writing.
Well, that's not how most religions work. Instead, religious law derives from nature, just like physical law; it simply tells you that a certain set of actions has a bad outcome or that certain practices have a good outcome. And just like with physical laws, they can be formulated in various ways for different audiences, for experts and for laymen.
That is clearly not how religious law works either. Rather, religious law is an ongoing process of discovery and understanding, just like physical law. Just like we have a better understanding of the meaning of Newton's Laws, we have a better understanding of the meaning of the Ten Commandments.
That is clearly not how religious law works either. Rather, religious law is an ongoing process of discovery and understanding, just like physical law.
As I say below, this ongoing process you are talking about takes generations if not multiple human lifetimes if it happens at all. Scientific discoveries can cause theories to change or be discarded much more quickly. Basically, it takes only as long as is necessary for the new discoveries to be verified independently by other scientists. Skepticism is built into scientific reasoning, so modifying or throwing out ideas that had been working previously may take some time to work its way through the relevant fields within a scientific discipline. But if the evidence is there to justify that, it could happen that what someone learned in their undergraduate classes will have been replaced in new editions of textbooks by the time they finish a Ph.D.
Even if that were true (and it is not), what does the speed of change have to do with the fundamental nature of a field or its scholarship?
As it is into religious reasoning.
Well, that’s not how most religions work. Instead, religious law derives from nature, just like physical law; it simply tells you that a certain set of actions has a bad outcome or that certain practices have a good outcome.
Incorrect. Scientific knowledge makes no judgement on the moral implications of the cause and effect relationships described in theories. That is subjective and thus outside of realm of science. Scientists are human beings, so you hope that they would behave ethically and morally as they do their work, but those ethics are informed by values that they get from outside of the scientific knowledge they are studying.
Some religious laws may be based on observations of causes and effects (the Law of Moses regarding food, for instance). Some of the religious laws regarding how to behave toward other people can also be informed by what has worked to hold people together through difficult times. But there is also no doubt that some are just naked appeals to the authority of God. The first few of the Ten Commandments are entirely about how to worship God. They don't provide any practical rules of behavior that would apply for anything but how to practice the religion. It also matters that the justification for religious law isn't the practicality of the rules, but that the law comes down from on high. It is that ultimate authority of God that people must be obeying, not reasoned arguments about cause and effect.
Consider Buddhism. There is no God. Yet, Buddhism has pretty much the same laws as the Ten Commandments. They are considered part of the natural universe, just like prime numbers or planetary orbits, discovered through logical deduction and reason. If you violate those laws, there are negative consequences, not as punishment, but as cause and effect. Likewise, Buddhists have a number of well-defined practices that help you understand those laws better and live according to them.
Well, it's the same in Christianity. The Ten Commandments are not arbitrary laws, they are a mix of self-evident laws ("thou shalt not kill") and useful practices ("thou shalt not make any graven images"). God doesn't punish you for violating those commandments, violating them just tends to have negative consequences, not in a utilitarian sense, but in a spiritual one. And God doesn't send you to hell for all eternity, you voluntarily choose to separate yourself from God for all eternity.
These ideas are common to many major religions and ancient philosophy.
Religions that view the nature of divine law as arbitrary rules handed down by a capricious deity and enforced by arbitrary and draconian rewards and punishments is the view of fringe religions, fundamentalists, and atheists/Hollywood studios.
Where the Hell do you get that? The use of the Scientific Method requires consciousness, not setting it aside!
You need to distinguish between the cultural expression of a religion, which often involves superstitions, and the philosophical foundations of those religions.
In Christianity, God isn't a bearded man sitting on a cloud who fulfills your wishes or punishes you when you commit wrongs. Buddhist "reincarnation" doesn't mean that you personally slip into another body with a case of amnesia. Etc.
You don't have to believe in anything "supernatural" to be a Christian or a Buddhist; religion addresses those questions of human existence that science cannot address in principle. It is effectively a form of applied philosophy. How much superstition and supernatural effects you mix in with those core beliefs is really your choice.
You don’t have to believe in anything “supernatural” to be a Christian or a Buddhist
I get that you could follow Christian morality and ethics without believing in the supernatural, but the core of Christian theology is belief in the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus.
The nature of the sacrifice and resurrection differ between different branches of Christianity. There are many ways that these stories can be compatible with physical law as we know it: the story can be metaphorical, it can refer to a hallucination, it may be a case of apparent death, etc. Since we will never know, the exact nature of the resurrection is irrelevant, what matters is its meaning within Christianity.
As far as I understand it, every Christian denomination agrees that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross to atone for the sins of all of humanity. This allows humans that accept Jesus as their Savior to have eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Among everything else that is supernatural in that is the concept of sin itself. Sin is not just doing something wrong or immoral. To sin is to go against God's commands. (Or more generally in religion, to violate some form of divine law. Monotheistic religions suppose that divine law comes directly from God.) Thus, even a metaphorical interpretation of Jesus's sacrifice presupposes that there is a God in order for there to be sin that needs forgiveness.
There is no logic or even a point to the story of Jesus's sacrifice that doesn't rely at least on the existence of God, as far as I can see. If there is no Father that needs to forgive people for their sins, no avoiding a final death by seeking and accepting that forgiveness, then there is no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself. He could have just kept trying to teach a new system of morality. And someone that rejects the supernatural would have to reject everything in the Gospels that has Jesus talking about following the will of God.
What you seem to think is that one could take on a project like Thomas Jefferson, literally cutting the moral teachings of Jesus out of the Bible and pasting them together to make something that leaves out every reference to miracles. And that this could still be called Christianity.
I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he [Jesus] wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, 1803
You, like Jefferson, are free to separate the moral teachings in the Gospels from all of the supernatural and call it Christianity, but very few Christians would agree with you.
Look at science. A layman reading Popular Science and maybe glancing at a graduate level physics textbook. He may think he knows what the words mean, but he really doesn’t; he may get some practical advice out of what he read, but he knows really nothing about the field. Graduate students and many working scientists may understand the words and can recite formal definitions, but still lack an intuitive understanding. Only few really fully understand any particular scientific theory or domain.
Religion is like that. “God”, “eternal life”, and “forgiveness” have some meaning to you, but that’s different from their actual theological meaning. Even if you knew the technical meaning, you won’t fully grasp it unless you actually have a mystical experience and intuitive understanding; many priests are in that situation.
Probably not in the way you think. In Christianity (and Buddhism), “divine law” is like “physical law”: a rational, logical consequence of the nature of the universe and human beings, not an arbitrary set of prohibitions. And “divine punishment” is the self-enforcing logical consequence of violating that law.
Likewise, “reincarnation” or “eternal life” isn’t like you see it in the movies. Christianity merely speculates about it; Buddhism is a little clearer and says that most of what you likely consider “you” is not going to be part of any reincarnation.
Most Christians believe in the supernatural, just like most lay scientists think of atoms as little balls whizzing around other little balls. Both sets of beliefs are useful approximations for laymen, but they have little to do with actual Christianity/physics.
Religion is like that. “God”, “eternal life”, and “forgiveness” have some meaning to you, but that’s different from their actual theological meaning. Even if you knew the technical meaning, you won’t fully grasp it unless you actually have a mystical experience and intuitive understanding; many priests are in that situation.
You're engaging in what's become known as the Courtier's reply. It can be considered an informal fallacy depending on the context. You are basically saying that I don't know enough theology or have had the "mystical experience" to judge your argument. That's not convincing. You aren't justifying why I would need that special knowledge to really understand what we are discussing. Nor are you justifying why you have enough of that knowledge to talk about what "reincarnation" and "eternal life" mean while I don't.
The very fact that you referred to mystical experience as a way to understand theology is refuting your own argument that these are things can be accepted while rejecting the supernatural anyway.
No, not at all. I am not a Christian. I have not had those "mystical experiences" either. You don't need to be a Christian or believe in Christianity to understand the internal logic of Christianity.
I do not claim to know what those terms mean. In fact, neither Christians nor Buddhists claim to "know" what those terms mean, they simply speculate about it. And among those speculations, many do not involve anything supernatural.
Mystical experiences are not supernatural, they are physical phenomena linked to the brain, occurring in well-defined brain areas. They can be induced through meditation, drugs, injury, or electrical stimulation. You could have one in a few days if you chose to.
You don’t need to be a Christian or believe in Christianity to understand the internal logic of Christianity.
And, yet, you are saying that I don't understand the internal logic of Christianity. Reminding you of what you wrote:
“God”, “eternal life”, and “forgiveness” have some meaning to you, but that’s different from their actual theological meaning. Even if you knew the technical meaning, you won’t fully grasp it unless you actually have a mystical experience and intuitive understanding; many priests are in that situation.
Christianity is so widespread in the U.S. that it is hard not to be immersed in its basic theology. My mother has convinced me to watch The Chosen, which is actually quite good. Of course, I don't believe that any of the miracles and the like in the show ever happened, but I enjoy it as a story. There is no doubt that it is produced by firmly believing Christians and is intended to be accurate to Christian theology. I cannot walk away from that show or any of the dozens of other movies and TV shows and documentaries I have watched over the years without seeing that the internal logic of Christianity relies on there being a loving God that sent his only Son to Earth to sacrifice himself for our sins. Any lack of understanding on my part would be due to how Christians have described their own beliefs.
If you really think that a person could be Christian without believing in anything supernatural (especially rejecting the idea that Jesus was divine, performed miracles, and sacrificed himself on the Cross so that God could forgive our sins), I suggest you ask devout Christians that question and see what they say.
Correct: you don’t.
Well, your mother apparently believes in a form of Christianity involving many irrational and supernatural elements. Most lay Christians do. I didn’t claim that such beliefs did not exist, I said that they were not necessary to be a Christian.
Most people also reason about the world as if physical effects propagate instantaneously because it’s a useful heuristic, but that is not just false, it is logically inconsistent. Much of what every human believes is wrong and nonsensical.
Statements like that are a metaphor intended to teach you about your relationship to the universe and creation. You can choose to interpret "God", "Son", and "sacrifice" as literal "bearded human-like creatures doing things"; in that case, the story appears to be supernatural. Many people do that. But that is neither the only interpretation nor the best.
So, I didn't say that supernatural beliefs weren't a common component of Christianity (viz your mother), I was simply saying that they weren't a necessary component of Christian belief.
Statements like that are a metaphor intended to teach you about your relationship to the universe and creation. You can choose to interpret “God”, “Son”, and “sacrifice” as literal “bearded human-like creatures doing things”; in that case, the story appears to be supernatural. Many people do that. But that is neither the only interpretation nor the best.
Final point, since we seem to be going in circles - You are free to believe that those things are metaphor intended to teach us something not supernatural, but I still challenge you to find many who call themselves Christian that don't believe at least what I stated. So, whether you think it is unnecessary to believe in those supernatural aspects of Christian theology in order to be Christian is really irrelevant. I still think you'd have a hard time finding any Christian churchgoers that don't.
Most people also reason about the world as if physical effects propagate instantaneously because it’s a useful heuristic, but that is not just false, it is logically inconsistent. Much of what every human believes is wrong and nonsensical.
Even engineers and physicists will perform calculations as if forces act instantaneously if that approximation won't lead to measurable errors. Considering the time it takes for effects to propagate over distances or for an applied force to go from zero to some steady-state value simply might not be necessary to get adequately accurate and precise results. Approximations that simplify solving a problem mathematically are not logically inconsistent with the laws of physics, they are, well, approximations. After all, Newtonian mechanics is itself an approximation that doesn't take into account the finite speed of light or the quantum nature of matter at small scales. But Newton's laws work perfectly well to within measurement uncertainties in most applications.
That said, there are things that people who haven't studied physics, chemistry, or biology extensively past high school will believe that are "wrong and nonsensical." And even those that have studied those things extensively can still think things work in a way that is incorrect. Science is always advancing, so sometimes what was accepted as correct turns out to be wrong, or at least incomplete or valid only under certain conditions.
This is a strength of scientific reasoning. It allows people to adjust to new information and discard what no longer works to make correct predictions about what is observed in nature. Religions can take more than a human lifetime to adjust to changes in knowledge or human attitudes, if they adjust at all.
Every Christian believes what you stated. The issue is what you think those terms mean. God is considered beyond human comprehension, so necessarily a statement like "God sent his son to take away our sins" is a metaphorical statement, since something beyond human comprehension can't have a literal "son". The idea that God is beyond human comprehension is central to Christian doctrine and you can read about it widely.
It is quite relevant to the question of whether Christianity is inherently in conflict with science.
If you pick a random person off the street, they are going to know next to nothing about science and they are going to hold lots of supernatural beliefs. That's true whether they are Christian or not and has nothing to do with Christianity.
And likewise, theological approximations often don't lead to measurable errors. That is, thinking of God as a benevolent-but-irascible bearded man watching you from a cloud and whispering in your ear is a perfectly good approximation, even though it isn't what Christian theology actually says.
I think you don't appreciate how deep the crises in mathematics and physics are. We will likely have to discard large amounts of 20th century mathematics and physics in this century because much of it is a house of cards.
Scientists rarely if ever do that. As Planck put it "Science advances one funeral at a time." Pretty much like religious dogma.
The issue is what you think those terms mean. God is considered beyond human comprehension, so necessarily a statement like “God sent his son to take away our sins” is a metaphorical statement, since something beyond human comprehension can’t have a literal “son”. The idea that God is beyond human comprehension is central to Christian doctrine and you can read about it widely.
Maybe you can point me to where I could read Christian doctrine that states that Jesus being the Son of God and dying for our sins is meant to be metaphorical. What I have been continuing to say is that in all of my 51 years on this planet, I have never heard someone that calls themselves a faithful Christian say what you are saying. Christian denominations have varying opinions on how much of the Bible to take literally, but I have never heard of any that takes the Gospels as being metaphorical and that none of the miracles happened or that Jesus was not divine and was not literally resurrected. I am simply not believing your assertions that this is an actual thing among any Christian theologians, ministers, or regular churchgoers. Until you can point to something concrete where what you said is actually debated among those groups of people, you are not going to get anywhere with me.
If you pick a random person off the street, they are going to know next to nothing about science and they are going to hold lots of supernatural beliefs. That’s true whether they are Christian or not and has nothing to do with Christianity.
This conversation started when I was arguing that religious people do not approach their beliefs with the kind of skepticism that can guard against fooling oneself into believing things that aren't true, particular superstition and the supernatural. And that, contrary to what mad.casual was saying, this makes at least some atheists less likely to believe "anything" in the way he was describing. That, in itself, does not depend on how much a person knows about science. But having studied science, a person might be better armed with critical thinking tools that support skepticism. In the end, what matters is how willing a person is to apply those tools. And, again, the religious are generally not very willing to apply skepticism toward their religious beliefs.
And likewise, theological approximations often don’t lead to measurable errors.
Of course they don't. Claims of fact and history found in holy texts can be checked against other historical accounts to see if they have corroboration, but the supernatural claims of religions are inherently untestable.
I think you don’t appreciate how deep the crises in mathematics and physics are. We will likely have to discard large amounts of 20th century mathematics and physics in this century because much of it is a house of cards.
We haven't discarded Newton's Laws of Motion even though we have known that they were "wrong" for well over a century. Current theories like the Standard Model, Quantum Theory, and General Relativity work extremely well. Things that we observe that don't fit with them, especially the inability to reconcile relativity and quantum theory in regards to gravity, are exciting because they could lead to whole new physics. But that wouldn't make existing theories no longer able to be used in calculations, as they work so well in so many experiments.
People that become professional scientists aren't looking to simply apply whatever is found in existing textbooks. They want to find things that aren't in any textbook or that contradicts what is in them. That is how they get recognition from their peers. People that get units of measure or theories named after them were the ones that figured out something new and different from what was believed to be correct, even if the old ideas worked perfectly well in the circumstances that had been studied up to that point.
Planck's quote seems to be more than what you wrote. That could just be a shortened version of it.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
He wrote this in his autobiography, which I think was published posthumously. (He died at age 89)
He may have been mostly talking about himself, because he famously failed to accept many of the implications of his own discoveries until later. He published his Nobel Prize winning work on blackbody radiation in 1900, but he was disturbed by how he assumed electromagnetic radiation to be quantized in order to derive the equation that matched the observed spectra of blackbodies. It was "an act of despair ... I was ready to sacrifice any of my previous convictions about physics" in order to solve the problem. But even though it worked and he was correct, he still didn't think that light energy was truly quantized at a fundamental level, just that it was a successful way to model the system.
Some social science researchers have attempted to test this Planck Principle, and it seems that the results of those efforts don't support it much. In the case of Plate Tectonics, for instance, older geologists seemed to embrace it more quickly than younger ones. The contradiction could be due to older, established scientists being more secure in their positions then being more willing to take the risk of supporting something new and controversial.
Science is a human endeavor and will be subject to human failings. But the advantage of having its ideas subject to objective testing against observations of nature has got to be substantial over the ability of religious doctrine changing with the times.
Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not! contains a brief but good discussion, including: Bible stories were interpreted history, preserved for future generations, not for their factual accuracy, but their faith-generating component. Another book that comes to mind is "Being United Methodist in the Bible Belt". Many Bible passages are like Zen koans, intended to produce a psychological state in the reader and to guide the reader, not to communicate facts.
Atheists like you basically critique the fundamentalist view of Christianity, not the mainstream view.
And it continued with me pointing out that that is true of non-spiritual people as well: everybody has superstitions; human thinking is built around superstitions, prejudice, and heuristics.
The same is true for atheists and scientists and their beliefs, including scientific beliefs. Most scientists will simply not be swayed from erroneous scientific theories by reason and logic, as centuries of scientific history show. Hence Planck's quip that "Science advances one funeral at a time."
And Christianity hasn't discarded the Ten Commandments, even though its moral code is much more refined thousands of years later and fills entire libraries.
Do you think the Pope wakes up one day and thinks "I will just change Catholic doctrine today because I feel like it?"
Religious doctrine evolves the same way fields like mathematics, science, philosophy, and economics evolve: through the application of reason, logic, observation, and scholarship.
Religious doctrine evolves the same way fields like mathematics, science, philosophy, and economics evolve: through the application of reason, logic, observation, and scholarship.
No, it doesn't. I have been trying, with futility, it seems, to explain how science relies on objective observation of nature. That means that it is capable of change, in principle, as soon as verifiable evidence contradicts what was previously accepted as valid. Delays in accepting the new information due to human failings by some scientists is to be expected, but there will also be others eager to take in the new information.
And the Planck Principle has been examined in practice, as I pointed out, yet you seem to have missed. This idea that you have to wait for the older scientists to die out or retire before new ideas can take over was shown to be false in the case of the development of Plate Tectonics, as the older geologists were more likely to embrace it. See how this works? You test your ideas against what you actually see, instead of just going with something someone famous once wrote.
Religious doctrine needs to be resistant to change. Religious leaders need to have the authority to determine what the religion's believers are supposed to believe. If they change their minds about doctrine quickly, they lose some of that authority as the believers start to question them. "Wait, you told us for centuries that we have to believe that the host actually becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes His blood during the Eucharist, now you are saying it is metaphorical?" (As far as I know, Catholic doctrine is still that transubstantiation is literal, but some Protestant denominations that use that ritual say that it is a spiritual presence of Christ in the host and wine, not that they transform physically in any way.)
Just think about how much science has changed since Newton's time, how much we have learned. Compare that instead to how much Christianity has changed. There is simply orders of magnitude of difference in how quickly new ideas take hold between science and religion.
You are talking to an actual scientist and an atheist. Furthermore, I didn't say that religion was a science, I said that it evolved "through the application of reason, logic, observation, and scholarship" like mathematics, science, economics, etc.
I didn't "miss" it, I dismissed it. Why? For a couple of reasons: you can't disprove a general tendency by giving one counterexample, there wasn't much money associated with changing theories, the new theory is trivially easy to understand and apply, and Planck's quip just summarizes a tendency that I and many other scientists have observed directly.
And how is that different from science? In science, like theology, there are experts and laymen. The experts advance the field through logic, reason, and discourse. The laymen take the pronouncements of experts on faith. When the experts change their opinion too quickly, the laymen start to question them. Both COVID-19 and climate change are examples of that.
Yes, why don't you. Seriously. Which Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and/or Buddhist philosophical texts have you actually read? What specific faults do you find with their reasoning? How does their approach differ from philosophy or mathematics? I think you have no answer to any of those questions.
Excuse me, but as usual, you have it all ass-backwards! If you throw out Reason as a guide to human conduct and accept anything on Faith (which is the only basis upon which anyone can accept a God,) then you are the one who will "believe anything."
Why else do you think that some people glide so seamlessly from Catholicism to Methodism to Baptism to Islam? Why else do you see things like Faith Healing, Chiropractic, Woo diets like Raw Food, Herbalism, "Prosperity Gospel," and Multi-Level Marketing "Get-Rich-Quick" schemes so prevalent in religious circles?
And what else explains 19 hijackers vaporizing 2966 human lives on 9/11/2001 in hopes of "Pie-in-the-sky-in-the-sweet-by-and-by?"
Most forms of Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism all are deeply rooted in reason: starting from certain basic assumptions about the universe, they develop an entire moral, social, and philosophical system. The exception are variants of those religions that emphasize religious practice and direct experience.
Why do you think some people glide so seamlessly from socialism to free market capitalism, or in the reverse direction? They are convinced by a mix of reason and experience.
You think those are not prevalent in non-religious circles? Everybody is superstitious about something, even the most rational people. We couldn’t function in real life if we weren’t.
Large, organized religions tend to reject many of these behaviors.
What explains soldiers sacrificing themselves in wars? What explains people setting themselves ablaze or engaging in hunger strikes for climate change or human rights?
Human psychology includes an altruistic aspect that makes people (in particular men) willing to sacrifice their lives for a greater good under certain circumstances. That aspect can be shaped both by religion and by culture.
Furthermore, religions aren’t all interchangeable; Islam and Christianity have genuinely different visions for how humans should live together, so they make different sacrifices for different objectives.
Those, incidentally, require even less "faith" or "belief", since the practices directly produce an experience of the divine. Both the experiences and ways of achieving them are fairly consistent across many different cultures and religion.
Coming soon: The Church Drag Queen
I'll stick with drag queens having the freedom to be in the public square, rather than your church dictating what freedom means.
Humorously, The Church of Drag Queens are far more excited to Judge (by laws that cancel the church lady) whereas the church lady quotes "judge not; that yea be not judged."
Some church ladies actually preach that FORCED coercion is the plan of the devil himself.
But that is a stupid mischaracterization of what they object to.
And it is not an accident. This is the gaslighting strategy... an escalating set of provocations that are expected to get a response. The response is the real objective... so they can use the response to mischaracterize and demonize their enemy, thereby obtaining power.
This is why they keep pushing new forms of outrage. Drag shows don't get a lot of pushback.... so let's do drag shows for kids. (But deny that such thing exjst.)
This is their MO. It has been for decades. Push until someone responds, then pretend to be outraged at the response.
Transgender students in public school restoom? Didn't get enough of a rise. So tell a dad who's daughter got raped by a transgender dude that no such thing ever happened.. and then have dad arrested for speaking the truth of the matter.
It's a win/win strategy.
If your transgression provokes reaction, vilify the reaction and cast your opponent as the Bad Guy.
If your transgression doesn't provoke reaction, if it'signored or brushed off, you've normalized that action and moved the Overton window.
Of course, you need to control the means of production (guess what those are in the information age) so that you can craft the conversation.
The only way to beat this strategy is to punch it right in the face. Forcefully, and without hesitation or apology.
You've hit on the core principle of liberalism, in all its noxious forms: to see how many dildos they can shove up the asses of the bourgeoisie.
Gay marriage wasn't enough for you? Well, here come all-ages drag shows! WHOMP!! Had enough yet? Here comes trannies in the ladies room! WHOMP!! How about a town full of Somalis? Here comes another dildo! WHOMP!!
The liberal can be reasonably construed as a dildo salesman. His entire career consists of trying to convince you to bend over and take one more dildo.
I'm really curious to find out how many dildos the typical American ass can take. I have a feeling I'll find out, not too far in the future.
That's the core principle of American leftism; American leftism has little to do with "liberalism".
Sooo...are you a "prospect" for the dildo salesman? It sure sounds like it. Best not let your fellow Witch-Hunters find out about it.
Fuck Off, Witch-Burning Nazi!
Oh, you "never had a religious bone in your body," yet you endorse a book that advocates returning to Witch-Burning! Who the fuck are you trying to kid?
Fuck Off, Witch-Burning Nazi! And follow your advise to me on your beloved Autobahn!
Oh, you've "never had a religious bone in your body," yet you endorse a book that advocates returning to Witch-Burning! Who the fuck are you trying to kid?
Fuck Off, Witch-Burning Nazi! And follow your advice to me on your beloved Autobahn!
But are those really our only choices?
For being Reason's resident "Christian" writer, Slade sure spends a lot of time manufacturing complaints and casting aspersions on them.
Maybe next time hire someone more sympathetic, like Dawkins or Dennett.
Dawkins could write about the organized atheism movement.
He’s such an arrogant ass though. I can’t believe Lalla Ward married him.
It would be preferrable for Christians to not fight the culture war.
...it would also be preferrable to not have the Left launch constant attacks on the faith.
Defense is not a vice. Defense is a virtue.
Anyone who wants to avoid an escalating opposition trap might want to look into the principles of aikido/judo.
To see how to apply those principles in public affairs, read Alinsky.
Please explain. How did Alensky advocate flexibly redirecting his opponents’ aggression and strength so that it is used against their goals?
That shouldn't be hard. He wrote an entire book detailing how to do just that.
The left, after all, is defined by using the state to go after everyone else.
FIFY
DeSantis, after all, is defined by using the state to go after everyone else.
You misspelled DeSantis.
Atheist here. What a fantastically shit take.
The modern Left are literally Stalin tier power mad socialists, and they are in charge of every Western government, the entire corporate media complex, all of finance, and every major corporation in the Western Hemisphere.
Every well meaning person, Christian or otherwise, better understand that we are in a Religious war. This nutty woke environmentalist leftism has become a religion, complete with holy figures, rites of indoctrination, community building, and an expected ongoing sacrifice to the "greater good." And like every young religion they are full of holy indignation and willing to kill heretics and infidels alike.
*THIS IS LIFE AND DEATH* and those motherfuckers will fucking kill you when they have the final obstacles removed from their path to power.
The new right are wrong about several things, not the least of which is the Catholicism. But they are right over the goddamn target with how dangerous the Left is.
Buy guns. Hide a few someplace the Feds won't find them. Build a community of like-minded people. Raise sons and daughters to carry on the fight. Harden yourselves for the bloodletting to come. But expect that this might be the last stand of Liberty on Earth for the next thousand years.
Word
It's not a shit take, it's a principled one. Early Christians were horrifically persecuted by the Romans and others. Instead of trying to fight back by force of arms, they showed by example who was virtuous and who was hateful and vicious. And it worked--eventually. You can disagree that that's the right move today--I do--but it's hard to argue from a theological perspective that believers in Jesus should set themselves to seeking temporal power. My take is that it's left to those of us who still call ourselves classical liberals to do so on behalf of everyone who deserves not to be oppressed by Communists or anyone else.
That's not historically accurate. Early Christians were very violent. Constantine's anti-Donatist decrees and the Council of Nicea were efforts to stop the fighting.
Correct. And Christianity/Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire not because Christians were so peaceful, but because Constantine decided to fight under the sign of the Cross when he won two major civil wars to claim control of Rome (Okay, this simply stopped the prosecution of Christians but it put Christianity on the path to be the predominate religion of the Empire).
Diocletian then ruthlessly outlawed paganism a bit later, though Christianity was definitely ascending
Christianity/Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire not because Christians were so peaceful
"I have come to establish the Official State Religion of the Roman Empire"
-not Jesus
Jesus didn't preach Christianity.
I missed the book of Constantine in the Bible.
LOL
Hell of a self-own there, Bubba.
Learn some history if you wish to speak on it.
Here's a start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
I have no idea if the early Christians were violent or not, but if they were violent they were not following Jesus’ teachings. Even in the Bible there are many letters from Paul and others criticizing groups of Christians for not following Christianity well.
if they were violent they were not following Jesus’ teachings. Even in the Bible there are many letters from Paul and others criticizing groups of Christians for not following Christianity well.
^
Peter denies Jesus three times before the cock crows despite his protestation that he would never do such a thing. I agree completely with Camus that Jesus saying "Peter you are the rock on which my Church will be built" was a joke, as Jesus knew full well that most of his followers didn't actually understand his teachings and were motivated by their own worldly goals more than they knew.
In their defense, trying to turn Judaism into Buddhism was a rather absurd proposition.
And in the meetings of The Council of Nicea, Jolly Ol’ Saint Nicholas belted Arius for denying the doctrine of The Trinity!
Damn if I’ll put up with somebody like that trying to come down my chimney!
“Up on the house top without just cause, Is that asshole Santa Claus! Down through the chimney With sacred noise, Sending Hell-fire to Bad girls and boys!
Ho! Ho! Ho! Whatta shit-show! Ho! Ho! Ho! The Trinity blows!
Up on the house top *Click!* *Click!* *Click!* Down with buck-shot comes Ol’ Saint Nick!”.
But how violent were they relative to the brutality of that era? Human. Civilization has been pretty vicious until very recently. Amd still is in many parts of the world.
Western civilization is the sugar coated topping in which we live (paraphrasing dialogue form ‘Blade’). The real world underneath is little changed.
You're the one that was calling for a "Day of the Rope" from The Turner Diaries, so maybe freedom-loving Libertarians should hunker down and arm up against the likes of you too!
Fuck Off, Nerdy Nazi!
Wahabbi Christians do hate liberty, no doubt.
Note: Reason, give me the hat tip for this reprobate Vermuele.
Making every month extra dollars by doing an easy job Online. Last month i have earned and received $18539 from this home based job just by giving this only mine 2 hrs a day. Easy to do work even a child can get this and start making money Online. Get this today by.
follow instructions on this website……………. http://Www.onlinecash1.com
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Not nearly as much as a leftist pedophile child rapist like you.
Someone could perhaps point out that there was no Christianity in Game of Thrones. Some of the witches talked about a "Lord of Light", but it was pretty clear he was a stand-in for Lucifer (which also means "Light Bringer").
Some of the witches talked about a “Lord of Light”, but it was pretty clear he was a stand-in for Lucifer (which also means “Light Bringer”).
I took that as basically Zoroastrianism. I think the stuff the Ian McShane character was preaching was closest to what was Jesus was probably preaching.
Analogy, how does it work.
Somebody punches you. You do nothing. Somebody kicks you. You vocally object. The mob tells you to shut up. Somebody stabs you. The mob kicks your sides while you're laying on the ground bleeding.
This is metaphorically the culture war. One side is the agressor and continues to escalate regardless of generous concessions by their victim. One side has morals and regrets needing to set some aside to avoid being slaughtered without protest. The other side lacks any sort of morality. They only have the desire for power and the fulfillment of short-term vices.
The right hasn't chosen this fight and their representatives have done their best to lose the war. It is regretful to have to resort to using the vile weapons of the enemy, but what is the alternative when that enemy is relentlessly aggressive and holds nearly all instutions of power?
Piss off, Slade. I don't think anybody besides Reason gives a flying fuck about these "new right" figures. Still, when you supposed freedom advocates consistently side with the violators of the NAP more will decide to take up arms and count you as enemies.
In Christianity, the principle of turning the other cheek is not a call to concede to evil. There is a time to take up arms and fight. Don't abuse Christian principles to tell Christians to support evil.
See? The initiation of force is strong in this little one. Schadenfreude was what German voters experienced when bombs rained down and "fellow" Socialists swarmed in from the East, heady with unequal yet apposite reprisal force. Like Orwell then, freethinkers now understand the identical nature of both camps. Like Quicksilver sang, "in fire your faith shall be repaid."
One of the all time great lines:
"For those who place their faith in fire,
In fire their faith shall be repaid..."
As a general karmic principle, not limited to fire.
Baloney. The left and right are equal participants in the culture wars, enthusiastically fighting each other and escalating. And, the worst part, trying to drag all the rest of us into their divisive world view.
Bullshit. You and your friends ar the problem. Case closed.
Now fuck off, you lying Marxist piece of shit.
“In Christianity, the principle of turning the other cheek is not a call to concede to evil.”
It was plainly a call to concede to worldly evil, as backed up by the stories of the Apostles’ martyrdoms. The idea is that the evil world would be ending soon, so the important thing was being kind to others and the post-earthly-world heavenly world.
So a good Christian girl is supposed to just lie back and enjoy it if some creep decides to not take no for an answer?
Is a good Christian boy supposed to just lie back and let himself be nailed to a cross by some creep who won't take "my kingdom is not of this earth" as an answer?
It's a serious question in the history of Christian morality, and not an easily answered one.
I don’t recall the New Testament explicitly covering whether to fight back when someone rapes you, but the general principle Jesus taught is turning the other cheek. And he set the example of letting himself be subjected to torture.
And he set the example of letting himself be subjected to torture.
And execution in the most horrific manner possible.
No Christian is Jesus, in either wisdom or virtue.
I understand "Turn the other cheek", I appreciate "Be kind, for everyone is fighting a great battle."
But in PRACTICE, some people's actions to harm me or mine have resulted in violence.
No, it wasn't a "concession to worldly evil", it was a choice.
Nope, sorry. Forgiveness for your own and other people's sins is an important aspect of a functioning society, not some temporary mollification while waiting for the final judgment.
Hitler's Positive Christianity 25 Points were written in 1920, long after he painted the Baby Jesus with orange hair. Hitler speeches were evocative of all things Christian (altruism and Jew-baiting) and the 97% Cath/Prot population loved it when Big Pharma donors saw Narcotic Limitation as the planned economy they feared. NOW, of course, christianofascists disavow Hitler and downplay Trump. But national socialists are just as horny for the initiation of force as their socialist buddies. (https://bit.ly/3izsEKj)
Random text generator on.
Is that the joke of that account? I never understand what the fuck this particular account is trying to say. It's either parody too deep for me to grasp or it's some kind of insane scribbling-and I've already muted one account because I don't care for insane scribbles.
Or just the product of mixing booze, pills, and a subscription to Vox.
No, that’s Hank Phillips. He writes like that. You can check out his website where he babbles like this throughout.
https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/who-is-hank-phillips/
Note: the photo he includes of himself is probably decades old. He’s as batshit senile as Biden these days.
"so-called New Right"
So-called by whom? Are there people who call themselves that? If not, how are they defined?
This is the Definition Problem.
People use terms and labels as integral tools to argue or propose, but the things so described are almost never "integers", they are not "one thing fully described by this label".
This..."slop" in the premises is very helpful for people wanting nothing more than to talk past each other.
The Bible catalogs the failings of the People and the Church. Whether Jewish or Christian. Today is no different.
Very few of my fellow churchgoers seem to have actually read the Bible. They certainly didn't absorb any of the parts that might make them uncomfortable.
Well said.
Bubba Jones 12 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I missed the book of Constantine in the Bible.
I'm an atheist, but I recognize that Christianity generally plays a helpful role in a society. It's a comfort for people who fear their own mortality. Beyond that, it provides people's need to find a community that has an enforceable moral code, and it's a more stable one because it's had centuries of being tested, responding, and recalibrating. It has structures for forgiveness and redemption so grudges can be put aside, it has assurances that there exists a final justice (to hold people accountable for things they think they can get away with), and it includes prescriptions of charity and compassion toward even non-believers.
When I compared it to belief systems I see in people who use Social Justice, Socialism, or Environmentalism as their ideology, it's got a great deal more to offer. That doesn't preclude bad people from claiming Christianity to serve as their shield, but there exists a compulsion in Christians to confront the hypocrites rather than defend people who claim the faith; too often I see significant hypocrites in the BLM movement defended due to a misplaced urge to Defend The Cause.
I don't think there's a perfect faith system, but ones that have been around a long time have actually been refined and tested. There's some science in how they've adapted to be a net benefit to their societies because they help those societies to thrive. The most destructive and self-defeating cults don't last very long.
Social justice is not social and never justice. Environmentalism as mostly liberal art majors who have proto Marxist views and know nothing about physics or chemistry.
Both types are a danger to liberty and freedom.
Watermelons. And the most fun thing to do with watermelons is drop them from the top of a 3 story building.
Social justice is just a new label for the exact same belief/practice seen in nazism, the kkk, communism, jihadism, and many more.
It's a euphemism/excuse for abusing people.
I’m an atheist, but I recognize that Christianity generally plays a helpful role in a society. It’s a comfort for people who fear their own mortality. Beyond that, it provides people’s need to find a community that has an enforceable moral code, and it’s a more stable one because it’s had centuries of being tested, responding, and recalibrating. It has structures for forgiveness and redemption so grudges can be put aside, it has assurances that there exists a final justice (to hold people accountable for things they think they can get away with), and it includes prescriptions of charity and compassion toward even non-believers.
It’s all founded on illusion. How can it genuinely be any of those things or amount to anything good?
And what explains the 30,000+ sects and denominations just of Protestant Christianity alone, not to mention the sects and Schisms of Catholicism and the nationalities of Orthodoxy, if Christianity is such a rock-solid foundation for All Good Things?
And if you and all the other “I’m an Atheist, buts…” love Christianity so much, why don’t you convert?
There's a Definition Problem, where inexact labels and terms confound clarity.
Then there's dumb fucks who think they have to exert themselves so their desire to *not* communicate is made clear:
"...if Christianity is such a rock-solid foundation for All Good Things?" Yep. Brilliant. The Internet is just "fuck you" all the way down, mister.
Christianity is little different from science or other human endeavors in that regard: there are lots of competing "schools", lots of people who don't know what they are doing, lots of people who think they are way smarter than others, lots of politics.
And those "sects and schisms" agree on a lot of things, not just with each other, but also other major religions like Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam.
"Conversion" is primarily a social issue: what club do you want to be a member of and who do you want to socialize with.
There's where you are very mistaken. Science is evidence-based and shows it's homework. Religion does no such thing.
If all of civilization were destroyed and man had to rebuild again, the conclusions of science that he re-discovered and relearned would be the same as before. Not so with religion.
...
My comment was about the current state of science: in every field, there are tens of thousands of scientists who hold mutually inconsistent and mostly wrong beliefs. They all “show their homework”, it’s just that most of them either interpret it incorrectly or just made mistakes. Having large numbers of people/groups/institutions who disagree is not a sign that a field of endeavor is unsound.
As for your historical point, I believe that is false. Even the widely accepted core beliefs of science and math today are rooted in a series of historical accidents, social needs, and choices and contain enormous inconsistencies. If we started over, we would likely end up with very different scientific and mathematical theories and explanations. And a century from now, math and physics are likely (and hopefully) going to be radically different.
You believe that math is a social construct? That it isn't a constant, but a variable?
The mathematics we teach, use, and conduct research in is based on a large number of choices that are driven by historical accidents and human psychology. Furthermore, we don't know whether the axiomatic systems we use are even consistent, and we may never know. On top of that, large parts of the modern mathematical literature have never actually been formally proven and large parts are likely simply wrong.
Mathematics might have developed along other lines. And alien mathematics may be so different from ours that we may never understand it with human brains (and vice versa).
When pro liberty folks are in charge the left/media will scream for our better angels...to uphold the bill of rights, virtue and Christian morality, when they are in charge, they use force to arrest parents and deprive us of our livelihood, mutilate our children, take our labor, and denigrate us because our ancestors were Christian and from Europe. Yep, we need to apply "Christian" values to people that want to deprive us of our natural rights.
no thanks...
Sorry Reason when you are dealing with a child death cult you show no mercy.
and possibly even "the eventual formation of the Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe."
If America ever becomes a theocracy in ain’t gonna be a Catholic theocracy. Guaranteed Catholics will be one of the persecuted minorities.
If?
OK, I’ll concede that Alabama might already be a theocracy.
Your entire party is a theocracy. Marxism wrapped up in an insane climate cult.
we live in a borderline woke theocracy where you can lose your job for accidentally flashing the OK sign.
https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/1606724058359693316?t=CqswXRLp6iGO9XPRRpf24g&s=19
Remember, arguments for mass immigration are ALWAYS rooted in revenge.
[Link]
Slade, people are only as good as the world allows them to be.
What good are principles to the dead?
Why did you think this article needed writing? Why did your editor think it deserved publication?
What is reason’s obsession with ensuring that nobody on the right do anything to oppose the progressive agenda, no matter how provocative their actions may be?
Since you acknowledge that the left is keen to use state power to violate all of your rights and block you you from any participation in political decisions, if even one syllable of this article was genuine, there would be 10 articles at Reason exoriating the left for their threats to Liberty for every one of this sort of article. But there are more like 20 of these lamentations over pouncing Republicans for every attempt to take the progressives to task.
And to what end?
Let’s pretend that all the gaslighting and disingenuous defenses of the left continue, what next? The right doesn’t do anything beyond politely complaining…. and??
I think you forget that the progressive left hates libertarians with a blind, passionate rage. They view us as the enemy, part of the far right. They have no intention of respecting your rights. They do have every intention of making sure that nobody can ever challenge their power again.
Reason is as much an actor playing a role as Zelensky is.
https://twitter.com/RealAndyLeeShow/status/1606852464245985281?t=X03EmdLfJTpTKp-jHLD_Uw&s=19
CBC News: “The gathering was largely peaceful.”
[Link]
Meanwhile, a college just fired a professor of art history for showing a 16th century Persian artwork that happened to depict Mohammed (albeit with his face covered by a veil) because it was Islamophobic.
https://newlinesmag.com/argument/academic-is-fired-over-a-medieval-painting-of-the-prophet-muhammad/
Never mind the person who created the artwork was a Muslim, from an Islamic culture. And was meant to be respectful. But nope, some Muslims today are against any image of Mo, so it's a no-no.
So obviously Christians are going to look at that and want that sort of power as well. They won't get it, but it's somewhat understandable.
To truly care about virtue is to recognize that it matters how you win: Ends don't justify means. If conservatives ever did have to choose which side of the barbed wire to be on—as the gulag inmate accepting persecution or the victor carrying it out—there would be only one right answer from a Christian perspective. It isn't the New Right's.
How about the idea of getting some Stump-Rot and some bolt cutters and tearing down the Gulag entirely? That's what this Atheist Libertarian would want to do while all you believers quibble and argle-bargle over the words of a non-existent Jesus Christ.
Also, our Jewish friends in several recent times provided a page or two of history to learn from about dealing with tyranny:
Escape From Sobibor (1987) [ 4K Ultra HD ] Concentration Death Camp, True Story, WWII, Drama
https://youtu.be/srn_9nXnEck
Defiance (2008)|Trailer
https://youtu.be/n-9eUXSzZNk
And this one too: UPRISING (2001) Hank Azaria, David Schwimmer, Jon Voight, & Donald Sutherlandhttps://youtu.be/chC0r5IBEHY
About 2/3 of European Jews were killed by the Nazis. Most of the rest lost everything and had to flee to various shitholes around the world. Sorry, but I don't want to follow their path.
Yeah, you "want" to do a lot; you actually accomplish nothing.
Those Jews who resisted saved not just their own lives, but countless thousands and millions of others when Sobibor was shut down, when Nazis were diverted and routed in the woods of Belarus, and when the Nazis lost lives closing the Warsaw Ghetto, as well as when those Jews went on to have children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
And Jews also came to the U.S. and formed Israel after World War II.
No one ever said resistance to tyranny would be easy or without risk or without requiring "eternal vigilance" afterwards. But it is from this that great things are accomplished.
The way to deal with tyranny is before it arises, and "atheist libertarians" have proven utterly useless in that. In fact, when push comes to shove, most atheist libertarians tend to throw in their lot with socialists/progressives/fascists.
Give me examples where atheist libertarians have ever managed to create a free society.
The closest humans have ever come to libertarianism has been in deeply Christian, socially conservative societies. And the reason is straightforward: you don't need a lot of laws when your culture and religion already prevent people from engaging in anti-social conduct.
Give me examples where atheist libertarians have ever managed to create a free society.
Give me examples of anywhere that atheist libertarians would make up more than a couple percent of the population. The only countries where atheists were a large enough segment of the population to wield political power has been places where they were certainly not libertarian.
The closest humans have ever come to libertarianism has been in deeply Christian, socially conservative societies. And the reason is straightforward: you don’t need a lot of laws when your culture and religion already prevent people from engaging in anti-social conduct.
You have a funny definition of "anti-social conduct" if you think that socially conservative societies have cultures that prevent people from doing that. Socially conservative societies are great at wielding power to enforce conformity to their beliefs. Maybe you are defining those that don't want to conform to the dominant culture and religion as being anti-social?
Yes: conformity to prosocial beliefs; trust in your fellow citizens. There is nothing "funny" about that.
Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism all have strong prosocial components. If you are born into one of those cultures and you refuse to conform to them, you are likely antisocial.
My point exactly: most atheists are not, and will never be, libertarian.
Yes: conformity to prosocial beliefs; trust in your fellow citizens. There is nothing “funny” about that.
How pro-social were the Salem Witch Trials? We should probably ask Roger Williams (founder of Providence Plantations, which would become the colony of Rhode Island) how pro-social the Puritans were. Focusing on modern times, though, since I've suggested that we do that elsewhere, how pro-social are televangelists and other prosperity gospel types? How much trust in fellow citizens is displayed with attempts to limit what books can be in public schools or libraries?
The social connections and trust that religions foster is focused mostly on those that share that religion. Tolerance is the minimum of what we should expect them to display towards people with other beliefs, but we don't always see that.
I should be careful to point out that I am not being critical of all religious people here. Probably not even most of them. It is just that there are always some people, basically the ones we are mostly likely to call conservative or that would call themselves that, that will be intolerant towards people outside of their group. As I've been saying, that is part of the nature of being conservative.
Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism all have strong prosocial components. If you are born into one of those cultures and you refuse to conform to them, you are likely antisocial.
Well, you basically confirmed what I was suggesting here. You consider not conforming to the dominant culture and religion of the area you are born in as being anti-social. I'm curious to understand how you can value individual freedom of religion when that is what you think.
My point exactly: most atheists are not, and will never be, libertarian.
Just like not all religious people are intolerant towards the out groups, not all atheists are communist or other subscribe to some other totalitarian ideology. Atheism for the Chinese Communist Party, Soviet Union, Cuba, or other oppressive regimes is a tool for control the same way that a religion can be used as a tool for control in theocracies like Iran or in Europe prior to the Enlightenment. Using the history of communist regimes to impugn all atheists is an old trope. It is no more valid than using the Inquisition to impugn all Catholics.
Both the religious and atheists can share support for a secular government. That is how individual freedom of religion is protected. Keep government out of it entirely, and people won't have to fear the government forcing them to worship in a way that they don't want or keep them from worshiping as they do want. People would still be able to use their status as part of a majority religion in an area to impose upon others in other ways, but if they can't use government to do that, that is something, at least.
Correct.
Tolerance towards non-believers is not required for the prosocial effects of religion.
I was not making statements about what I value, was making a statement about reality. E.g., Islamic societies are intolerant of non-Muslims and gays, but they have historically been prosocial and successful.
Furthermore, I do not value freedom of religion as a principle of government at all levels; like the Founding Fathers, I value it at the federal level only.
That is your preference: a multi-religious society with a secular government. There is little evidence that that is an achievable goal. In fact, history suggests that it is not.
The best arrangement seems to be religious states bound together in a federation with a secular federal government and free movement of people and goods, like the US was founded.
Yet WHOOMP! Here I is! :)…along with Ludwig Von Mises, Ayn Rand, John Hospers, Tibor Machan, Anthony Flew, Thomas Szasz, and many other Atheists in the Libertarian movement and/or Libertarian-adjacent thought.
Yes, many libertarians are atheists.
But the vast majority of atheists are not libertarian.
Are you incapable of distinguishing those two statements?
To quote you, "Give me examples where atheist libertarians have ever managed to create a free society.". The response would be "Give me examples of where any tiny minority of libertarians have ever accomplished anything.". They haven't because no group hangs their compatriots out to dry like that.
"But the vast majority of atheists are not libertarian."
That's true of every group on Earth except libertarians.
"Are you incapable of distinguishing those two statements?"
Are you? You're the one who made a generalization about atheism and libertarianism, as if the atheist libertarians have to accomplish something on their own before they count as "real" libertarians. That they can't be counted as part of accomplishments by non-atheist libertarians unless they have passed the "do it without the rest of us" test to get in the club.
You certainly love creating unrealistic standards for others, but not for yourself. Hmmm. I wonder why that is?
I simply observed that "atheist libertarians" have been useless in producing libertarian societies. In fact, all libertarians have been useless in producing libertarian societies.
Libertarian societies arise from societies in which certain economic and social conditions exist; it's the conditions that produce a libertarian mindset, not the other way around.
“Yes: conformity to prosocial beliefs; trust in your fellow citizens.”
Those are mutually exclusive. Trusting your fellow citizens to make decisions for themselves undermines conformity because different people want different things. This is why social conservatism requires force and coercion. It is impossible to have a conservative society without forcing it.
Never mind the rigidly narrow definition of “prosocial beliefs” your worldview requires.
“If you are born into one of those cultures and you refuse to conform to them, you are likely antisocial.”
Your “antisocial” sounds a whole lot like most people’s “independent”. Unsurprisingly, given the source, something you view as a bad thing is actually a great thing.
“My point exactly: most atheists are not, and will never be, libertarian.”
Perhaps. It’s much more likely than theocrats, whose beliefs require institutionalizing one religion for everyone and are therefore inherently anti-libertarian. Or even devout believers in an arbitrary moral code (e.g. the Bible) who believe that legislating morality is acceptable. The best would be secularists, but that gets sneered at by conservatives because … reasons.
The fundamental core of libertarianism is the idea that your beliefs, be they moral, philosophical, dietary, … hell, your belief (or lack thereof) in ghosts, should not be infringed as long as they aren’t impacting anyone else.
If you allow people to make their own decisions, conformity is decreased, not increased. The cultural touchstones will be a limited jumber of concepts which are converged on from multiple cultural, social, and religious perspectices, not dictated from a government. In America, these surround the ideas of individual liberty, freedom (of speech, association, movement), and limits on government power (habeas corpus, trial by jury, checks and balances) embodied and elucidated in the Constitution.
Calling for conformity by coercion is antithetical to America.
Different people don't want different things if they share a common religion and ideology.
I'm using the usual definition: Prosocial behavior, or intent to benefit others, is a social behavior that "benefit[s] other people or society as a whole", "such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering". Obeying the rules and conforming to socially accepted behaviors (such as stopping at a "Stop" sign or paying for groceries) are also regarded as prosocial behaviors.
When people choose to voluntarily associate, live together in an area, and govern themselves by restrictive rules, that is an essential part of libertarianism. If you deny them that ability, you are not a libertarian.
The US used to approximate that ideal pretty well by having a minimal, secular federal government, guaranteeing a republican form of government and free movement, and giving states and towns large legal leeway otherwise. We could return to that ideal (but would need to break up a lot of states into many, much smaller states).
When people choose to voluntarily associate, live together in an area, and govern themselves by restrictive rules, that is an essential part of libertarianism. If you deny them that ability, you are not a libertarian.
The definition of prosocial that you used talks about behaviors that are based on an intent to benefit others, such that they benefit society as a whole. But you have been describing conforming to the dominant religion and culture in a particular area. That benefits the dominant group, not the whole of society. You had also said:
Tolerance towards non-believers is not required for the prosocial effects of religion.
Using the definition of prosocial behavior you used, I would say that it is required. Non-believers and those with different religious beliefs are part of society as well, so the dominant group must at least display tolerance toward them, if not actual respect, in order for the whole of society to benefit from whatever positive behaviors the dominant religion encourages from its adherents.
Asserting that it is prosocial for a dominant cultural and religious group in an area to use its majority status to enforce any kind of conformity to that culture and religion through government strikes me as quite contrary to libertarianism. In fact, I would say that it is clearly a conservative assertion instead. It displays what I see as one of the main differences between conservative and libertarian ideology.
Both conservatives and libertarians value small and limited government (with small and limited being rather vague terms that allow for many different interpretations of whether a particular policy is consistent with that value). From what I see in the behavior of conservatives and libertarians, though, is that libertarians tend to value limited government almost entirely for the benefit of individual rights.
An example of this I see in religious freedom legal cases. People with libertarian tendencies approach those cases the same way regardless of what religion (or non-belief) is at issue. (For examples, read any of the religious freedom posts from Eugene Volokh at the Volokh blog here. He is a law professor with 1st Amendment issues being his particular area of expertise and describes himself as being "often libertarian".) For them, it really is about the principle of religious freedom. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to care about those cases mostly when it is their religious beliefs that are at stake. So, there it is. Conservatives mostly want government to be limited in acting against their group, but they also want to be able to use government to assist in enforcing conformity to their group's values and to grant their group privileges.
That is my assessment of their motives based on my observations of how they argue their positions and what they do or try and do with power when they have it. I will chastise people for assuming bad motives of political opponents, so I am being clear that this is my opinion based on a lifetime of observations. I am open to be persuaded otherwise.
... describes the concept used in the social science.
(1) I used a definition that talks about "benefiting others OR society as a whole".
(2) Prosocial behavior by a dominant Christian culture and society benefits non-Christians.
(3) The prosocial effects are maximized as people are converted to Christianity or leave.
No, that is not what the technical term means. Tolerance towards everybody is not, per se, a prosocial behavior. In fact, from a sociological perspective, many non-Christians in a Christian society may be considered "free riders", as they benefit from the prosocial behavior of Christians without reciprocity.
(1) "Prosocial" isn't a value judgment, it is a technical term for certain behaviors in animals and humans.
(2) Nowhere did I say that conformity to culture and religion must be enforced through government. In fact, I asserted the exact opposite: societies that are highly religious tend to be libertarian because they can enforce conformity to norms through private means. Libertarianism arises out of the absence of a need for laws because strong private mechanisms to enforce norms remove the need for laws. Conversely, if you want a libertarian society, it needs private mechanisms to impose on its members.
The kind of society you envision, a society that is simultaneously libertarian and does not impose strong norms some other way has never existed and is impossible in principle.
Correct. And they are doing that because some set of strong norms needs to exist in a functioning society; since private, religiously based norms are eroding and our social welfare state has removed any economics-based norms, laws are the only option.
Communists/socialists and some libertarians believe they can achieve prosocial behavior without religion through education, but they have failed spectacularly every time they have tried. That's why the societies they create either descend into chaos and economic ruin, or take a detour via totalitarianism.
There's more out there too. Escape and resistance are such wonderful sub-genres of Action movies!
(1) Conservatives aren't libertarians, so they are not generally concerned with principles of classical liberalism. Conservatives are perfectly happy to limit free speech and freedom of religion; there is no inconsistency there.
(2) While conservative government isn't libertarian government, historically, it tends to be a precursor for classically liberal societies.
The usual cycle of how societies develop is something like: chaos -> conservative government -> classically liberal government -> socialism -> chaos
So Afghanistan is going to turn into a libertarian utopia any day now?
Afghanistan is still a the "chaos" stage. Following historical patterns, it would stay there for centuries before transitioning to a moderately conservative centralized government.
In this day and age of global communications, globalism, etc., it's anybody's guess how long the process may take.
While conservative government isn’t libertarian government...
The reason for this is right there in the word "conservative." To be conservative, in the political and social sense, is to want to preserve what they see as essential parts of the current society and its institutions. More simply, they want to conserve existing power structures. As much as they might try and argue that they want to keep the good things about traditional society and its institutions, it always comes down to having the power to accomplish that. It's true of all political ideologies to want the power to implement their goals, of course, but being conservative is inherently about resisting change, whereas some other political ideologies are more accepting of fundamental changes to society as a means to their ends, and some require massive societal changes.
...historically, it tends to be a precursor for classically liberal societies.
It strikes me as quite odd to think that a government specifically devoted to maintaining the existing power structures in society would be likely to transform into a classically liberal government that substantially reduces its own power. Quite frankly, the only political ideology of a government that seems likely to lead to a classically liberal government is one that already adheres to classically liberal ideals. In other words, a classically liberal government would have to come from the people directly insisting upon it.
If you think that a conservative government will eventually overplay its hand and get the people to demand reform into a classically liberal government where socialism would eventually break down and the people would resort to chaos instead of a classically liberal government, that seems to be something you are asserting only because it is what you want to think about socialism.
That’s the literal meaning of the term, but it isn’t the actual meaning or the meaning I use here.
The way I use “conservative” refers to a system of laws and values that emphasizes duty, honor, conformance to religious and social norms, social hierarchy, traditional families, and traditional gender roles.
The rest of your comment follows from this misunderstanding.
Not at all. Functioning conservative governments of the kind I describe above simply don’t need a lot of rules and laws to begin with. They turn into classically liberal societies as they prosper and people lower in the social hierarchy gain more economic and political power.
I don’t “want to think” about socialism at all, I lived through it. Socialism is the antithesis of liberalism and it destroys societies.
Not at all. Functioning conservative governments of the kind I describe above simply don’t need a lot of rules and laws to begin with.
Then how do they emphasize conformity to the dominant cultural and religious norms and other traditional things you mention? If it doesn't use government power to do those things, then it isn't really a conservative government.
By having most of the functions of society taken care of through private actors, private actors that discriminate against people who violate dominant cultural and religious norms.
In the Middle Ages, the Christian church needed no particular legal authority; if they excommunicated you, nobody would do business with you anymore, nobody would come to your defense, nobody would trust your oaths, and charity towards you would be minimal.
Well, you should ponder that. In fact, it is a government composed of intolerant religious men governing a country composed of intolerant religious citizens. Yet, it is also minarchist, libertarian government, since it imposes almost no rules or norms via the government and is religiously tolerant in the legal sense.
What you seem to want, a minarchist government composed of tolerant men governing a country of tolerant, multi-cultural people with almost no legally enforceable rules or norms has never existed and cannot exist.
By having most of the functions of society taken care of through private actors, private actors that discriminate against people who violate dominant cultural and religious norms.
And you really think it would stop there? Even if no laws existed to discriminate against people with minority cultural values or practices, the people in government would be mostly of the dominant culture and religion (simply by virtue of being the majority, even if government hiring wasn't discriminatory). To think that private businesses and groups and individuals would feel free to discriminate against or otherwise 'shun' non-conformists, yet government officials wouldn't is silly. Taken to the extreme you get this:
In the Middle Ages, the Christian church needed no particular legal authority; if they excommunicated you, nobody would do business with you anymore, nobody would come to your defense, nobody would trust your oaths, and charity towards you would be minimal.
Since you brought up the Middle Ages, if the Church declared you to be a heretic, secular authorities would burn you at the stake. Just ask Joan of Arc how prosocial the Church was toward her.
Well, you should ponder that. In fact, it is a government composed of intolerant religious men governing a country composed of intolerant religious citizens. Yet, it is also minarchist, libertarian government, since it imposes almost no rules or norms via the government and is religiously tolerant in the legal sense.
What you describe here is something that has never existed and cannot exist, as I've just said. Remember that we are talking not about rules and norms regarding criminal behavior or civil liability and so on. We are talking about cultural and religious beliefs and practices, which simply should not be the government's concern at all.
Sure, in situations where a particular group or individual's beliefs are in conflict with neutrally constructed laws to protect individual rights and security and other constitutional powers of governments, then those laws should take precedence if reasonable accommodations can't be made. I wouldn't suggest that people that practice Voodoo should be able to sacrifice animals however they want or for ultra-conservative African immigrants to practice female genital mutilation.
What you really seem to be arguing against is multiculturalism itself. You don't seem to want a pluralistic society at all, but one where Western Christianity dominates. Which is really odd coming from someone that says that he isn't Christian.
Where did I claim that?
Sure: that's how societies have functioned through most of human history: few laws but high intolerance and strong social and religious norms.
I'm not arguing for or against anything. I am pointing out that the multicultural libertarian society you imagine is a logical impossibility.
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
lefties telling non-lefties they aren't living up to their principles in the fight always cracks me up.
Reason: “Stop resisting!”
IMHO, government has no business in any type of morality since morality is subjective in the first place. Religion has no business in forcing its dogma onto anyone that does not voluntarily subscribe to that religion. And the two must not ever interact with each other at all. Abortion or not, gun ownership or not, attending religious services or not, spouting off on one's soapbox or not, and even walking down the street nude or not are all personal choices that must be upheld by the government and must be hands off by religion. Remember, "One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein.
People following a religion ought to have the right to form a government based on their religion under which they want to live, as long as people who don't want to governed that way can leave. If you deny them that right to self-government, that's tyrannical.
That is the original US model, and it is a good one.
People following a religion ought to have the right to form a government based on their religion under which they want to live, as long as people who don’t want to governed that way can leave.
And I suppose the fact that they might own property or have other economic interests invested in that locality doesn't matter? Or that they might not be able to move easily due to their financial situation?
You continue to paint a picture of a local majority of people to be able to use that majority to impose their religious beliefs on others that live near them.
If you deny them that right to self-government, that’s tyrannical.
Isn't what you describe the tyranny of the majority though?
Sure it “matters” but it’s not an argument. My HOA may make decisions that I disagree with, and if I do, I have to sell and move. In your ideal libertarian society, my neighborhood might get taken over by viciously homophobic radical Muslims and I would have to leave as well.
Correct. That’s the only way a libertarian society can actually function.
No, because association is voluntary. There is always a cost for holding different views from the majority of people surrounding you; no government can protect you from that cost. Once that cost gets higher than the cost of leaving, you leave. Of course, libertarianism would prefer that local government be replaced by private HOAs, but the main tangible difference is that the libertarian solution would exclude renters (non-owners) from voting in local elections.
The only way government can remove the cost of holding different views from your neighbors and the need to move is through totalitarianism. That's the path secular, socialist states follow again and again.
Sure it “matters” but it’s not an argument. My HOA may make decisions that I disagree with, and if I do, I have to sell and move. In your ideal libertarian society, my neighborhood might get taken over by viciously homophobic radical Muslims and I would have to leave as well.
That is certainly not my "ideal libertarian society." I don't see it as libertarian at all, and I would disagree that it should be allowed to happen even if it was. In fact, it is your arguments here about a cultural majority needing to be able to impose its views on its neighbors in the minority that fits what you just described. I wonder why you don't see that.
The only way government can remove the cost of holding different views from your neighbors and the need to move is through totalitarianism. That’s the path secular, socialist states follow again and again.
You are arguing as if there are only two viable options: your view and totalitarianism. That's a really close-minded way to think.
To the contrary: that's why I gave the example. The point is that your tolerant, multicultural society is a pipe dream.
And how is government going to disallow that in a libertarian society?
Well, then open my mind and explain how a multicultural society can have trust, norms, and rules without the law intervening in every aspect of society. On what basis would a Christian trust an atheist, or why would a gay man trust a Muslim?
And how is government going to disallow that in a libertarian society?
I meant that it shouldn't be allowed for you to feel forced to move away from such a neighborhood. That would happen if you were being actively harassed by them, for instance. Knowing that they wouldn't like you, perhaps even occasionally hearing them say bad things about you wouldn't rise to the level of forcing you to leave, though I would certainly expect to you to be unhappy about it.
The point is that your tolerant, multicultural society is a pipe dream.
So, we should instead seek a more homogeneous society where religious and other cultural minorities are second-class citizens? The logic you are claiming leads you to these views is based on really cynical views of human nature. It sounds a lot like, "People suck and are intolerant, so we should at least make sure that the groups that are the least objectionable are on top."
It also is evident that your cynicism toward the idea of a stable, pluralistic society is not warranted. There is still a fair amount of conflict in the U.S. over race, sexual orientation, women's rights, and so on. But the needle has moved considerably toward tolerance and legal equality. The evidence shows that the most conservative Christians that resist these things do so out of fear of losing their power as part of the dominant cultural group, not out a logical belief that society will truly break down if they don't. They just don't want society to have values other than theirs, and they make up all kinds of boogeymen as they claim that failure to uphold their traditions will lead to chaos.
It certainly wasn't the religious that have led western nations to become more tolerant and accepting of homosexuality in recent decades. As a matter of pure self-interest, surely you recognize that an American society dominated by conservative Christians would treat you poorly. The benefits of their prosocial behaviors would not extend as much to you as they would to straight Christians.
I just can't get around that last part. What you claim are the prosocial benefits of religion come with antisocial behaviors as well. Religion can and does motivate people to give their time and other resources as well as money to charitable functions. And it helps foster other social connections and support within their group. But it also motivates some of them to act poorly toward out groups.
If history shows that tolerant, pluralistic societies are rare and/or difficult to maintain, it is because nations have typically been homogeneous enough for one group to dominate and enforce conformity. When one of those nations got powerful enough compared to its neighbors, it may have engaged in conquest and imposed its culture and religion on the conquered peoples, but there are always logistical limits to a nation's ability to do that, or to maintain an Empire that includes multiple cultures and religions. That isn't a failure of multiculturalism, but of the practical means of governing large areas.
Failing to find successful multicultural societies in history is not proof that they cannot work. At one point in history, not too long ago on the scale of human civilization, it may have seemed that democratically elected representative government couldn't work. Many people would have thought that a functioning society would have needed to have a single ruler with nearly unlimited authority. I don't see your arguments as logical, but only pessimistic.
How about if they refuse to serve me in restaurants? If they put up posters denouncing homosexuality? If they point their fingers at me and speak in hushed tones wherever I go? Are you going to make those behaviors illegal?
No, we shouldn't seek "a society" at all. We should allow people to freely associate with each other and form local communities governed by the rules and principles that they choose. We call that "libertarianism".
No, it is based on a realistic view of human nature. It is based on facts.
That's your view, not mine, by wanting a single form of government and a single set of rules for everybody.
My view is that people should be able to freely associate and form the kinds of governments and laws that they want to live under.
No, it has not. People tolerate me as a gay man these days, but they despise me for looking white, conservative, and male.
I don't want American society dominated by anyone. I want Mormons to live in Utah; atheists, druggies, and transgender in California; and I would pick myself a moderately conservative state that tolerates me as a gay white male by doesn't celebrate me.
You got it backwards. Pluralistic societies are rare because they fragment and break up. The only moderately socially stable pluralistic "society" is a multicultural federation of diverse states, but unfortunately, within less than a century (in both the US and the EU), people are trying to hijack that arrangement and impose a single, authoritarian national government onto the federation.
Apart from your misunderstanding of human nature, your fundamental problem is still that you want the US to be a single pluralistic society, rather than a federation of distinct cultures, societies, and states, as it was founded.
I don't understand why you have this obsession with a gigantic, powerful nation, rather than a pluralistic federation.
How about if they refuse to serve me in restaurants? If they put up posters denouncing homosexuality? If they point their fingers at me and speak in hushed tones wherever I go? Are you going to make those behaviors illegal?
Not serving you in a restaurant otherwise open to the public would be illegal in some states, and I agree that it should be. If the posters are put up on their own property, or if they held them while in public spaces, then no, that isn't and shouldn't be illegal, nor should be the last thing. I don't subscribe to the idea of making 'hate speech' illegal.
We should allow people to freely associate with each other and form local communities governed by the rules and principles that they choose. We call that “libertarianism”.
The key word there is "governed." Purely private acts to enforce social and cultural conformity like you seem to want might be consistent with "libertarianism", but you keep using language that suggests that you want states and local governments to include policies or even laws that go beyond that. I always see people that call themselves libertarian insisting that they want a limited government, at all levels, that will leave them alone and wouldn't have the power to impose upon their freedoms, including on social and cultural and religious matters. What you keep describing doesn't fit with the impression I have always had of libertarianism from following various people and commenters on this website for the past few years.
And in any case, I maintain that it is inevitable for the intolerance inherent in that kind of effort to enforce conformity to leak into government, even if it there are no laws explicitly allowing government to treat people unequally or even a constitutional provision prohibiting unequal treatment like we have in the U.S.
I don’t want American society dominated by anyone. I want Mormons to live in Utah; atheists, druggies, and transgender in California; and I would pick myself a moderately conservative state that tolerates me as a gay white male by doesn’t celebrate me.
And this is why I disagree with you. What if there is no moderately conservative state that tolerates you as a gay white male but doesn't celebrate you? What if the only states that tolerate homosexuality at all are liberal states full of "atheists, druggies, and transgender" people? What if there weren't any states like that and a majority in every state was very conservative and intolerant of everyone not a cis-gendered heterosexual? Would you still support the right of the majority of each state to control its own culture that way? Love a conservative America that hates you or leave it?
Apart from your misunderstanding of human nature, your fundamental problem is still that you want the US to be a single pluralistic society, rather than a federation of distinct cultures, societies, and states, as it was founded.
I view the U.S. as being founded on principles of equality under the law and protection for people with minority views, including cultural and religious beliefs and practices. It didn't live up to that at the Founding, but it was already starting to move in that direction by the time of the Revolution and adoption of the Constitution. Every state had disestablished any state religion it had previously held within a few decades of the Founding, for instance. The history of this country has been one of trying to find a way to increase tolerance for minorities and improving its ability to be a pluralistic society. It is the conservatives within the country that have resisted that and don't want it to happen.
You seem to view human nature in a way that has those conservatives that won't tolerate deviations from their cultural dominance within some state or local community as proof that any attempt at a pluralistic society on a larger scale is doomed to failure. Basically, they won't let it work, so we should let them have their way in some places. That is not consistent with history because we have seen how we have forced such people to stop discriminating across the whole country and then people in every state have, in fact, become less intolerant.* Conservatives don't like the words, but society everywhere in the U.S. has become more progressive and socially liberal. And this has happened on matters of race, equality for women, ethnicity, religion, and LGBT status. Some states are further along than others, but no state is still where it was 50 years ago on any of those matters.
If you think that this means that the U.S. will break down and fall apart because conservatives won't be able to keep down groups that won't conform to their beliefs in at least some states, then that is just pessimism, like I said, not any kind of logic or understanding of human nature.
*Perhaps things like the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. that finally started to see substantial success in the 50s and 60s is an example of what you consider people 'hijacking' a multicultural federation to impose an "authoritarian" national government. The racist southerners certainly cried out that way against civil rights legislation and desegregation as tyrannical violations of "states rights". But I see it as fulfilling the promises of equality built into both the Founding and the 14th Amendment. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on that and see who is right about the future of the U.S. in coming decades.
Yes, it matters how you win. However, when we have the intelligence agencies literally telling our media of communication whom to allow to speak while working directly against the current elected head of the country, I have to question whether working within the system is even possible.
When political protestors are transparently allowed or prosecuted based on political affiliation, how is our ability to speak and choose our leaders any freer than under Stalin?
The Democrats were literally talking last month about how voting against them was voting against democracy. By 2024, I fully expect at least some politicians to declare voting Republican to be a hate crime.
Polite discourse fails when your opponent picks up a blade.
“intelligence agencies literally telling our media of communication whom to allow to speak while working directly against the current elected head of the country”
a) All that was shown by the Twitter files is that the FBI was suggesting accounts or tweets to look at because they were posting things like the wrong day for the upcoming national election. Twitter didn’t follow their suggestions in several of the cases with no consequence.
b) Two possible responses, admittedly a bit contradictory: b1) The President is not a dictator and the government is not there to follow his every whim: b2) Maybe if Trump spent more time working at his job he could have “drained the swamp” (from his point of view) a bit more.
chief executive
Why bother posting transparent lies?