FMF asked an interesting question that basically boiled down to what amount of atheists would become theists in differing circumstances, particularly political or economic ones.
The answer is probably that there would be quite a large variation... which has lead me to believe in opposing the separation of church & state. Not a popular position at all, of course, but I also would like to assure you that my alternative belief is not some cartoon, either.
Oddly enough, what really did push me away from a lot of the conventional conservatism that I grew up and was exposed to was the fact that it wasn't real conservatism in the sense that it didn't properly address the question...
So I would say something like this, FMF:
While it would be foolish to think that a pro-religion government could produce something like 90%+ religiosity in a place like the USA or Germany overnight, it could certainly begin swinging the numbers into the positive.
Think about it this way: a sustained pro-LGBTQ campaign was able to make the bulk of people in many Western countries go from not even considering support for gay marraige in the early 1990s to enthusiastically and completely endorsing it in 2010. There's probably a lot of factors that assist this as it was already some sort of trajectory...
But hey, guys, if consent can be manufactured in one way, it can certainly be manufactured in another way.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleIf you are seeking to draw a kind of analogy between a move towards tolerance of LGBTQ people or support for the abandonment of institutional discrimination against them, on one hand, and atheists moving towards belief in supernatural causality, "sin" and an afterlife, on the other, I don't think it works.
Think about it this way: a sustained pro-LGBTQ campaign was able to make the bulk of people in many Western countries go from not even considering support for gay marraige in the early 1990s to enthusiastically and completely endorsing it in 2010.
People moving towards supporting the right of fellow citizens to marry who they want does not mean that they necessarily approve of homosexuality or that they want to engage in homosexual acts. It does not involve anything more than changing their attitude towards how others ought to be treated by society.
However, atheists moving towards becoming theists involves much more than merely changing their attitude towards other people. Moving towards theism involves an active fundamental shift in their beliefs about themselves and it necessitates belief in supernatural causality and with it notions like "sin" and an afterlife.
If you believe in natural rights, and hte very highly contrived idea that "marraige equality" is some natural right for people in the 21st century, I can see why you would make that argument. But this is a whole series of building blocks that are about to crash to the floor. The culture that promoted inalienable natural rights is dying -- it is being replaced by atheist nihilist culture, which finds it difficult to sustain a coherent concept of rights, and the more autocratic and reactionary culture of conservative Christianity which is now filling steadily with those who are realizing that the 'natural rights'/'muh constitution' concept is a mere relic of a different era.
You are also right, FMF: to become a theist requires a shift in one's epistemology. But we both know that the shallow & selective scientism and hard materialism/empiricism that has made gains is not very deep. People who actually believe in hard materialism very different than the emotional Social Justice Warriors that are basically endorsing what amounts to mental sickness and social decay. Hard words, I know, but you can't take these people seriously as materialists.
BTW, it is interesting to think of Protestantism as having engaged in a sort of 'hyper-Thomism.' They extrapolated natural rights from the natural theologies of St. Thomas Aquinas, and these natural rights philosophies gave birth to secularist governments that further eroded the nature of Northwestern & Northern European society.
The seed of destruction runs deep.
What I really want to say, FMF, is that we are shifting our political stage. That is why the US is highly polarized. The mainstream conservatives actually are realizing that they are just yesteryear's liberals, and younger generations of conservatives shift towards harder reactionary views & the Alt Right because they are too sophisticated for classical liberalism + boomer nationalism.
The bulk of the Left were never truly classical liberals to begin with, so there is no reason to even analyze their leftward spiral. It is the fruit of victory.
SO we shouldn't try to analyze contemporary political issues from dated political structures anymore.
The objects were in place before even the cold war ended... but you could say, really, that in <the current year,> we've definitely no use for sitting down & talking about politics like its 1996 and we are both actually so passionate, so righteous in our faithful insistence of what is constitutional and what is the best liberal Republic. It feels like a joke to talk in those terms, frankly.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWhich bits of your personal opinions here are you claiming "we both know" to be true?
..we both know that the shallow & selective scientism and hard materialism/empiricism that has made gains is not very deep. People who actually believe in hard materialism very different than the emotional Social Justice Warriors that are basically endorsing what amounts to mental sickness and social decay. Hard words, I know, but you can't take these people seriously as materialists.
You ought to bear in mind that you are not preaching to a choir when you talk to me and that I may well find things you say based on your superstitions to be misanthropic and incoherent.
So you should use turns of phrase like "we both know" sparingly and not use them to wrap up what may be some filthy, ugly notions you happen to have about "mental sickness" and whatnot with a conspiratorial nod and wink aimed at me.
Aw, no, FMF, I did not mean it that you agree with me on my particular assessment of LGBTQ, I meant that you also knew that people did not have some firm and hard scientist or empiricist bend to them.
For the same reason, there are many within the churches that cannot be said to have an extremely firm grip on the teachings and the subtleties of the church traditions.
I do not hold it against them at all. This stuff just isn't their chief interest or even an important hobby. Faulting them for not having a robust and deep philosophical understanding of the issues is like faulting a news junkie for not knowing how to change their engine oil.
Like... I have no real idea what is going on when someone discusses microbiology or the anatomy of the eye. I might have some very vague idea about it, but the details are way beyond me. Just as such, the bulk of people don't have developed positions on what we are talking about, but they rather have a series of ever-shifting viewpoints molded by what is around them and their emotional state.
Perhaps that is even true of me to some degree, though I do my best to firmly establish myself in real, first principles and not in purely reactive positions.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleIn that case, you don't sound like the sort of person who should be making pretentious pronouncements about how shallow and selective the gains of science and empiricism are.
I have no real idea what is going on when someone discusses microbiology or the anatomy of the eye. I might have some very vague idea about it, but the details are way beyond me.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou were, just now, seeking to equate something to do with "social justice" to, according to you, "what amounts to mental sickness". This, you believe is "real" and not a "purely reactive position" on your part?
I do my best to firmly establish myself in real, first principles and not in purely reactive positions.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWhat kinds of systematic discrimination - by a government's laws and institutions - do you favour and support against fellow citizens who want to enter into same sex unions? I don't think my moral stance involves a "very highly contrived idea". Does your stance involve a "very highly contrived idea"?
If you believe in natural rights, and hte very highly contrived idea that "marraige equality" is some natural right for people in the 21st century, I can see why you would make that argument.
Originally posted by @fmfEmpiricism doesn't actually have gains. It's an epistemological position, not something that "gains" (or loses) more or less merit with time.
In that case, you don't sound like the sort of person who should be making pretentious pronouncements about how shallow and selective the gains of science and empiricism are.
Science's gains are not shallow but they are purely scientific and cannot effectively provide insight into ethical or moral philosophies upon which all governing systems operate. Science isn't to blame for the shortcomings of sciencism as sciencism merely seeks to utterly destroy traditional modes of reasoning (the philosophical and the theological).
Sciencism actually produces a pseudo-scientific understanding of non-scientific affairs. It is basically a really pragmatic, relativistic, and nihilistic positivism masquerading as science. Of course, you can maybe provide some counter points that would seem to go against this initial trend and I will definitley concede that there are some exceptions to the rule but we are speaking in generalities about a very prominent phenomena.
Originally posted by @fmfWell yes, what measure could we use that would say that anti-social and chatoic mating behaviors are vindicated?
You were, just now, seeking to equate something to do with "social justice" to, according to you, "what amounts to mental sickness". This, you believe is "real" and not a "purely reactive position" on your part?
There's no grounds which would say that these behaviors provide some kind of evolutionary advantage. How could this even claim to be rooted in a materialistic or scientific understanding.
I think there's hardly anything "reactive" to classifying the desire to mutilate a healthy body to make it conform to the illusions of a sick mind as not good. The same generally goes for the "LGB." These are anti-social behaviors that do not enhance familial structure.
There are arguments that these are acceptable but these are almost invariably appeals to tolerance within a free and open society... a nuanced position. Hardly anything that would make a counter position radical or purely reactive.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYes, and in the 20th century that was at the point of a gun.
FMF asked an interesting question that basically boiled down to what amount of atheists would become theists in differing circumstances, particularly political or economic ones.
The answer is probably that there would be quite a large variation... which has lead me to believe in opposing the separation of church & state. Not a popular posit ...[text shortened]... consent can be manufactured in one way, it can certainly be manufactured in another way.
They called it Fascism.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou labelled something you disapprove of in a fellow citizen as "mental sickness" earlier. Is your diagnosis of "mental sickness" scientific, pseudo-scientific or non-scientific?
Sciencism actually produces a pseudo-scientific understanding of non-scientific affairs.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleVindicated by whom? Why are you framing a human rights issue in terms of whether it has "evolutionary advantage"?
Well yes, what measure could we use that would say that anti-social and chatoic mating behaviors are vindicated?
There's no grounds which would say that these behaviors provide some kind of evolutionary advantage. How could this even claim to be rooted in a materialistic or scientific understanding.
Originally posted by @fmfIt can only sound like "discrimination" if you are fully subscribed to the gigantic apparatus of "rights" and "values" that you are fully committed to. Saying someone doesn't accept your unwieldy late 20th century secular humanist vision is bigoted is just throwing a tantrum, IMO.
What kinds of systematic discrimination - by a government's laws and institutions - do you favour and support against fellow citizens who want to enter into same sex unions? I don't think my moral stance involves a "very highly contrived idea". Does your stance involve a "very highly contrived idea"?
Let's be polite and civil about this.
I don't believe that secular humanism, moral relativism, etc., can provide a good framework for a society and I do not believe in the values and the conclusions based on these values that you draw. That's all. And, indeed, I think that this giant construct is a house of cards that has begun falling down before it was even finished.
My basic stance is simple:
We should be live in organically formed communities that operate based on the traditions and needs of the people, and they are rationally implemented to increase the wealth and power of the respective nations. Social welfare is provided as needed and tyrannical exercises of power are discouraged due to the dignity of human existence. It's a really tight, little, elegant package.
To be more specific about my people, we should have a sinfonia between the secular & spiritual authorities that focuses on producing the greatest good through secular law and spiritual guidance.
of course, the traditional order also means... Classes exist; genders exist; families are the building blocks fo soceity and receive deferential treatment; people are educated with the goal of increasing their spiritual happiness and enlightenment and their material prosperity. The government exists to protect people from both external threats and internal dischord.