Saturday, May 02, 2015
The truth will set you free, or will it destroy you?
Christianity promises that the truth will set you free, of course claiming that Christianity is the truth. Can atheists claim the same thing? Isn't it at least possible that, even on the assumption that atheism is true, the truth of atheism could destroy a person, or every person? I can easily imagine thinking both that atheism is true, and that I hope most people don't find out that it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
You've come up with a tough one to wrap your mind around, Victor. First of all, atheism is so mind numbingly incoherent, contradictory, and irrational that its hard to say "assume atheism is true" even for the sake of argument. It's akin to saying "just for the sake of argument, let's say that 2 plus 2 equals 5."
But let's throw caution (and reason) to the wind, and do it. Let's assume atheism is true. What follows?
First of all, the "Meaning of Life the Universe and Everything" isn't even 42 - it's NOTHING. Just nothing. There is no good, there is no evil. There are no lasting consequences to anything we either do or don't do. You can toil your life away in the slums of Calcutta helping the poor like Mother Teresa, or "live life to the hilt, guilt free" like John Loftus. What's the difference? (Hint: the answer is "none".) There is no good reason to put yourself out for anybody or anything. In the long run, we'll all be dead, and it will all be as though it never happened. Love, beauty, truth itself? Just evolutionary survival mechanisms of no intrinsic value - doomed in any case to ultimate failure with the death of the solar system. Meaning in life? That's just for suckers!
The funny thing is, many atheists realize this, when they claim that religion is "just another one of those evolutionary survival mechanisms". 'Cause if that's really the case, then they ought to be vigorously promoting religion rather than tearing it down. After all, why work against survival? So even the semi-coherent atheists out there do indeed realize that, if atheism is actually true, it's better that we do not know it.
Jezu ufam tobie!
^ As I have observed (based on argumentation), atheism matters only if it is false.
On the flipside, I think numerous atheists are absolutely frantic at the idea that anyone would discover theism, even religion in general, is more plausible than they say it is.
"Isn't it at least possible that, even on the assumption that atheism is true, the truth of atheism could destroy a person, or every person?"
The human eye as an organ is necessary for healthy human beings. One way to infer this fact is by noticing that blindness as a mutation has never successful caught on in the population at any point in human history.
On the assumption that theistic belief evolves in an atheist universe, religion could be a social construct just as important as the human eye. If so, societies that lose religion should fail to thrive and become quickly dominated or displaced by religious societies.
So (1) If atheism is true and societies can thrive without religious belief, we will find societies functioning well without religious belief. (2) If atheism is true and societies can not thrive without religious belief, we will find non-religious societies struggling and dying off. As a purely empirical issue, I would say the state of affairs today seems closest to (1) so it does not seem likely that the truth of atheism is actually a threat to social well-being. (And note that none of this has any bearing on whether or not atheism is actually true or not)
DougJC,
Let's take a look at your two alternatives. You write: "So (1) If atheism is true and societies can thrive without religious belief, we will find societies functioning well without religious belief. (2) If atheism is true and societies can not thrive without religious belief, we will find non-religious societies struggling and dying off.
I'll grant you your premise for now, without debate. But where I will definitely not agree with you is your very next sentence. "As a purely empirical issue, I would say the state of affairs today seems closest to (1)" Let's look at Western Europe. There is no doubt that in many countries of that continent, Christianity, and indeed belief in God, is in serious trouble. (This is a temporary trend, and many atheists mistake it for some fort of inevitable triumph of non-belief.) But society is definitely and demonstrably not thriving. Quite the contrary - Europe is basically committing continental suicide. To use your own words, it is "struggling and dying off". Many ethnographic projections suggest that within a generation or two, what has historically been considered "Europe" may indeed disappear, to be replaced with something more resembling the contemporary Middle East. Now isn't that a lovely thought! Yet another continent full of Syrias, Egypts, and Iraqs.
So yes, the fashionable atheism of contemporary Western Europe is very much "a threat to social well-being". What we would call a Clear and Present Danger.
Perhaps DougJC is confusing the fact that the anti-Christians presently control the elite institutions of Western societies for the health of those societies.
B. Prokop,
"Quite the contrary - Europe is basically committing continental suicide. To use your own words, it is "struggling and dying off". Many ethnographic projections suggest that within a generation or two, what has historically been considered "Europe" may indeed disappear, to be replaced with something more resembling the contemporary Middle East. Now isn't that a lovely thought! Yet another continent full of Syrias, Egypts, and Iraqs."
But by what measure is Europe (or just Western Europe) struggling and dying off? GDP? Employment? Crime? Well-being? As far as I know, all those metrics are generally moving in good directions.
I'm not sure how ethnographic projections figure into this. Are you saying that immigration and rise of minority cultures within Europe will eventually lead to a majority that votes to leave the European Union and/or build an Islamic State? That seems farfetched. This graph at the Economist gives a breakdown of Muslim population and the most populated is France at 8%. Notice how badly the public perceives this figure at 31%.
Ilíon,
No I'm using "health" the way anyone would want to use it: a set of objective measures including GDP, employment, crime, physical health, financial well-being, happiness, etc. I really would like to know what metrics are doing poorly that can be traced back to a rise in atheism anywhere in the world. This seems directly relevant to Victor's question basically.
"Are you saying that immigration and rise of minority cultures within Europe will eventually lead to a majority that votes to leave the European Union and/or build an Islamic State?"
Yes.
Jezu ufam tobie!
But by what measure is Europe (or just Western Europe) struggling and dying off? GDP? Employment? Crime? Well-being? As far as I know, all those metrics are generally moving in good directions.
You've been missing the whole austerity debacle, the unemployment rates associated with such, the debt, and the general instability?
No I'm using "health" the way anyone would want to use it: a set of objective measures including GDP, employment, crime, physical health, financial well-being, happiness, etc.
That's not the way 'anyone' would want to use it, because 'health' very easily goes beyond that. The fact that Germany has to beg people to have children, and import immigrants because they refuse to, says a lot of negative things about their health.
I really would like to know what metrics are doing poorly that can be traced back to a rise in atheism anywhere in the world.
I would really like to know what you'd consider an example of 'traced back to a rise in atheism'. Stalinism, Maoism - Communism in general - goes pretty well hand in hand with atheism. Were those 'healthy'?
" I really would like to know what metrics are doing poorly that can be traced back to a rise in atheism anywhere in the world."
The biggest one, and easily the show-stopper, is the failure to produce a next generation. Just take a look at THIS MAP. And what's hidden in the data is that the birth rates for France and England would be far lower, were it not for the Islamic populations in those countries. Even more interesting is the fact that despite below-replacement fertility rates, the population of Europe is still growing. How is that possible? Answer: immigration. And where from? The Middle East and North Africa. This is not some whacko right wing scary story - this is ground truth in Western Europe. I know from personal experience. I've lived close to half of my adult life in Europe, and I've watched with my own eyes whole cities become Muslim enclaves. Soon it will be entire countries. Way back in the 1970s, other than the occasional Turkish gastarbeiter, Germany was essentially German. Today there are mosques and veiled women everywhere. Already in the so-called "English" Midlands, it is hard to find a non-Islamic neighborhood in the once-British cities of Manchester, Sudbury, and others.
As Christian Europe turns its back on God, it dies - literally. To be replaced not by atheists (that will never happen, anywhere), but by people of an alien faith.
An even more horrific statistic is the soaring rate of abortion in Europe. Again, just TAKE A LOOK. Thank God for Poland!
And speaking of which... Jezu ufam tobie!
DougJC: "So (1) If atheism is true and societies can thrive without religious belief, we will find societies functioning well without religious belief. (2) If atheism is true and societies can not thrive without religious belief, we will find non-religious societies struggling and dying off. As a purely empirical issue, I would say the state of affairs today seems closest to (1) so it does not seem likely that the truth of atheism is actually a threat to social well-being. (And note that none of this has any bearing on whether or not atheism is actually true or not) "
Ilíon: "Perhaps DougJC is confusing the fact that the anti-Christians presently control the elite institutions of Western societies for the health of those societies."
DougJC: "No I'm using "health" the way anyone would want to use it: a set of objective measures including GDP, employment, crime, physical health, financial well-being, happiness, etc. I really would like to know what metrics are doing poorly that can be traced back to a rise in atheism anywhere in the world. This seems directly relevant to Victor's question basically."
Clearly, you are *not* "using "health" the way anyone would want to use it" with respect to societies, for the very bedrock and necessary basis of the "health" of any society, whether it be as small as a family or as large as a continent-spanning nation, is that it *be*: a society that doesn't exist is not "healthy"; and a society that is failing to reporoduce itself -- failing to project its existence into the future -- is a society that is dying.
These so-called objective measures you cite as metrics for gauging the health of a society are, for the most part, not objective, and also, for the most part, have little, if any, relationship to the health of a society. These "objective measures" are, rather -- when they're not pure fluff (to wit: "happiness") -- have to do with the perception of The State's health ... which is to say, they have to do with The State's control over the societies on which it is parasitical.
The State is not society; and the (perceived) health of The State may well be what kills a given society.
To take one example: GDP is a (very crude) measure of the circulation of money within the economy upon which a State hosts itself, vampire-like. Most people, including the elites and wannabes, vainly imagine that GDP is a measure of the wealth produced within the economy. One illustration suffices to show that it is not: if Person A goes to Vegas and somehow wins $100K, he personally is richer (until he wastes the money, of course, as he almost surely will) -- but no wealth has been produced; rather, the ownership of already-existing has been shuffled around. However, this mere movement of money from one set of hands to another is *counted* as an increase in the GDP ... and taxed, of course.
GDP isn't information about the health of the economy, much less is it information about the health of society. GDP is actually anti-information.
And all those other "objective measures" you cite are either similar anti-information, and not even about the society, or are mere fluff (to wit: "happiness").
DougJC: "As a purely empirical issue, I would say the state of affairs today seems closest to (1) so it does not seem likely that the truth of atheism is actually a threat to social well-being."
As a purely empirical matter, either you are delusional or are lying. *Everyone* can see with his own empirical eyes that all Western societies (and a number of highly westernized non-Western societies, such as the Japanese) are seriously ailing and even outright dying.
If there is still a State calling itself "Japan" in another century is meaningless if there are no Japanese, or if the society from which that state sucks the blood is not comprised predominantly of Japanese people with long historical roots in Japanese culture. Likewise, if there is still a State calling itself "The United States of America" in another century is meaningless if there are no Americans, or if the society from which that state sucks the blood is not comprised predominantly of American people with long historical roots in American culture.
B. Prokop,
Falling birth rates of "indigenous" populations just means there will be less competition for resources and that the ethnicity of the population will change over time. Just look at how different the US is in ethnicity a few hundred years ago -vs- today. Did the US of two centuries ago die? That's a strange way to think about it.
In any case, this is not the sense of death and destruction that I think Victor had in mind.
Crude,
"You've been missing the whole austerity debacle, the unemployment rates associated with such, the debt, and the general instability?"
Those are mostly after-affects of the global recession that are improving. For example, if you take Greece (which is actually the 3rd most religious country in Europe) as probably worst affected, the unemployment rate and crime rate has been dropping for 2 years. I'd also be interested if you see a connection between the 2008 recession and atheism.
Unemployment rates though are clearly cyclical, following financial boom and bust cycles, so it is not clear how or why this should be correlated with social religious attitudes. The real issue for employment seems to be figuring out the enormous complexity of a global economy.
"That's not the way 'anyone' would want to use it, because 'health' very easily goes beyond that. The fact that Germany has to beg people to have children, and import immigrants because they refuse to, says a lot of negative things about their health."
Anyone is free to propose a better definition of health. I can't see that reproduction rate is a good definition of social health. It just means more immigrants will eventually be assimilated into German/Japan culture; the US' melting pot culture proves it works. Second generations immigrants are indistinguishable from everyone else.
"I would really like to know what you'd consider an example of 'traced back to a rise in atheism'. Stalinism, Maoism - Communism in general - goes pretty well hand in hand with atheism. Were those 'healthy'?"
See Victor's post "Atheism and Communism" for my view on that. But in any case, Victor's question referred to atheism today and I'm answering it by looking at society today. Past risks to societies from atheism have only marginal application here.
llion,
"As a purely empirical matter, either you are delusional or are lying."
Please refrain from personal attacks.
"If there is still a State calling itself "Japan" in another century is meaningless if there are no Japanese, or if the society from which that state sucks the blood is not comprised predominantly of Japanese people with long historical roots in Japanese culture. Likewise, if there is still a State calling itself "The United States of America" in another century is meaningless if there are no Americans, or if the society from which that state sucks the blood is not comprised predominantly of American people with long historical roots in American culture."
Who are the true Americans in your view? Those with pure blood from descendants of the mayflower? I doubt there are any of those left. By your definition, America is already no more.
But in context, this view of society is beside the point because Victor's question was about death and destruction of people as a consequence of atheism, not shift in genetic variety due to immigration leading to a change in ethnic concentration and variety.
some leftie hypocrite, who just torpedoed any chance of being taken seriously: "Please refrain from personal attacks."
Awww, didums venture outside um's "safe space" and discovow that real grownup men don't consider themselves bound to be dictated to by passive-aggressive hypocrites?
Doug,
You just don't get it, do you? I'm not talking about a matter of changing ethnicity. Heck, 250 years ago the neighborhood I live in was pretty much all English. A hundred years later it was pushing majority African-American. By the turn of the (last) century, it was pretty much 100% Polish. Now its increasingly Hispanic. But through all that, it's consistently been a Christian culture.
But you asked something entirely different. You asked whether we would see "non-religious societies struggling and dying off" and answered your own question in the negative. I countered that the objective data show that that is not the case at all. "Non-religious" Europe is indeed "dying off" before our very eyes, to be replaced by a new Euro-Islamic order - definitely not a non-religious society.
So your multicultural embrace is, far from being a sign of health, a big part of what is hastening the demise your "healthy" society. Our grandchildren will be reading about secular Europe the way we read about the Mayans - as ancient history.
B. Prokop,
"I countered that the objective data show that that is not the case at all. "Non-religious" Europe is indeed "dying off" before our very eyes, to be replaced by a new Euro-Islamic order - definitely not a non-religious society."
What objective data are you referring to? The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism, conducted by WIN-Gallup International finds that, from 2005-2012, those claiming to be "religious" dropped in France 21%, Switzerland 21%, Germany 9%. Meanwhile, those calling themselves "atheist" increased 15% in France, 2% in Switzerland, 5% in Germany. (large pdf).
Muslim population (at just 8% in France) is just too tiny to offset this shift away from religion. Where are you getting the idea that Europe is becoming more religious? Or do you mean that the trend away from religion will reverse very soon now?
Or are you saying that Muslims will reproduce like rabbits while ensuring 100% loyalty to Islam of all children and grandchildren and keep this up for the next 4 or 5 generations? This seems like a very shaky projection.
Doug,
All you are doing is proving my point. The more Europe abandons God, the faster its fertility rate drops. Nature abhors a vacuum, so the gap will be filled by Islamic immigrants. Just look at the boatloads of North Africans crossing the Mediterranean as I type this. Many will perish, but far more will safely make it ashore. The airports of Europe even today look like they belong in Kuwait (I've spent many an hour in both, so I know whereof I speak). Recognizably Islamic travelers, most of whom are immigrants, make up the majority of those going through customs. Whole provinces in Europe nowadays indisputably look more like the Caliphate than they do like the Holy Roman Empire. A tipping point is very near in many cities right now - soon it will be entire nations.
Now you may be multicultural enough to claim to not care - you might even have a "COEXIST" bumper sticker on your car. Just keep in mind that if you care an iota for Western values, they fare far worse under an Islamic culture than a Christian one (even a nominally Christian one). Also do not lose sight of the fact that, while as an nonbeliever you might feel marginalized in a Christian culture, the Moslems execute atheists.
If I were an atheist, I would be doing everything in my power to ensure that the West stays Christian - for my own safety, if for no other reason.
Jezu ufam tobie!
Doug,
Falling birth rates of "indigenous" populations just means there will be less competition for resources
There's no 'just' about it, which is exactly why those countries experiencing that fall in birth rates view it as a problem in need of correcting - they don't go 'hooray, less competition for resources!' because those resources typically need to be gathered by people. Further, that conflicts with what you say immediately afterwards:
and that the ethnicity of the population will change over time.
Why is the ethnicity changing? Because of immigration. Which means an increase in competition for resources, and - in large enough numbers - and influx of a foreign culture, which can change or even eradicate the culture that was previously there.
Those are mostly after-affects of the global recession that are improving.
After-effects.
Nor is it clear they are improving, though admittedly there's a chance the EU will break up, which may well yield some manner of improvement.
I'd also be interested if you see a connection between the 2008 recession and atheism.
You're the one claiming that atheism is hunky-dory and leads to no problems. So far all you've demonstrated is that you can assert 'everything is fine' and little else, while blowing past criticisms that hobble your case.
Unemployment rates though are clearly cyclical, following financial boom and bust cycles,
The fact that you treat economics as something as 'cyclical' as the passing of the seasons, as opposed to factors for which the choices and even cultures of people are paramount, is pretty amazing.
Anyone is free to propose a better definition of health. I can't see that reproduction rate is a good definition of social health.
Because if your reproduction rate falls below replacement, you have no society to estimate the health of.
Countering 'but immigration!' only proves my point. If those immigrants don't reproduce above replacement rate, the problem continues. And when considerable numbers of them arrive, your society changes - which, yes, is paramount to death. Otherwise you're saying that atheism is not a problem, because people can just immigrate. And if the immigrants bring their culture, their religion, and their language with them, leading to changes in the culture (including the atheism!), well, it's preposterous to say the culture has died.
Second generations immigrants are indistinguishable from everyone else.
Only if you define 'everyone else' as 'everyone who exists in the world'. If you judge by language, by political and religious preferences, by cultural attitudes, by values, that's not only not guaranteed, it runs against the facts.
Past risks to societies from atheism have only marginal application here.
Because the past doesn't apply to the present, right?
If you want to try and be technical here, Victor made reference to 'the truth of atheism' - a positive belief, not some mere lack of belief. The formally irreligious can and often do reject atheism, naturalism, and materialism.
Crude,
I understand your claim to generally be that societies in which atheism is on the rise could be unhealthy if low birth rates and religious immigration then lead to a significant decrease in atheism. In that case, societies in which atheism is on the rise should reach some sort of peak atheist percentage followed by a steady decline in atheism. I agree, this scenario fits my definition of an atheist society effectively dying off and being replaced by a religious one.
But is this theory or fact? As I've mentioned, the evidence shows many societies are getting more atheistic generally, so we haven't reached any sort of peak implied in the paragraph above. Further, we can only reach that peak if the religion of religious immigration "sticks" in the population, and the simple fact of a rise in atheism shows that religion doesn't always stick. So the facts are so far against this theory, to my knowledge.
"The fact that you treat economics as something as 'cyclical' as the passing of the seasons, as opposed to factors for which the choices and even cultures of people are paramount, is pretty amazing."
Economic growth is not cyclical but unemployment dips are quite cyclical. The overall trend of economic growth is steadily upwards and that is fairly amazing. See these charts for example. Surely that says something good about modern society.
"[I wrote]: Past risks to societies from atheism have only marginal application here.
Because the past doesn't apply to the present, right?"
My point from the beginning is that there is something very different in society today that, effectively, makes atheism more "palatable" and workable than in the past. What that is might be a change in moral intuitions away from loyalty, authority and sanctity, while a strengthening of the moral intuitions of care, fairness and liberty (see http://www.moralfoundations.org/ for some of the research behind these moral categories). This seems unique to any time in human history to my knowledge and a truly remarkable development if so.
Doug,
I understand your claim to generally be that societies in which atheism is on the rise could be unhealthy if low birth rates and religious immigration then lead to a significant decrease in atheism.
No, my claim is that societies where atheism is on the rise can be considered unhealthy from a number of measures - but in particular said societies tend to go hand in hand with having birth rates below replacement. And those societies, as long as that trend continues, are doomed.
Say there's a 100% conversion rate. Every immigrant becomes an atheist on the spot due to the magic of geography! But if that net negative birth rate holds, the society is doomed anyway. And in the short term, the very existence of that birth rate issue can lead to relatively near-term problems, as we're already seeing primarily in secular countries.
This much is not theory. It is fact.
As I've mentioned, the evidence shows many societies are getting more atheistic generally, so we haven't reached any sort of peak implied in the paragraph above.
Societies are getting more irreligious generally. Atheistic is another matter, and insofar as they've gotten atheistic, they've been travesties.
Further, we can only reach that peak if the religion of religious immigration "sticks" in the population, and the simple fact of a rise in atheism shows that religion doesn't always stick.
Considering China, Israel and Russia, it's also a simple fact that atheism doesn't always stick either.
Declining birth rates, however, do seem to 'stick' among the irreligious. Not so among the religious - and that's just one metric.
Economic growth is not cyclical but unemployment dips are quite cyclical.
The premier economists in the world have been blindsided by just about every market crash, just as the world was blindsided by the possibility of a Greece EU exit (which may well just be the beginning) and Russia's invasion of Crimea (which was never supposed to happen). You could also construct a chart showing that peace was on the rise and war was largely a thing of the past - just after WW I.
My point from the beginning is that there is something very different in society today that, effectively, makes atheism more "palatable" and workable than in the past. What that is might be a change in moral intuitions away from loyalty, authority and sanctity, while a strengthening of the moral intuitions of care, fairness and liberty
Every period of history has unique factors in play that one can - and someone always does - extrapolate out to declare The Future(tm). Marxists did it, fascists did it, and now, atheists are doing it. Come to think of it, 'care, fairness and liberty' were much promoted by the Marxists in the past - and, of course, it turned out to be all talk, just as it's turning out to be all talk nowadays.
It's also going hand in hand with familial disintegration, a hostility to having children, a reliance on immigration which is likely to only intensify, and more. Further, atheism isn't very palatable to most people even now - which is why 'irreligion' always trumps 'atheism' in every survey around. There's a reason why, despite people's dislike of religion, the Cult of Gnu has disintegrated into squabbling sides attacking each other - atheism is just another religion, and one that has little going for it.
Crude,
I see decining birth rates as due to a lot of things, not just irreligion. But I'll grant you that a lot of trends in society likely contributing to lower birth rates-- i.e. female education, female career focus-- jar with traditional religious views.
In any case it will be many decades before any of this is a problem that must be dealt with seriously-- even Japan's population in 2050 is estimated to be 95 million (down from 127 million today); in no danger of dying away. A few decades
of medical advancement will likely improve the ability to have children later in life as well which might have an effect.
"Come to think of it, 'care, fairness and liberty' were much promoted by the Marxists in the past - and, of course, it turned out to be all talk, just as it's turning out to be all talk nowadays."
Talk is not what is being measured, here, but the moral intuitions that people actually use in day-to-day life and political involvement. Take SSM marriage. It has never enjoyed legal recognition in any society before today. This can only be because something has fundamentally shifted in the way people (in large majorities in some societies) weigh the moral intuitions of "fairness" against the more conservative moral traditions of "sanctity" and "authority".
DougJC,
I see decining birth rates as due to a lot of things, not just irreligion. But I'll grant you that a lot of trends in society likely contributing to lower birth rates-- i.e. female education, female career focus-- jar with traditional religious views.
Ah, the backhanded faux-reasoning move. Alright, I'll further grant that irreligion is also associated with other societal trends: jerking off alone to pornography and dying childless, for example.
In any case it will be many decades before any of this is a problem that must be dealt with seriously-- even Japan's population in 2050 is estimated to be 95 million (down from 127 million today); in no danger of dying away
Japan regards this as a crisis *now*. You realize that having a population of 127 million, weighted heavily towards the elderly, creates an immediate problem, yeah? Likewise there's a reason these countries are pushing immigration *now*.
Talk is not what is being measured, here, but the moral intuitions that people actually use in day-to-day life and political involvement.
No, that's not being measured either. And the idea that SSM is 'fair', or that liberals abhor 'sanctity' and 'authority', is yet another joke.
Crude,
"Ah, the backhanded faux-reasoning move. Alright, I'll further grant that irreligion is also associated with other societal trends: jerking off alone to pornography and dying childless, for example."
I'm not following you here. Some of the explanations for sub-replacement fertility are given by wikipedia. Why is referring to these "faux-reasoning"? And is your second comment in response to some supposed snide remark or barb that I sent your way? I wasn't intending such. For the record, my intentions are to never engage in ad-hominem or personal attack, I avoid any moralizing or moral shaming, I avoid sarcasm as much as possible and I argue honestly to the best of my ability.
"Japan regards this as a crisis *now*. You realize that having a population of 127 million, weighted heavily towards the elderly, creates an immediate problem, yeah? Likewise there's a reason these countries are pushing immigration *now*."
But traffic is an immediate problem, too. Trains running late sometimes are an immediate problem. How do we put problems in proper context? Japan is not pushing immigration and it is not clear that the Japanese people are worried much over an aging population (see wikipedia). Japan is not going away over the next 4-5 decades due to declining birth rates. So increasingly it seems highly hyperbolic to claim Japan society is dying off in any sense.
"And the idea that SSM is 'fair', or that liberals abhor 'sanctity' and 'authority', is yet another joke."
You misunderstand, I'm not expressing an opinion I'm talking about the findings of moral pyschology research. In particular, see Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" (reviewed here). SSM as a political movement is clearly motivated by people paying strong attention to the "fairness" moral intuition. Indeed, think about how Christians would view SSM if there were no tradition of man-woman marriage. Without a sense of the sanctity of traditional marriage, no cultural or religious authority enforcing it, Christians would be left with just a sense of fairness/unfairness to consider the morality of same-sex marriage. What else could there be?
"yet another joke" is quite a belittling statement. Did something I say justify that? I'm trying to understand if, from your perspective, we're having a brawl rather than a polite discussion. I'm trying to have a polite discussion and that's what you're usually going to get with me.
Doug,
Some of the explanations for sub-replacement fertility are given by wikipedia. Why is referring to these "faux-reasoning"?
Because saying that 'female education jars with traditional religious views' when 'traditional religious views' had women being full-blown doctors of the church centuries ago is ridiculous. So, I offered an alternative explanation of a parallel trend with secularism.
ut traffic is an immediate problem, too. Trains running late sometimes are an immediate problem. How do we put problems in proper context? Japan is not pushing immigration and it is not clear that the Japanese people are worried much over an aging population (see wikipedia).
Japan is not pushing immigration for cultural reasons, and that's obvious to everyone who's looked into the matter.
As for it 'not clear', you should consult sources other than Wikipedia.
You misunderstand, I'm not expressing an opinion I'm talking about the findings of moral pyschology research.
"Moral psychology research findings" are on the level of "opinion". Opinions don't become facts just because a social scientist bandied them about.
SSM as a political movement is clearly motivated by people paying strong attention to the "fairness" moral intuition.
No, it's not. It's motivated by a number of things, including hostility to religious institutions in general, psychological obsessions and inferiority complexes, and more. Granting marriage to same-sex couples has as much to do with 'fairness' - even intuitions of 'fairness' - as it does to grant the right for an Abrams Tank to marry a goldfish.
'Fairness' is far from the only motivation on offer, but it certainly is one that at least superficially sounds nice.
I'm trying to understand if, from your perspective, we're having a brawl rather than a polite discussion.
I am questioning both your rhetoric (whether or not it's intentionally being deployed) and your assumptions.
Crude,
"Because saying that 'female education jars with traditional religious views' when 'traditional religious views' had women being full-blown doctors of the church centuries ago is ridiculous. "
We are talking about all religions, here, not just Christianity since the original implication (Prokop) was that Muslim immigrants are the most likely to take over Europe and I thought it was uncontroversial that many religions hinder female education. I see this 2009 study confirms a strong negative effect on education in Muslim populations and a small negative Catholic effect (but no Buddhist or Protestant effect today).
I also said "traditional" views which I'm somewhat sloppily using as the most conservative traditions of Protestantism which have tended to narrowly define education for women as that which contributes to domestic duties. But my point was that giving women career options beyond domestic duties (combined with the observation that women do not necessarily view domestic duties as the most fulfilling career) is a recipe for declining birth rates.
("doctors of the church", isn't that sainthood?)
"Japan is not pushing immigration for cultural reasons, and that's obvious to everyone who's looked into the matter."
Yes, I'm well aware Japan is xenophobic. But why should the average Japanese lose any sleep over a problem that won't be a problem for 40-50 years? They aren't, generally, or there would be more political pressure to allow immigration. These sorts of alleged problems are projections that require forecasting many unknown variables and a heavy dose of pessimism while not taking into account what 3 decades of technological advancement will produce (i.e. for starters, computers 1000 times faster which will contribute positively to every human endeavor, notably medical research and longevity).
""Moral psychology research findings" are on the level of "opinion"."
I can't agree with that. Any research that follows good scientific practice isn't just opinion. It might not rise to the level of confirmed fact but it is far better than opinion. Here's a summary of the Moral Foundations theory publication list if you doubt its credentials. Maybe you could give me some specifics why you reject the theory.
[On SSM being motivated by the moral intuition of fairness]
"No, it's not. It's motivated by a number of things, including hostility to religious institutions in general, psychological obsessions and inferiority complexes, and more."
Hostility to religious institutions: I disagree mainly because there seems to be enough religious institutions that vocally support SSM. Good Biblical arguments can be made for it, see for example this work. I see no direct reason to associate SSM with anti-religion or anti-Christianity.
Might it be a backlash against conservative Christianity? If it is, how do we explain SSM in European countries that have never really had a conservative Christian presence like in the US?
What do you mean by psychological obsessions and inferiority complexes?
Doug,
We are talking about all religions, here, not just Christianity
Then you were doubly wrong to talk about how 'traditional religious views' undercut such things, since the variety of 'traditional religious views' also includes the ones I mentioned. You may as well talk about 'traditional secular views' that regard women as toys.
and I thought it was uncontroversial that many religions hinder female education.
Surprise - it's controversial, particularly in the sense you're talking about. Further, your study only deals with correlations between religious membership and attaining of formal education, which is not the same as 'female education'.
But my point was that giving women career options beyond domestic duties (combined with the observation that women do not necessarily view domestic duties as the most fulfilling career) is a recipe for declining birth rates.
Education, particularly in the modern world, is not incompatible with 'domestic duties'. And what's a recipe for declining birth rates is a hostility to 'domestic duties' and childbearing.
("doctors of the church", isn't that sainthood?)
"Doctor of the Church (Latin doctor, teacher, from Latin docere, to teach) is a title given by a variety of Christian churches to individuals whom they recognize as having been of particular importance, particularly regarding their contribution to theology or doctrine."
Yes, I'm well aware Japan is xenophobic. But why should the average Japanese lose any sleep over a problem that won't be a problem for 40-50 years? They aren't, generally, or there would be more political pressure to allow immigration.
Why, because your view is that there's no such thing as a real problem that isn't getting solved? The japanese are losing sleep over this - I gave a link showing that it's an issue their administration is trying to solve, in some cases pretty aggressively.
I can't agree with that. Any research that follows good scientific practice isn't just opinion. It might not rise to the level of confirmed fact but it is far better than opinion.
It's not that much better than opinion. This isn't an issue that is solved by citing credentials - saying "Well, gay marriage is just -fair-, you see, that's the basis the researchers ran with" goes a long way towards making my point for me.
Hostility to religious institutions: I disagree mainly because there seems to be enough religious institutions that vocally support SSM.
That is A) a tremendously recent development, and B) a particularly small worldwide development. I'd also extend that hostility towards religious people in general, particularly adherents of orthodox religions. I can cite Memories Pizza, the general activities of atheist organizations, and more on that front. Hell, I just have to point at leadership like Dan Savage.
Good Biblical arguments can be made for it
In the same way that good biblical arguments can be made for ass-to-mouth, sure.
Might it be a backlash against conservative Christianity? If it is, how do we explain SSM in European countries that have never really had a conservative Christian presence like in the US?
Because the Catholic Church -is- a 'conservative Christian presence' traditionally. It's bizarre you'd say it was lacking, unless you mean 'like the US' in some bizarre way.
What do you mean by psychological obsessions and inferiority complexes?
I mean exactly that, the way people nowadays claim they are 'triggered' and need to go to a 'safe space' when someone says something that they disagree with or find offensive. Or people who are so hung up on the idea of being not just tolerated, but celebrated - with no criticism whatsoever - that they lash out at anything that may be interpreted, however vaguely, as a criticism.
There are feminists who can't stand the idea or presence of urinals. You can say that they really care about equality, and that's what motivates their outrage. I think inferiority complex - insofar as any difference runs risk of making them feel inferior - is more in play.
Post a Comment