ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Secularism's pyrrhic victory

The Atlantic laments that shiny, sexy, science fiction future predicted by the It's a Small World secularists has not come to pass:
Over the past decade, pollsters charted something remarkable: Americans—long known for their piety—were fleeing organized religion in increasing numbers. The vast majority still believed in God. But the share that rejected any religious affiliation was growing fast, rising from 6 percent in 1992 to 22 percent in 2014. Among Millennials, the figure was 35 percent.

Some observers predicted that this new secularism would ease cultural conflict, as the country settled into a near-consensus on issues such as gay marriage. After Barack Obama took office, a Center for American Progress report declared that “demographic change,” led by secular, tolerant young people, was “undermining the culture wars.” In 2015, the conservative writer David Brooks, noting Americans’ growing detachment from religious institutions, urged social conservatives to “put aside a culture war that has alienated large parts of three generations.”

That was naive. Secularism is indeed correlated with greater tolerance of gay marriage and pot legalization. But it’s also making America’s partisan clashes more brutal. And it has contributed to the rise of both Donald Trump and the so-called alt-right movement, whose members see themselves as proponents of white nationalism. As Americans have left organized religion, they haven’t stopped viewing politics as a struggle between “us” and “them.” Many have come to define us and them in even more primal and irreconcilable ways.

Maybe it’s the values of hierarchy, authority, and tradition that churches instill. Maybe religion builds habits and networks that help people better weather national traumas, and thus retain their faith that the system works. For whatever reason, secularization isn’t easing political conflict. It’s making American politics even more convulsive and zero-sum.

For years, political commentators dreamed that the culture war over religious morality that began in the 1960s and ’70s would fade. It has. And the more secular, more ferociously national and racial culture war that has followed is worse.
What were they expecting? Did they know NOTHING of the history of pre-Christian cultures? Christianity has transformed EVERY culture with which it has come into contact, from Aztec to Viking, and reliably transformed it in the direction of what we consider to be civilization.

Not only that, but for all the dancing and No True Atheism on the part of the atheist apologists, it is a historical fact that non-Christian modernists have slaughtered people on a scale that no Christians ever have. From Genghis Khan and Zhang Xianzhong to Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, the great murderers of history have never been Christian.

Like Voltaire or diaspora Jews who prefer living in someone else's homeland to their own, many secularists are beginning to discover that they would rather live a godless life in a Christian society than do so in a godless one.

Labels: , ,

138 Comments:

Blogger Jose March 15, 2017 3:04 PM  

Huh. It's almost as if cultural constructions that survive for millennia are whatsitcalled? evolutionary stable strategies, and attempts at direct manipulation of these constructs, absent massive use of coercion and genocide, are likely to fail or lead to a less-desirable final state...

But science is only relevant in certain cases, I guess.

Blogger tz March 15, 2017 3:06 PM  

It has gotten so bad that even Andrew Sullivan noticed.

Blogger Chiva March 15, 2017 3:08 PM  

As Americans have left organized religion, they haven’t stopped viewing politics as a struggle between “us” and “them.” Many have come to define us and them in even more primal and irreconcilable ways.

What did they think would happen when the moderating effect of 'organized religion' is removed?
No more 'love your brother' for you buddy.

Blogger allyn71 March 15, 2017 3:09 PM  

.."they would rather live a godless life in a Christian society than do so in a godless one.

The smart, honest ones do. They exists but are as rare as unicorns.

Most the atheists I interact with want to order society on Christian morality without having to follow the Christian moral code. They just sperg out (probably due to autism) when you try and explain it to them. The few smart ones, the unicorns, get it and support Christian society. The rest are either too dumb, or too damaged to understand.

Anonymous WinstonWebb March 15, 2017 3:11 PM  

"Secularist socialism will work...if *I* am in charge."
---every murderous dictator ever

Blogger dc.sunsets March 15, 2017 3:12 PM  

As Americans have left organized religion, they haven’t stopped viewing politics as a struggle between “us” and “them.” Many have come to define us and them in even more primal and irreconcilable ways.

Gee, you think taking money and jobs from white guys and giving it to Diversity Pokemon Point winners doesn't create resentment of us vs. them? (facepalm.) So used to whipping us have they become that they can't imagine why we don't like feeling the lash.

Could it be more obvious that Christians abandoned Christian sects as Christian sects abandoned their congregations? Could it be more obvious that people don't sit in pews when the clown whose salary they pay whips them for their insufficient devotion to the false god Universalism worshiped in one church after another?

Why is it that the most bone-headed among us obtain writing gigs in well-known media? Is there a degree offered in "volitional blindness & illogic?"

Anonymous Grayman March 15, 2017 3:13 PM  

VD,

Not sure what your perspective is, but it would seem we would need to rebuild the church as part of going forward given how converged the majority of Christianity appears to have become.

Anonymous JN March 15, 2017 3:16 PM  

...Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these...

But we have to rid ourselves of His followers cuz hatred or something.

Blogger Eric Slate March 15, 2017 3:20 PM  

Cucks run amok in churches correlates with a huge chunk​ of the Pew sitters leaving... Imagine that.

Blogger dc.sunsets March 15, 2017 3:22 PM  

@4, Most of the structure of Christianity makes sense independent of religious discussion. Even good people need structure. Few can by brute force of intellect grasp the keys to living life on Happiness Path. If that's "spergy," so be it. I'd rather figure it out for myself (I did so wrt raising kids) but give me the WASP structure of the early 1960's any day of the week for community.

Anonymous Jeff March 15, 2017 3:24 PM  

Last month, the local church (actually a gorgeous 250 year old cathedral) had massive rainbow signs hanging at the front.

This month, there is a crescent moon sign out front.

Sad.

Blogger jonathan mcCormack March 15, 2017 3:29 PM  

I think the alt-right can dialogue with Catholic integralists, who believe a nation is an organic unity with differentiated hierarchy between classes.

As for an Alt-right church, we already have that. It's called Orthodoxy. ;)

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 15, 2017 3:30 PM  

"... many secularists are beginning to discover that they would rather live a godless life in a Christian society than do so in a godless one."

Well that's just too fucking bad, innit?

Because when you shove the pendulum far off its equilibrium point, it doesn't stop there on the way back.

Secularist destroyers are going to find out that few, if any, of the Christian nations that survive the coming maelstrom, are going to welcome them.

Or even tolerate them.

The age of tolerance is over.

The age of the zealot has begun.

Blogger Orville March 15, 2017 3:30 PM  

Sounds like what they are saying is Nationalist churchianity good, Tribalist Christianity bad. That second group can't be controlled or shamed into submission.

Blogger Lazarus March 15, 2017 3:36 PM  

Jeff wrote:This month, there is a crescent moon sign out front.



Islamists believe infidel stupidity and Western civil rights are gifts from Allah, because it will make them much easier to convert, kill, or enslave.

Blogger Gaiseric March 15, 2017 3:37 PM  

One of the prevailing narratives of the Old Testament is how God used other peoples—the Assyrians, the Ammonites, the Philistines, the Persians, the Babylonians, etc. to scourge the children of Israel when they strayed and stir them up into remembrance of him. And then, when the more wicked part of the people were destroyed, the core rebuilt again along righteous doctrine.

We'd indeed be fools if we thought that pattern wouldn't apply to us too, just because we're near peak wickedness in our Christian society right now.

Anonymous Stickwick March 15, 2017 3:42 PM  

For whatever reason, secularization isn’t easing political conflict. It’s making American politics even more convulsive and zero-sum.

You don't say.

How historically ignorant does one have to be to not understand that humans are innately inclined to fracture and quarrel? As Vox said, Christianity has been a unique force in history acting as a brake on this tendency.

Y'know, for all their supposed sophistication, secularists strike me as highly educated primitives. They don't logic, they don't science, they don't consider much beyond their extremely narrow interests, and they exist in a weirdly reflexive eternal state of "now" that prevents them from thinking more than one or two steps ahead. Watching them rush headlong into the brick wall of reality would be more amusing if they didn't wreak so much havoc.

Blogger Silly But True March 15, 2017 3:46 PM  

Within the week, Stephen Hawking surmised that a world-wide global emperor was required to keep mankind from eradicating himself.

Just tell where the throne is and I'd be happy to give it the ol'e college try for about 30 years or so.

Blogger VFM #7634 March 15, 2017 3:48 PM  

Cucks run amok in churches correlates with a huge chunk​ of the Pew sitters leaving... Imagine that.

@9 Eric Slate
Interesting:

"Research shows that evangelicals who don’t regularly attend church are less hostile to gay people than those who do. But they’re more hostile to African Americans, Latinos, and Muslims. In 2008, the University of Iowa’s Benjamin Knoll noted that among Catholics, mainline Protestants, and born-again Protestants, the less you attended church, the more anti-immigration you were."

In much the same way Christians are abandoning the public skoolz, they're abandoning the cuckstain-[sic]-infested churches for smaller-scale home worship or whatever.

It also appears likely that those who regularly attend cuckstain-infested churches are more into interracial adoption and other civilization-destroying cucky activities.

Anonymous Grayman March 15, 2017 3:49 PM  

the 21st century crusades should be interesting. I suppose we have home-field advantage if that's what you want to call it. Although, as they say history rhymes, not repeats. This time we have a combination race-war crusade. In Europe the crusade will be more clear cut. In the US it will be a much messier affair give the complications of vibrant diversity.

Asia could see a serious economic boom, as much like WWII the west including the US could see much of its manufacturing / economic capacity heavily damaged.

You will know it is serious when border crossing invaders are shot on site and the "refugee" boats crossing the Mediterranean are sunk on sight.

Blogger Weouro March 15, 2017 3:51 PM  

They're injecting AIDS into our chicken nuggets.

Anonymous Reenay March 15, 2017 4:01 PM  

Treat religion as nothing more than social glue... try to kill religion... society fragments more than before...

Quelle surprise.

Anonymous BBGKB March 15, 2017 4:08 PM  

The Lutheran church I grew up in had a pastor that Luther himself would approve of, but now has a good news revisionist pastor as cucked as any MCC. Shitlibs think the moslems will fight the armed STR8 White Church Going Christian men for them instead of easy targets like gay bars.

Most the atheists I interact with want to order society on Christian morality without having to follow the Christian moral code

The smart ones want the Bernie Madoffs of the world to fear eternal torture, they want the benefits of a low trust people in a high trust environment

taking money and jobs from white guys and giving it to Diversity Pokemon Point winners doesn't create resentment of us vs. them?

They really think that a judge waving his wand or a nanny scolding will force people to be their friends

The age of tolerance is over.The age of the zealot has begun.

Trigglypuff has been a zealot since she was over 200lbs


OT: What the media is pushing now. The flash is now doing double mudsharking with nigglet/kid flash and jesse quick. Good luck finding a commercial with real white men,this weeks flash did the euthanasia theme, with old white earth 3 flash taking nigglet flashers place in the speed force prison. Grimm also had a pro old white euthanasia message.

Blogger Silly But True March 15, 2017 4:10 PM  

“Demographic change,” led by tolerant young people, is “undermining the culture wars.”

This change movement has generally been described as tge "Alt-Right." if its not successful, the Atlantic isn't going to want to face the intolerant change that would come after.

Blogger Elder Son March 15, 2017 4:19 PM  

@8 ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

You might want to dwell on that a bit. It certainly doesn't mean to put up with your neighbors incessant shit. Like, murder, rape, robbery, boom-boxing your walls all day, breaking into your house, eating out your native posterity's subsistence, and incessantly sucking off the teat of the natives. Etc., and etc.

Blogger frigger611 March 15, 2017 4:19 PM  

As usual, Vox, your concluding sentence is a knock-out punch.

Getting food through a straw while your jaw is wired shut is no fun. But on 2nd thought, there are a lot of obese leftists who could quite benefit from that!

Blogger Out of Nod March 15, 2017 4:21 PM  

I second this.

There is just as much a need to start a new wave of uncucked churches as there is a need for alt-tech and alt-media. Most likely, they will start in public spaces as small groups of men band together to discuss matters of faith and civilization.

Blogger Cataline Sergius March 15, 2017 4:30 PM  

...conservative writer David Brooks...

That one never gets old.

Blogger lowercaseb March 15, 2017 4:35 PM  

"Because when you shove the pendulum far off its equilibrium point, it doesn't stop there on the way back."

This is a comment being saved in the commonplace book.

People ignore the fact that the only thing to get it on the equilibrium point without a dictator was western civ. Well...perhaps they will help us get it back once the pendulum swings over to the Ultra side for a few years.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor March 15, 2017 4:36 PM  

@25 Also, the invader who happens to be camped near you and shares none of your values is not your neighbor.

Blogger Cail Corishev March 15, 2017 4:37 PM  

Did they know NOTHING of the history of pre-Christian cultures?

Well, they knew a lot of things that weren't true. The "noble savage" idea, that societies were superior in virtually every way other than technology (and sometimes even that) before the white man brought civilization, is so pervasive it's a trope. Before white explorers and Christian missionaries came, societies were all free love and peaceful oneness with each other and the earth.

Blogger Out of Nod March 15, 2017 4:40 PM  

"...as yourself" seems to get ignored...

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 March 15, 2017 4:41 PM  

The rise of secular society in the West has allowed the Muslims to claim the moral high ground.

A secular society could have worked, if the culture was severely homogenized and had a superiority complex. But that is not the case in the United States or Europe.

Anonymous JN March 15, 2017 4:47 PM  

@25 Agreed.

Also, love means doing whats best for someone, not catering to their every whim. (Husbands love your wives)

Anonymous Phantasmic March 15, 2017 4:51 PM  

@17

In what way has Christianity "put the brakes on" the tendency for humans to fracture? Were the schisms not fractures? All the various Protestant factions? Hell, in my own time in church I saw numerous quarrels among church members.

All Christianity did was provide something new to break up.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club March 15, 2017 4:58 PM  

they would rather live a godless life in a Christian society than do so in a godless one.

And Christian society certainly superior to living in one of those Allah-based hellholes, though we're highly unlikely to get such an admission publicly.

Blogger Timmy3 March 15, 2017 5:05 PM  

I would have assumed "religious nonattendance" is a secularist, but the article says they are Republican Evangelicals that don't attend church. It's a odd category. Whatever they are, they either don't buy Liberal politics, or they buy into group identification as how Liberals taught many people. In politics, you CAN have it both ways.

Anonymous BBGKB March 15, 2017 5:05 PM  

And Christian society certainly superior to living in one of those Allah-based hellholes,

Anderson Cooper would beg to differ, the cost for Bacha Bazi in moslem nations is far cheaper than at Comet Pizza. He doesn't account for the cost of the body guards CNN pays for him.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer March 15, 2017 5:07 PM  

Maybe it’s the values of hierarchy, authority, and tradition that churches instill. Maybe religion builds habits and networks that help people better weather national traumas,

No, its objective morality and truth coupled with the understanding that it impossible for humans to create a Utopian society and that we are inherently sinful and are in the end, all accountable to God who created us in his image.

Blogger Dave March 15, 2017 5:08 PM  

Vox, no Dutch election thread?

Tweeted:
Europe Elects‏ @EuropeElects 3 minutes ago
Netherlands (1% counted):

VVD-ALDE: 26.2%
PVV-ENF 12.5%
D66-ALDE 12.3%
CDA-EPP 10.3%
GL-G/EFA 9.4%
SP-LEFT 8.1%

#DutchElections #TK17



Other notes:
>Europe Elects says that ballot papers are “running out” and some polling stations are swamped because turnout is so high.
>It added: “Turnout in some polling stations hits 100%.
>Turnout today to surpass 80%, maybe even 85% (2012: 74.6%).
>Media reports some station have run out of ballots."

Blogger Peter Jackson March 15, 2017 5:09 PM  

"As Americans have left organized religion, they haven’t stopped viewing politics as a struggle between “us” and “them.” "

Religion aside, the divide between "us" and "them" has been amplified by the fact that the federal government is simply involved in too many micro aspects of people's lives. Would we be arguing with leftists if the feds simply defended the borders and delivered the mail?

Blogger Gunnar Thalweg March 15, 2017 5:17 PM  

"[Many secularists are beginning to discover that they would rather live a godless life in a Christian society than do so in a godless one."

Yes. More in sadness than anger, at this point.

The secularists are spending (and draining) the cultural capital of the Western Civilization, and that capital was created by Christians.

Blogger JJ from AZ March 15, 2017 5:20 PM  

I agree with almost everything you say, almost every time you say it, but to say that mass murder is "never" done by Christians is a bit of a stretch. Conquistadors, the French Wars of Religion, the Crusades... on and on, we colonize and kill.

However, when we do, we bring civilizational improvements, modernity, technology, and advancement. Where we are unsuccessful in conquest, the dark ages remain (the Mid East, Afghanistan, Africa). Where we win and generously allow the indigenous to remain, they move forward, (China, Japan, India, Malaysia...)

The emphasis on a personal relationship with God that Christianity brings allows civilization to spread, and spread rapidly. The idea of the individual, capable of personal advancement, rather than just being a cog in someone's wheel, is the root of all that has allowed our civilization to advance and abandoning the principles of Christianity for collectivism is a retreat into the darkness. Sometimes you gotta cull to grow.

Blogger Bob Loblaw March 15, 2017 5:20 PM  

Religion aside, the divide between "us" and "them" has been amplified by the fact that the federal government is simply involved in too many micro aspects of people's lives. Would we be arguing with leftists if the feds simply defended the borders and delivered the mail?

But that isn't putting religion aside, really. The reason the government needs to get involved in all aspects of people's lives is a voluntary moral code allows you to coexist with your neighbors without intervention by the state. Once the moral code goes away, the only way you can keep people from killing each other is by making laws regulating everything that used to be covered by the moral code.

Anonymous WaterBoy March 15, 2017 5:26 PM  

Out of Nod @27: "Most likely, they will start in public spaces as small groups of men band together to discuss matters of faith and civilization."

You mean like this?

Anonymous fop March 15, 2017 5:26 PM  

To hell with secularists.

Blogger James Dixon March 15, 2017 5:28 PM  

> "...as yourself" seems to get ignored...

Who qualifies as your neighbor seems to get ignored. It's not like Christ didn't answer that very question.

> Would we be arguing with leftists if the feds simply defended the borders and delivered the mail?

Yes. They would still be arguing the government should do more. Just as they do now.

Blogger Chris Lutz March 15, 2017 5:28 PM  

@33 No it wouldn't because the society without religion goes searching for a secular religion. And whatever that secular religion is it will destroy secular society. Dreaming that with just the right conditions, you'll get a perfect secular utopia is the same as communism will work with the right people.

Anonymous Daniel H March 15, 2017 5:31 PM  

>>Christianity has transformed EVERY culture with which it has come into contact, from Aztec to Viking, and reliably transformed it in the direction of what we consider to be civilization.

Yup. I have been talking to people about this for several years now. If you think white men are and have been bad just wait until white men are un-moored from Christianity. It will not be a pretty world for non-whites. Watch out. Anything, anything is possible.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 15, 2017 5:32 PM  

See CH's latest, the hysterical lunacy is white women unleashed, Ashley Judd times millions like her.

We are within a decade from an existential calamity at least in volume of hysterical shrieking.

As I said CH'S guest commentator hits it

Blogger James Dixon March 15, 2017 5:43 PM  

> I agree with almost everything you say, almost every time you say it, but to say that mass murder is "never" done by Christians is a bit of a stretch.

You know, I re-read what Vox said carefully, and I can't find anyplace he said that.

Blogger Peter Jackson March 15, 2017 5:47 PM  

"But that isn't putting religion aside, really. The reason the government needs to get involved in all aspects of people's lives is a voluntary moral code allows you to coexist with your neighbors without intervention by the state."

I was referring more to federal power than government power in general. If California wants to institute single payer health care for example, I can always move.

Anonymous tommy March 15, 2017 5:47 PM  

I'm an agnostic but I've long realized that irrationality or spirituality, however you wish to view it, that fails to find venues in religion tends to find outlets elsewhere, usually in political or social movements. This is something the moronic atheist left has failed to grasp. They'll talk endlessly about the centuries-past crimes of Christians while ignoring the reality that the bloodiest regimes in the last century were essentially secular, often avowedly atheist.

The amount of irrationality may vary in any society given the amount of social strain a society is experiencing. Beyond that, it's relatively constant. It's not a question of whether it will exist or not, but where it will be applied.

And if atheists were honest, and they really felt irrationality was so dangerous, you would think they might be curious about why humans haven't evolved to become hyper-rational Vulcan-like beings. It's almost as if irrationality is essential to our survival. But, then, who is likely to achieve that next target in dead-lifting? A man who computes some dry probability of lifting a little more weight or a man who is convinced he can and will lift that extra weight? Who survives in a dire situation? The despairing computer or the determined optimist? To be at least a little irrational, sometimes to be very irrational, is apparently quite rational.

Atheists are, of course, by and large, dishonest people. If they were honest, most would admit they came to their irreligion guided not by a careful study of alternatives. That's obvious from their often childish, unnuanced attacks on Christianity and more than a little disinterest or naivete about faiths further afield. No, it's merely by a lack of faith or emotional connection with religion. That trait is paired in the West with a visceral dislike of Christianity or, more commonly, some caricature of Christianity they entertain in their own minds shelved next to all their nirvana fallacies about human nature.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Hair March 15, 2017 5:57 PM  

They're surprised ppl are intolerant? They'd rather have fights over morality. Don't worry. That'll happen once we take the country back.

Blogger Peter Jackson March 15, 2017 6:02 PM  

Atheists are, of course, by and large, dishonest people. If they were honest, most would admit they came to their irreligion guided not by a careful study of alternatives.

As an atheist, my beef is not with Christian practices of the past, even though it may be entertaining listening to Hitchens lampoon them. My beef is with supernatural claims in general. I'm of the belief that the golden rule suffices as a moral code in 99.9% of cases, and it makes no appeal to the supernatural.

Anonymous Lee Johnson March 15, 2017 6:04 PM  

yea that was something.
reminded me if this bible verse.
http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-11.htm

Blogger praetorian March 15, 2017 6:12 PM  

Before white explorers and Christian missionaries came, societies were all free love and peaceful oneness with each other and the earth.

Just look at Samoa, goy!

Paradise!

Anonymous tommy March 15, 2017 6:12 PM  

I'm of the belief that the golden rule suffices as a moral code in 99.9% of cases

Belief is the key word here. Suffices for what? Like it or not, atheism cannot decide the Golden Rule is superior to the Rule of Might Makes Right. It doesn't claim to have the moral authority to do so and, if it did, it would have to admit that the adoption of the Golden Rule is but a preference, a lifestyle choice for society that some atheists would like to impose without further justification. In fact, they'd have to appeal to the Rule of Might Makes Right to oppose the Rule of Might Makes Right!

Blogger Sam March 15, 2017 6:13 PM  

@17
"In what way has Christianity "put the brakes on" the tendency for humans to fracture? Were the schisms not fractures? All the various Protestant factions? Hell, in my own time in church I saw numerous quarrels among church members.

All Christianity did was provide something new to break up."

It didn't eliminate conflict, but Christendom is fundamentally different from the House of Islam or All Under Heaven in the unity in the absence of political hegemony.

@55
"I'm of the belief that the golden rule suffices as a moral code in 99.9% of cases, and it makes no appeal to the supernatural. "

Morality is about setting rules to make society function. Reciprocal altruism doesn't solve this because the problem is 'how do we prevent cheating'. This is an insanely hard question to answer. You can only boil things down to the golden rule because everything else is in place and taken for granted.

Also you are going to have to have the supernatural in your moral code. If you don't have God (an individual who is so high status and virtuous you can never remotely reach) people are going to attempt to grab as much status and 'virtue' to get that position.

If religion could exist without the supernatural elements, they would. They can't.

Blogger Lovekraft March 15, 2017 6:14 PM  

I just have this feeling that the media/entertainment industry is neck deep in Dark History that it has decided to just go all in.

They figure, 'they'll find out eventually, might as well burn as much ground in the meantime.'

Blogger pyrrhus March 15, 2017 6:18 PM  

Not attending church is an easy decision if your pastor is a gay woman preaching the importance of 3d world invasion...

Blogger praetorian March 15, 2017 6:24 PM  

I'm of the belief that the golden rule suffices as a moral code in 99.9% of cases, and it makes no appeal to the supernatural.

The golden rule is as much a fairy tale as all the rest, friendo.

This is not to disparage fairy tales. This is to disparage folks who think they don't live in a fairy tale.

Blogger Otto Lamp March 15, 2017 6:25 PM  

https://holysoup.com/the-rise-of-the-dones/

May want to check out "The Dones" phenomenon.

As American institutional churches have become more "churchian", more Christians are deciding to walk away from the brick and mortar churches.

-----------
"John had come to a long-considered, thoughtful decision. He said, “I’m just done. I’m done with church.”

John is one in a growing multitude of ex-members. They’re sometimes called the de-churched. They have not abandoned their faith. They have not joined the also-growing legion of those with no religious affiliation–often called the Nones. Rather, John has joined the Dones.

At Group’s recent Future of the Church conference, sociologist Josh Packard shared some of his groundbreaking research on the Dones. He explained these de-churched were among the most dedicated and active people in their congregations. To an increasing degree, the church is losing its best."

For the church, this phenomenon sets up a growing danger. The very people on whom a church relies for lay leadership, service and financial support, are going away. "
-------------

It's not just that we are becoming more secular. Megachurches that are more like entertainment complexes, deviation from historic doctrine widely accepted, and institutional churches that on seem to exit to perpetuate their own existence has left the American church system hollowed out.


Blogger Artisanal Toad March 15, 2017 6:26 PM  

Out of Nod wrote:I second this.

There is just as much a need to start a new wave of uncucked churches as there is a need for alt-tech and alt-media. Most likely, they will start in public spaces as small groups of men band together to discuss matters of faith and civilization.


The "Theology For Men of the West" series was begun for this reason. It's time men were taught what the Bible actually says in order to take back the Church. Churchians scream about it but none have been able to refute me because what I write about is actually what the Bible says and means.

One of my commenters told me today that a churchian of the Anglican variety went into a fit of projection and declared me to be "misogynistic, carnal, legalistic and mean" to explain why he would not stop by to refute me.

My commenter was instructed to get a copy of SJWAL and read it before responding to to the cuck and he's doing that. After he's been introduced to the use of rhetoric he should be able to explore the questions of why this Anglican is a racist who hates children and supports pedophile priests while harboring secret fantasies about dominating women in kinky BDSM relationships.

Blogger Otto Lamp March 15, 2017 6:29 PM  

" I'm of the belief that the golden rule suffices as a moral code in 99.9% of cases,..."

And the other 0.1% are when it would be to an atheist's advantage not to follow it.

Blogger Peter Jackson March 15, 2017 6:29 PM  

...it would have to admit that the adoption of the Golden Rule is but a preference...

I admit it's a preference, just as whoever wrote the rules of chess preferred that the bishop move diagonally. Do I have to claim the rules of chess where passed down by God to ensure that every chess game doesn't devolve into a gun fight?

If religion could exist without the supernatural elements, they would. They can't.

Then they are doomed to fail. And the failure is the result of having made scientific claims that were based on a supposedly timeless, infallible God that turned out to be complete bullshit. You can't unring that bell.

I agree we need a moral code for society to function, but trying to base that on God or supernatural claims at this point in time is akin to pissing in the wind.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents March 15, 2017 6:38 PM  

Atheists in Christian countries are free riders. They profit from Christian morals being common in the public square, but don't very often contribute to supporting the institutions and limitations that make those morals possible. It's almost a "tragedy of the commons", where everyone expects or demands tolerance from Christians, but refuses to give back that tolerance to them.

Older atheists weren't quite so foolish. They would tolerate being hypocritical; wishing your Christian neighbor "merry Christmas" when you reject Christ is a small price to pay for mutual good will. Being polite to the Roman Catholic co-worker with a black smear on her forehead rather than poking fun at Ash Wednesday was a small price to pay for cordial work relations.

I don't see that much anymore. Modern atheists are often SJW's, and since the political is always personal to an SJW many times they just have to comment, to jeer, to snark. They can get away with this because if anyone pushes back they can screech "Theocracy!" and "Hate speech!". But it's just pissing in the well of good will that atheists rely on.

Anonymous tommy March 15, 2017 6:41 PM  

I admit it's a preference, just as whoever wrote the rules of chess preferred that the bishop move diagonally. Do I have to claim the rules of chess where passed down by God to ensure that every chess game doesn't devolve into a gun fight?I admit it's a preference, just as whoever wrote the rules of chess preferred that the bishop move diagonally. Do I have to claim the rules of chess where passed down by God to ensure that every chess game doesn't devolve into a gun fight?

You have the option of not playing chess. Are you suggesting people have the right to opt out of the Golden Rule? How far do you think you'll get arguing that all must play chess, and by the standard rules, because it's your preference?

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents March 15, 2017 6:43 PM  

Peter Jackson
I agree we need a moral code for society to function, but trying to base that on God or supernatural claims at this point in time is akin to pissing in the wind.

To you, but not to everyone. Are you assuming that your preferences are universals? Because they are not.

Neither is the Christian Golden Rule a universal, as anyone who has ever read through the Koran carefully is aware. Those atheists who yearn for a culture where Christians are totally excluded from even a corner of the public square should be careful, because if they get that it may look more like Thermidor than some Platonic ideal.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 15, 2017 6:46 PM  

@Peter Jackson,
In chess you can see all of your opponents moves.
Life is not a game.

Blogger Azimus March 15, 2017 6:52 PM  

43. JJ from AZ March 15, 2017 5:20 PM
I agree with almost everything you say, almost every time you say it, but to say that mass murder is "never" done by Christians is a bit of a stretch. Conquistadors


One of the most eye-opening studies I ever did was the campaign of Cortez against the Aztec Empire. The gov schools said he landed w/1500 troops and toppled an Empire whose army was estimated to be more than 250,000. The davout attributed it to God. The idiotic history book author attributed it to brutality, superior weaponry, and disease.

The reality is - Cortez. Cortez was a genius. He found the kink in the armor in Aztec political system of "Flowery Wars" - which is to say, the Aztecs were a medium-sized empire with a large army that were ringed by smaller vassal states. No one state could overthrow their army, nor even any two, and the Aztecs, who needed human sacrifice for their religion, goaded these vassals into war by raising tribute to intolerable levels and forcing the vassals to choose starvation or war. The vassal usually chose war, leading to human sacrifice, leading to the supremacy of the Aztecs.

Cortez, after wooping a few of the vassals that resisted his landing, started gathering them up as allies in an anti-Aztec confederacy. According to the sources I read at the time, the vassal alliance was able to muster up to 150,000 men to counter the Aztecs massive advantage in manpower. Thus they were able to besiege the island city of Tenochtitlan, build a fleet of gunboats in its moat/lake, and storm the city in 80 days.

Unfortunately, these allies, primarily the Tlaxcalans I think, were unabashedly brutal to the Aztecs. The Wikipedia account gives even a left-washed account of the wanton slaughter, even after the surrender of the city, of disarmed men, women, and children. The slaughter appalled Cortez.

I'm not familiar with the other conquistadors, but at least in Cortez's case, much of the slaughter associated with the campaigns in the Spanish Main was by the hand of the indigenous populations.

Anonymous tommy March 15, 2017 6:56 PM  

I agree we need a moral code for society to function, but trying to base that on God or supernatural claims at this point in time is akin to pissing in the wind.

On a global basis, you couldn't be more wrong. That's the problem: a country like Egypt looked more secular and westernized in 1955 than it does today.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 15, 2017 7:04 PM  

...these allies, primarily the Tlaxcalans I think, were unabashedly brutal to the Aztecs.

Bastards earned that. They worked relentlessly for centuries ensuring the most brutal payback possible.

Blogger Elder Son March 15, 2017 7:08 PM  

@43 Well, when the human sacrificers come for you to cut your heart out, or those head choppers come to chop off your head or your wife's clitoris, remember "mass murrrderrr"?

@71 Thanks for the history lesson, I didn't know that. Now I do.

Blogger Gospace March 15, 2017 7:12 PM  

John Cleese, who mocked and helped destroy English middle class life has come to realize that that middle class is what made England England. A little late. Tougher to restore then destroy.

There's lot's of free riders in the United States, atheists just one of them. Conscientious objectors in any society, who refuse to defend the society. Any small religious cult that started here. Or came here because of persecution elsewhere. Cubans who flee here rather then fight there. I'm sure you can think of others.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club March 15, 2017 7:20 PM  

much of the slaughter associated with the campaigns in the Spanish Main was by the hand of the indigenous populations

So just a continuation of what life was like there before Cortez arrived.

Life is not a game

It is a game, but in this arcade, you only get ONE quarter.

Blogger Peter Jackson March 15, 2017 7:29 PM  

Neither is the Christian Golden Rule a universal, as anyone who has ever read through the Koran carefully is aware.

Of course the Christian golden rule is not universal; who said it was? I actually think you can make a logical, scientific, secular case for Christian moral values. Demonstrating its superiority to Islam isn't beyond the grasp of a fifth grader.

In trying to make a moral case, why be saddled with the baggage of a 2000 year old text? If you can't make your moral case without beating someone over the head with God and a bible, what does that say about your morals?

Blogger Mad Dyeda Jørgen March 15, 2017 7:32 PM  

When I still had liberal acquaintances, I would tell them "someday you will beg the God you don't believe in to send the religious right back to you. But he will laugh, and hand you over to the hard, pitiless men that replaced them."

Maybe I wasn't *that* flowery, but they got the point, and now it has come to pass.

Anonymous BBGKB March 15, 2017 7:41 PM  

I'm of the belief that the golden rule suffices as a moral code in 99.9% of cases

China has more gold than Soros nearly 2,000 tons, does that mean they rule? http://www.thedailyeconomist.com/2017/03/as-china-accumulates-gold-for-rmb.html

OT Pizzagate David Brook buddy kills self, fraud http://disobedientmedia.com/investigation-into-suicide-of-arrowgrass-capital-trader-reveals-ties-to-organized-crime-fraud-and-david-brock/

Blogger James Dixon March 15, 2017 7:46 PM  

> I'm of the belief that the golden rule suffices as a moral code in 99.9% of cases, and it makes no appeal to the supernatural.

The golden rule? Let's see, it's defined at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/golden-rule as:

1. a rule of ethical conduct, usually phrased “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” or, as in the Sermon on the Mount, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them.” Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31.

So what part of "the Son of God" was non-supernatural again?

And if you think it's that good of a guide, perhaps you should look at some of the other statements by the person who stated it.

Anonymous Edward March 15, 2017 7:47 PM  

"...it is a historical fact that non-Christian modernists have slaughtered people on a scale that no Christians ever have."
Not so sure about that, Emperor Constantine had a rather large culling of non-Christians before all of Europe was on the same page with him.

Blogger VD March 15, 2017 7:50 PM  

Not so sure about that, Emperor Constantine had a rather large culling of non-Christians before all of Europe was on the same page with him.

You are wrong. But do feel free to tell us exactly how large this "culling" was. 10 million? 30 million?

Blogger Peter Jackson March 15, 2017 7:50 PM  

And if you think it's that good of a guide, perhaps you should look at some of the other statements by the person who stated it.

Benjamin Franklin said some wise things. So did Batman.

Anonymous Walter Oleg March 15, 2017 8:00 PM  

JN wrote:...Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these...

But we have to rid ourselves of His followers cuz hatred or something.


"Loving your neighbor as yourself" does not mean bringing a bunch of incompatible people into your community that will rape and kill your neighbors. It also doesn't mean purposely advancing political policies (mass immigration, forced integration, anti-White agitation) that will lead to ethnic warfare.

If Christ is the Logos (the order of the universe) then it would seem to me that the Christian thing to do is to let people form communities with those they feel a natural affinity with. Afterwards, the communities that are better off have a responsibility of Christian charity to assist those communities that are struggling.

Social Justice Warriors (whether they claim to be Christian or secular humanists) say they are "anti-racist," but what they are is anti-White. "Anti-racist" is a code word for anti-White.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd March 15, 2017 8:02 PM  

Peter Jackson wrote:I actually think you can make a logical, scientific, secular case for Christian moral values. Demonstrating its superiority to Islam isn't beyond the grasp of a fifth grader.

You can have a preference without a God. Without a God, I can have a different preference, and kill you when it's convenient. ``Superiority'' requires a standard of comparison, and the only absolute standard is God.

Peter Jackson wrote:
If you can't make your moral case without beating someone over the head with God and a bible, what does that say about your morals?


It says that in the absence of God, there is no absolute truth, and your rights and morals are no stronger than the army you have backing you up. You appeal to God, or you appeal to Might Makes Right.

There is nothing so irrational as a rational atheist.

Blogger Peter Jackson March 15, 2017 8:04 PM  

But do feel free to tell us exactly how large this "culling" was. 10 million? 30 million?

I'll just respectfully point out that the population of the earth in 1940 was 10X what it was in 300 A.D. Constantine would have had to wipe out 10% of the earth's population to kill 20 million.

Blogger Peter Jackson March 15, 2017 8:12 PM  

Without a God, I can have a different preference.

That's where we differ. You think appealing to God strengthens your moral case; I think it weakens it.

your rights and morals are no stronger than the army you have backing you up

That's right. I forgot the part where introducing God ended all human conflict.



Blogger James Dixon March 15, 2017 8:23 PM  

> Benjamin Franklin said some wise things. So did Batman.

Yet you didn't say that one of their statements "suffices as a moral code in 99.9% of cases", did you?

> In trying to make a moral case, why be saddled with the baggage of a 2000 year old text?

If the 2000 year old text is true, which you have agreed can at least be argued, why not use it?

> I'll just respectfully point out that the population of the earth in 1940 was 10X what it was in 300 A.D.

Which means he would still have had to kill 2 million. Did he?

Blogger Elder Son March 15, 2017 8:56 PM  

@87 That's where we differ. You think appealing to God strengthens your moral case; I think it weakens it.

And you think appealing to Peter Jackson strengthens your moral case. So, appeal.

Anonymous BadThink655321 March 15, 2017 9:05 PM  

Peter Jackson wrote: I actually think you can make a logical, scientific, secular case for Christian moral values.
Then make it. I'll wager $20 that you can't do it. And the reason you can't do it is because Nature doesn't tell you whether to prefer life or death. On the one hand, life exists. On the other hand, Nature doesn't care whether you as an individual live or die; nor does Nature care whether a particular species lives or dies. In fact, one might even go so far as to argue that choosing life (which is a prerequisite for all other choices) is anti-science, since science holds that everything eventually ends in death.
In trying to make a moral case, why be saddled with the baggage of a 2000 year old text?
Because Jesus rose from the dead.
If you can't make your moral case without beating someone over the head with God and a bible, what does that say about your morals?If you can't help but engage in chronological snobbery about what you claim is a scientific, secular case, what does that say about your morals?

In any case, begin. Put your money where your mouth is.

Anonymous BadThink655321 March 15, 2017 9:09 PM  

Peter Jackson wrote:That's right. I forgot the part where introducing God ended all human conflict.
Are you so utterly delusional that you think that the moment you make a "scientific secular case" for morals, that people will follow it? The moment science tells people, "this is how you ought to behave", you're going to be faced with the obvious, observable, phenomena that people don't do what they ought to do. And the moment you realize that, then you'll have to come up with the scientific alternative to sin.

Blogger tz March 15, 2017 9:11 PM  

I actually think you can make a logical, scientific, secular case for Christian moral values.

This is the is-ought difference, error, and dichotomy.

Stefan Molyneux has his UPB, Libertarians the NAP, Ayn Rand has objectivism.

You might be able to prove a systematic arithmetic, but you can't force people to be rational or empathetic, i.e. moral.

The answer that disproves your logical, rational, scientific case is not any error in logic or reason, but "Non Serviam!".

If I make an accounting error, you can say "you've made an error in calculating", but where do you force someone to accept that answer when they prefer the miscalculation?

The easiest place to see this is when you ask about sex. Harming, theft, cheating seems to be fine as objective, but somehow the worst breaking of promises, debauchery and even murder (of the unborn - go through all the sophistry and you find at the root they do not wish to call it murder, not that there is a true logical distinction) is all "moral" because it has to do with sex. You can promise "till death do us part" and get a no-fault divorce. You can spread STDs (which do discriminate). You can even pretend to be the other binary gender and instead of being considered evil or psychopathic, you will be lauded for your bravery in coming out.

The problem is it has to be "Atheism-PLUS", but the question is what the plus is, SJW convergence, or western civilization and its morality.

But to go back to the root, if there is no hell or heaven (or reincarnation and karma), and you had 3 months to live and could rob, steal, or cheat to get $1m to fulfill your bucket list tomorrow, why NOT do so? You can moralize all you want, but you can either have 3 months of fun and bliss, or sit there watching TV while your life slips away.

If you believe in God/heaven, you will spend those 3 months doing good and repenting of your evil and atoning for it.

If you don't believe, there is no practical point and principle tends to be a very weak barrier or prod.

Blogger tz March 15, 2017 9:13 PM  

In trying to make a moral case, why be saddled with the baggage of a 2000 year old text?

Aristotle is even older, Plato older still. Both wrote their ethics.

Blogger Sagramore March 15, 2017 9:22 PM  

Gay marriage is a corporate merger (fake boat law, remember) for tax benefits. Pot laws are sumptuary prohibitions against food and medicine because of a few puritans who can't tolerate shamans. As I tell cops, if you're going to pretend this is a boat, I'm going to pretend this is medicine.

Both of these issues are mcguffins, really.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 15, 2017 9:25 PM  

Peter Jackson wrote:I actually think you can make a logical, scientific, secular case for Christian moral values. Demonstrating its superiority to Islam isn't beyond the grasp of a fifth grader.
I've seen many many Atheists make this claim, I've never seen one begin to accomplish it without sneaking in arbitrary moral absolutes somewhere.
"A moral system should work to the benefit of all". Really, why?
"A moral system has to be fair."
Says who, exactly?
"The ideal moral system should lead to non-violent resolution of conflict and mutual co-operation."
Is that an axiom of Physics?

A materialist (which I note you have carefully avoided the claim of being), only has "is". Morality is fundamentally about "ought". As pointed out above, you cannot derive "ought" from "is". They are different domains and there is no bridge between them in the physical world.

In trying to make a moral case, why be saddled with the baggage of a 2000 year old text? If you can't make your moral case without beating someone over the head with God and a bible, what does that say about your morals?
Because morality is fundamentally a non-physical thing. Morality is an emergent property of human behavior. There are no natural laws in this domain, and imposing them is an act of blatant dishonesty.

Blogger DonReynolds March 15, 2017 9:25 PM  

There is a buried deceit in saying that Americans are no longer Christians because they reject the increasingly Leftist Liberal messaging of the mainstream Churches.

I expect that Americans are even more Christian than the Churches have become. My Dad's side of the family were Southern Baptists and my Mom's side were Presbyterians. I had the advantage and disadvantage of attending both Churches growing up and listening to both parents explain why the other was mistaken about some of the finer points of religious life.

The Presbyterians were probably the more conservative of the two Churches and they were also the first to dramatically change direction and fully embrace the new Social Liberalism about 1970, that has completely taken over, what was my grandfather's Church. It took longer for the Southern Baptists to abandon the faith of Billy Graham and take a similar set of Liberal positions. (The Episcopalians have had the same issue of a conservative congregation and liberal clergy, for an even longer time.)

How did this happen? I offer one explanation. During the Vietnam Conflict, the easiest way to avoid military draft was to go to college and get a college deferment. As draft boards were squeezed for more warm bodies, more of the anti-war activists slipped over into Divinity Schools. Having no other employment prospects, they ended up as ordained ministers and preachers in the mainstream Churches. It was, after all, inside work with no heavy lifting, and they could sermonize about the evils of capitalism and greed and social justice, while still drawing a salary. Ten years or twenty years into that career and the new Churchmen ended up heads of individual Churches, and taking leadership positions in their "faith", often teaching at Church colleges or taking a seat at the big tables, where the religious doctrines were re-written.

Blogger tz March 15, 2017 9:30 PM  

In Molyneux "Why I was wrong about Atheists", he laments they become State-heists.

You see this with the false tolerance mentioned in the Atlantic article.

Instead of tolerating LGBTQ, they insist it must be accepted, or they will destroy you - sweet cakes, memories pizza, Brendan Eich. They will call whatever they are doing some form of forcing tolerance, but forced tolerance is not tolerance, it is naked coercion.

More eggs to break for their Stalin-esque policies, another 100 Mao-flowers to let bloom so they know what to cut down.

What we used to have is a miniscule secular government separated from a deep and pervasive Christian culture (most debates before 1930 were about theological minutiae, not morals). The government was intentionally secular because it was considered profane - even evil, though necessary.

What has been reversed is we have a huge tyrannical secular government that is a worse busybody and moral enforcer beyond what Jerry Falwell could conceive (he actually wasn't that bad), and a tiny walled in church kept to its prison where it can discuss theological minutiae, but not do anything moral or political that challenges the state.

Having Christians around isn't unlike having legumes or other plants that increase nitrogen in the soil, but you might not like their produce directly. But plants which exhaust the soil grow far better when they are around and rotated (absent technology - and do we wish to implant instant pain and pleasure if herr uberstate is disobeyed).

PJ has kept things to an abstract and theoretical level so far, but the question is what would he use the force of the state, or even individually enforce concerning morality. I may disapprove of something, but generally ignore it if it doesn't disturb the peace, pick my pocket, or break my bones. If he would draw the lines where a minarchist Christian would, there would be no problem, but if he would burn down Memories Pizza - either personally or by proxy - that is the critical issue.

Blogger DonReynolds March 15, 2017 9:37 PM  

I do not recall the name of the scholar who pointed out the basic difference between Western Society before the Modern Era and since.

In the Ancient times, up until the late Middle Ages, the Law was FIXED and the mores of the people were FLEXIBLE. Convert the King to a religion and he will decide to order all his subjects to do likewise. Like Emperor Charlemagne, his subjects will abandon pagan ways or be slaughtered.

In the Modern Era, it is the LAW that is flexible and the mores of the people that are fixed. The law has become less reactionary in form and substance and the people continue with their own ingrained beliefs, sometimes leading to dramatic conflicts, like the English Civil War.

Blogger tz March 15, 2017 9:37 PM  

One thing the article gets wrong or at least spins is that Christians, especially church-goers supported Trump in the greatest proportion. The non-attenders did to, but I think Romney lost in 2012 when Christians stayed home.

Also in that issue, Why is Silicon Vally so awful to women

Blogger JJ from AZ March 15, 2017 9:46 PM  

51. "From Genghis Khan and Zhang Xianzhong to Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, the great murderers of history have never been Christian."

While their opinions means nothing to me, nor the opinions of their descendants neither, I'm sure the Aztecs would have a thing or two to say about Cortés.

Then again, he wiped out a human sacrificing bunch of heathens. They had it coming, but Christians have murdered on a mass scale.

Blogger Cail Corishev March 15, 2017 9:59 PM  

Just had a thought: I don't think I've ever been surprised to find out someone is an atheist. If I'm already at all familiar with the person, my reaction is usually, "Ah, that figures."

Blogger Phil Mann March 15, 2017 10:11 PM  

As draft boards were squeezed for more warm bodies, more of the anti-war activists slipped over into Divinity Schools.

At one of my prior firms, there were an amazing number of lawyers, three to eight years older (i.e. prime draft age) who, unlike the rest, held Master's degrees. Gee, wonder why?

One of my former partners from this group was a Divinity graduate -- as well as a highly effective litigator who wasn't above "bending" the rules to achieve a desired result. Once, after pulling off a nice bit of questionable legal wizardry, I asked him, "How did a priest become a litigator?" He just smiled.

Blogger James Dixon March 15, 2017 10:15 PM  

> ...but Christians have murdered on a mass scale.

So why did you leave out the preceding sentence? I don't suppose it could have been because it completely undercuts your statement? Surely not.

But then this is the same JJ who said "but to say that mass murder is "never" done by Christians is a bit of a stretch." when that's not what Vox said. So maybe that is the reason after all.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents March 15, 2017 10:54 PM  

Peter Jackson

Of course the Christian golden rule is not universal; who said it was?


You implied it.

I actually think you can make a logical, scientific, secular case for Christian moral values.

Do you believe yourself to be the first to come up with this idea?

OpenID lazypadawan March 15, 2017 10:59 PM  

There is a basic human need for something bigger than oneself and beyond oneself and when you take away faith, something else takes its place. It can be something temporal like hedonism or materialism but I've noticed that politics and their attending cults are overtaking even "feeling good" and acquisition to fill that "God-shaped hole."

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 15, 2017 11:01 PM  

JJ from AZ wrote:While their opinions means nothing to me, nor the opinions of their descendants neither, I'm sure the Aztecs would have a thing or two to say about Cortés.
That he enabled their neighbors to rise against them and stop their depredation? That he ended the ritual of blood sacrifice, tens of thousands of innocents at a time? That he was less bloody-minded and killed fewer Aztecs than their own leaders would have?

Anonymous Jack Amok March 15, 2017 11:20 PM  

Research shows that evangelicals who don’t regularly attend church are less hostile to gay people than those who do.

That might have something to do with the fact gay activists have a habit of attacking anyone identifiably religious. A devout baker who worships quietly in his own house is probably not going to be targeted for a cake by a Lesbo-sting operation, while the baker who makes a public show of attending the cucked-up church the first guy bailed out of probably will be targeted.

For the most part, you can ignore gays if they let you. But gays don't like being ignored by church-goers for some reason.



Anonymous Just another commenter March 15, 2017 11:29 PM  

For whatever reason, secularization isn’t easing political conflict. It’s making American politics even more convulsive and zero-sum.

The guy is daft. "For whatever reason..."?! It should be obvious: honest Christianity is incompatible with SJWs. They are mutually exclusive. The church used to be a refuge from the insanity, demands, moral uncertainty, and hate of the outside world, but if you secularize the church you invite the SJWs into church, and church leadership. That leads directly to insanity, hate, demands, and division, relativism, and fear of random attacks within the Church.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 15, 2017 11:30 PM  

I actually think you can make a logical, scientific, secular case for Christian moral values.

No you can't. You might be able to make a theoretical logical case for it, but it would be one mostly only Aspies could understand and even they couldn't actually stick to it.

There's zero evidence of any non-Christian society ever adopting anything resembling Christian morality. The only people who believe Christian morality can exist absent Christianity are people living in a not-quite-completely-decayed post-Christian culture left them by their Christian ancestors.

BTW, if you don't understand why you can't make a logical, scientific case for Christian - or any other, for that matter - values, it's because humans in quantities sufficient for such values to be socially significant are not rational or scientific. There's probably other reasons too, but that one is enough to scupper your case.

Blogger tz March 15, 2017 11:50 PM  

I find it amazing that atheists swallow the camel of evolution, but strain at the gnat of eugenics.

Sorry, but if Darwinism rules, Humans are subject to the same forces, so can't be equal in any sense (and with no creator, can't even be created equal).

After a few generations (including the terraforming needed for farming) Americans are adapted for America, and the rest are invasive species - or varieties.

While I can moderate my views as I'm skeptical of evolution, I can't change experiential facts.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 16, 2017 12:00 AM  

Oh, and regarding It's A Small World... once again I'll note that I find it ironic the actual It's a Small World ride is quite emphatic about both cultural differences and separation. The various ethnic animatronics all have their own, separate, spaces. They're not jumbled together in some multi-culti Hell.

They might all sing the same song, but they sing it in their own homelands.

Blogger JohnG March 16, 2017 12:28 AM  

@43 The French, Muslims and Aztecs are entirely different things. I'm not sure anyone should shed a tear for the Aztecs and if you'll recall, the Muslims didn't spread into Europe (Egypt and Persia) via corner preachers. The Brits violently ended the Indian habit of tossing living widows onto their husband's funeral pyres, no one should feel bad about that either. I believe its called a historian's fallacy to judge the past by the present.

Anonymous Dave March 16, 2017 1:25 AM  

The Golden Rule is not universal because all people do not desire the same things, and what they desire is not always good for them or for society. "99.9%"? In relations between the sexes, its applicability is closer to zero.

"Your Honor, the allegations that I walked up to women I didn't know and fondled their genitals are true. But I was only applying the Golden Rule!"

Blogger Pteronarcyd March 16, 2017 2:39 AM  

I think the fact that Trump has taken a pro-Christian stance bodes well for the future of Christianity in the US. He obviously views it as an important aspect of our culture and must not see it dying anytime soon.

While Christianity allowed the age of science to emerge, I believe reforms are needed to bring the religion into better compatability with a technologically savvy society.

Anonymous Ironsides March 16, 2017 2:45 AM  

Cail Corishev wrote:Did they know NOTHING of the history of pre-Christian cultures?

Well, they knew a lot of things that weren't true. The "noble savage" idea, that societies were superior in virtually every way other than technology (and sometimes even that) before the white man brought civilization, is so pervasive it's a trope. Before white explorers and Christian missionaries came, societies were all free love and peaceful oneness with each other and the earth.


That is indeed their fantasy.


Contrasting that with, say, the approximately 2 million googles massacred during the rise of the Zulu nation in the early to mid 19th century, the mass graves found at pre-Columbian American Indian sites with the skull scored by violent scalping or strong skeletal evidence of hundreds of people being slowly beaten to death after the fall of a town, the vast slaughters of Chinese history, the wholesale and gleeful massacres of the Koreans when the Japanese invaded them in the 1590s, when the daimyos had torches set up alongside rivers so they could watch the mangled corpses float by as an accompaniment to their meals, and on, and on, and on, means that a guffaw often forces itself from my lips when I hear something about peaceful and spiritual brown folk.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 16, 2017 2:52 AM  

Pteronarcyd wrote:While Christianity allowed the age of science to emerge, I believe reforms are needed to bring the religion into better compatability with a technologically savvy society.That is the most asinine and ignorant comment on religion I've heard in a long time, and that takes some doing.

Blogger Pteronarcyd March 16, 2017 2:52 AM  

@113 Dave wrote:
"The Golden Rule is not universal because all people do not desire the same things, and what they desire is not always good for them or for society."

I've always believed the Golden Rule to be lacking, and you give a good reason why. The Silver Rule seems better:

"What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others."

The Bronze Rule has a certain appeal:

"Do unto them as they did unto you."

The Iron Rule is fraught with hazard, but is the standard rule of conduct for much of the Left:

"Might makes right."

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 16, 2017 2:56 AM  

Grayman wrote:Asia could see a serious economic boom, as much like WWII the west including the US could see much of its manufacturing / economic capacity heavily damaged.
Color me skeptical.  Most manufacturing and almost all agriculture are far from the vibrants.

You will know it is serious when border crossing invaders are shot on site and the "refugee" boats crossing the Mediterranean are sunk on sight.
Do that a few times and there wouldn't BE any invaders or boats.

swiftfoxmark2 wrote:The rise of secular society in the West has allowed the Muslims to claim the moral high ground.
Hogwash.  Secularism is relentlessly opposed to Islam and brands it as backwardness (which many secularists and atheists have done).  What you are talking about is Marxism, no matter what it calls itself.

A secular society could have worked, if the culture was severely homogenized and had a superiority complex.
The superior man with a superiority complex conquers all?  Let's do it.

Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club wrote:Christian society certainly superior to living in one of those Allah-based hellholes, though we're highly unlikely to get such an admission publicly.
I not only admit it, I embrace it.  I know where the best things ever created had their roots.  However, those roots are due no more deference therefor than the Greek pantheon is due worship because of the logic of Aristotle and Plato and geometry of Pythagoras.

Daniel H wrote:If you think white men are and have been bad just wait until white men are un-moored from Christianity. It will not be a pretty world for non-whites.
In other words, Christianity has been the key influence helping to cuck Western society.  TYVM.

Nobody practiced "telescopic philanthropy" without being Christianized first.  NOBODY.

tommy wrote:if atheists were honest, and they really felt irrationality was so dangerous, you would think they might be curious about why humans haven't evolved to become hyper-rational Vulcan-like beings.
Churchians have evolved to be pathological altruists.  Explain THAT.

As an atheist, your burden of explanation is easily met.  Humans are evolved from survival machines, not computers.  Since hyper-rationality was less adaptive than rationalizing and even belief (for the moment) in convenient lies to influence and deceive others, it lost out in evolution.

To a Christian, this is another way of saying that humans are born sinners.  Same conclusion, but with a logical and testable basis.  Advantage:  atheism.

Atheists are, of course, by and large, dishonest people. If they were honest, most would admit they came to their irreligion guided not by a careful study of alternatives.
Oh, go fuck yourself.  I came to atheism by study and rejection of the BS I was being fed by my church.  I didn't go and analyze every church to see if there might be one that didn't have BS, because the characteristics of the BS seemed to be inherent.  And I freely admit that I have no interest in trying to find a church at this point; I am as sick and tired of theism as I am of TNB.

Maybe that makes me one of the "dones".

Blogger James Dixon March 16, 2017 6:22 AM  

> The Iron Rule is fraught with hazard, but is the standard rule of conduct for much of the Left: "Might makes right."

It's been the standard rule for most of humanity throughout most of our history.

Anonymous BadThink655321 March 16, 2017 7:19 AM  

Mr. Rational wrote:As an atheist, your burden of explanation is easily met.  Humans are evolved from survival machines, not computers.
More correctly, we are computers that have been programmed to survive. The programming is all in the arrangement of the neural network.
Since hyper-rationality was less adaptive than rationalizing and even belief (for the moment) in convenient lies to influence and deceive others, it lost out in evolution.
It appears that what you are saying is that what nature did was wrong. If that's the case, you are either appealing to something inside of Nature to claim that Nature is wrong, or you are appealing to something outside of Nature to claim that Nature is wrong. Which appeal are you making, and what is your justification for it?
To a Christian, this is another way of saying that humans are born sinners.  Same conclusion, but with a logical and testable basis.  Advantage:  atheism.
The right answer is the right answer.

Atheists are, of course, by and large, dishonest people. If they were honest, most would admit they came to their irreligion guided not by a careful study of alternatives.
Oh, go fuck yourself.

He said, "careful study". Not half-baked wish-fulfillment.
Maybe that makes me one of the "dones".
You easily conclude that Nature has evolved humans to be "rationalizing", "believing", "liars", and "deceivers". And you claim, on uncertain grounds, that this is morally wrong. Yet you don't consider that Nature has evolved humans to reject God, and that this is equally morally wrong.

That hardly supports your claim to "careful study".

Anonymous Michael Maier March 16, 2017 11:13 AM  

Come on... Africa was "a peaceful land, that was born civilized, robbed of its riches, it history, its pride".

The band Living Colour told us so.

Blogger glad2meetyou March 16, 2017 11:32 AM  

Well said. Like Beowulf the secularists have slain the dragon of religion in politics. What will become of them now?

Blogger SirHamster March 16, 2017 2:05 PM  

Mr. Rational wrote:As an atheist, your burden of explanation is easily met.  Humans are evolved from survival machines, not computers.  Since hyper-rationality was less adaptive than rationalizing and even belief (for the moment) in convenient lies to influence and deceive others, it lost out in evolution.

To a Christian, this is another way of saying that humans are born sinners.  Same conclusion, but with a logical and testable basis.  Advantage:  atheism.


This entire thought is a convenient lie expressed to protect internal mental processes from introspection, in the name of survival. It should not be treated as rational, or you reject the logic of his premise.

So too is the self-claimed moniker of Mr. Rational. Mr. Rationalized Survival is more apt.

Anonymous Full-Fledged Fiasco March 16, 2017 5:37 PM  

Why linking to The Atlantic?

Blogger Blastman March 16, 2017 9:36 PM  

Then they are doomed to fail. And the failure is the result of having made scientific claims that were based on a supposedly timeless, infallible God that turned out to be complete bullshit. You can't unring that bell.


I'm a little curious -- what are the supposed scientific claims you think Christianity made, that turned out to be complete BS?


Anonymous Mr. Rational March 16, 2017 10:23 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:It says that in the absence of God, there is no absolute truth, and your rights and morals are no stronger than the army you have backing you up. You appeal to God, or you appeal to Might Makes Right.
What do you mean, "OR you appeal to Might Makes Right"?  The people shouting "DEUS VULT!" were swinging swords.  So were those shouting allah snackbar.  Both believed that victory justified their theology.

There is nothing so irrational as a rational atheist.
There is nothing so hypocritical as a midwit theist.

tz wrote:Instead of tolerating LGBTQ, they insist it must be accepted, or they will destroy you
I am an atheist who rejects LBGTOMGWTFBBQ.  Those who push it are part of the CultMarx or Intersectionality cult.  They are not a-theology, they have an anti-Christian theology.  They'll tell you their belief system; if Buddhism is a religion, so's theirs.

I may disapprove of something, but generally ignore it if it doesn't disturb the peace, pick my pocket, or break my bones.
This is really where the line falls WRT abortion.  Someone who decides that this is the wrong time to have a child, or the wrong child to have, is not disturbing my peace in any way.  They may be actively staying OUT of my pocket by not having a child who'll be a heavy Medicaid consumer.

If he would draw the lines where a minarchist Christian would, there would be no problem, but if he would burn down Memories Pizza - either personally or by proxy - that is the critical issue.
And people wonder why I have an issue with those who want to burn down Planned Parenthood.

Just another commenter wrote:honest Christianity is incompatible with SJWs. They are mutually exclusive.
So's honest atheism.  You can't question ANY part of SJW dogma.

tz wrote:I find it amazing that atheists swallow the camel of evolution, but strain at the gnat of eugenics.
Hey!  Over here!  Been advocating both for years.

Something you'll notice is that SJWs are evolutionary denialists insofar as they insist that there can have been NO significant divergence in certain human traits despite thousands of generations of separate change under different selection pressures, not to mention mutations never passed between groups.

BadThink655321 wrote:It appears that what you are saying is that what nature did was wrong.
Describing it is not judging it.  Surviving is not wrong.  Hell, this blog is one of the first places where the Fourteen Words came to acceptance.

Your immediate leap to moralizing over a natural phenomenon, though, is telling.

And you claim, on uncertain grounds, that this is morally wrong.
Show me where I said that.  I do claim that it's probably not going to be possible to change it except by selecting for hyper-rationality.  That may have all kinds of unintended consequences, like yielding broken people who can't form a workable society.  That doesn't mean people shouldn't volunteer to try it.  If it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, why not?

Note, I said "volunteer".  This really needs a Sortocracy.

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 16, 2017 10:24 PM  

SirHamster wrote:This entire thought is a convenient lie expressed to protect internal mental processes from introspection, in the name of survival.
Really?  I think you're projecting.  I've admit that I've got a lot of evolutionary baggage.  Understanding it helps to make it work better for me.

Anonymous Charlie Baud March 17, 2017 12:39 AM  

Azimus wrote:The davout attributed it to God.

And they were right.

Cortez saw his mission as as much of a religious one as he did one of conquest.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/history/Cortez.htm

The subsequent appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe seems to indicate that Providence had a strong hand in the conquest of Mexico.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lA5NUHqC88

Blogger SirHamster March 17, 2017 2:17 AM  

Mr. Rational wrote:This entire thought is a convenient lie expressed to protect internal mental processes from introspection, in the name of survival.

Really?  I think you're projecting.  I've admit that I've got a lot of evolutionary baggage.  Understanding it helps to make it work better for me.


What are you talking about, this projection business? This is the reasonable default prejudice to every thought expressed by the survival machine - optimized for survival, not truth. What's with your discomfort with the conclusions to your own premises?

But as the Men of the West note, it's different when it's your ox getting gored.

Anonymous BadThink655321 March 17, 2017 8:32 AM  

Mr. Rational wrote:BadThink655321 wrote:It appears that what you are saying is that what nature did was wrong.

Describing it is not judging it.   Surviving is not wrong.

You described it in a form of compare and contrast: hyper-rationality vs. deception and "belief". So you think their might be a better way. In fact, you want people to volunteer to try it, so you do find a wrongness to nature (unless you actually do advocate deception and "belief").

Your immediate leap to moralizing over a natural phenomenon, though, is telling.
Just following your lead. Furthermore, you said that "surviving is not wrong". Is dying wrong? Or are life and death just personal preferences?

And you claim, on uncertain grounds, that this is morally wrong.

It was implied in your choice of words when contrasting hyper-rationality with "convenient lies", rationalization, and belief. If you don't think these latter things are morally wrong, then say so, and I'll apologize and retract my statement.

If it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, why not?
That begs the question of why the effect on the individual is a better consideration than the effect on the group. You haven't yet established, for example, that an action that benefits a group, to the detriment of an individual, is morally wrong. In fact, that's the basis of utilitarianism, which is a widely esteemed "rational" proposal for morality.

Blogger DonReynolds March 17, 2017 9:55 PM  

@102 Phil Mann
Remember too, probably the best known of the Divinity students that switched to Law School....Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
He was at a Roman Catholic seminary, studying to become a priest, when word was passed that Martin Luther King had be assassinated. Justice Thomas said that was the event that changed his direction and he quit the seminary and went to Yale Law School, class of 1974.

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 19, 2017 3:21 PM  

BadThink655321 wrote:You described it in a form of compare and contrast: hyper-rationality vs. deception and "belief".
Yes.  It depends what you are trying to do.  Our gracious host declares straight out that MPAI and can only be convinced by rhetoric; even every-day dialectic is wasted on them.  If your job involves convincing people to do something, slick deceit is probably the method of least effort.

So you think their might be a better way.
How are we going to know, if nobody tries?  Like Edison, finding ways that don't work has a certain amount of value.

In fact, you want people to volunteer to try it
English comprehension fail.  Show me where I said I wanted people to do this.

I recognize that there are people who are going to try all kinds of things, even ones that have already failed (look at the push for socialism).  But as long as nobody is trying to coerce unwilling parties, they should be allowed to.  It "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".  If they prove that it's also a bad idea, they've done so to nobody's detriment but their own.  If they prove it works, we've all gained something.  (People who try things proven NOT to work should be locked in and made to suffer the consequences.  Venezuelans... ugh.  Darwin time for them.)

The People's Temple, the Kim dynasty, and Maoism do a pretty good job of proving that personality cults are bad ideas.  But the only one that wasn't unequivocally a crime against humanity was the Jones cult, because they were all volunteers.

so you do find a wrongness to nature
This is why it's so hard to have sensible discussions with theists.  You are always mistaking "is" for "ought", and positing intent in descriptions where it is not present (because you see teleology in everything).  This is the same reason it's impossible to have a rational discussion about race with a leftist; the only options are mockery or silence.

Nature of a million years ago was different from today.  Was nature wrong then, or is it wrong now?  Or are right and wrong meaningless in this context?

Human nature is malleable.  The English are one example.  Over centuries of capital punishment of criminals, sub-replacement underclass fertility and downward mobility of children of the elites, the English were changed from what they had been.  The capabilities and virtues so created allowed them to do amazing things, including amassing a world-wide empire... which may have been a bad idea, as certain follow-on acts certainly were.

These are historical facts.  Good?  Bad?  Also, who? whom?  To describe is not to judge, but to judge well one must describe accurately and fully.

Hyper-rationality is an essential tool when the inborn heuristics of the human animal make mistakes.  Casinos take advantage of these mistakes, to the detriment of the typical player.  There are many more examples.  It's not usable everywhere (for one thing, we don't have enough time to use it everywhere) but there are an increasing number of decisions for which nothing less will do.

you said that "surviving is not wrong". Is dying wrong?
We are all going to die.  Sometimes you get a choice about the details, and you can choose well or badly.

It was implied in your choice of words when contrasting hyper-rationality with "convenient lies", rationalization, and belief.
No such implication.  You leapt from "is" to "ought", not me.

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 19, 2017 3:22 PM  

(continued)

If you don't think these latter things are morally wrong, then say so
If anything is morally wrong, it's using cognitively-cheap heuristics for matters where they yield faulty results and other people get hurt.  If only you get hurt, it's merely foolish.

If you can't handle the mental workload to use the required tools, you should be doing something less demanding.

That begs the question of why the effect on the individual is a better consideration than the effect on the group. You haven't yet established, for example, that an action that benefits a group, to the detriment of an individual, is morally wrong.
Unless you're willing to delimit the zone of liberty of action you'd allow, there's no way to address this.  It's too vague and I'm not going to be the one to leap to conclusions.

Anonymous BadThink655321 March 19, 2017 11:55 PM  

Mr. Rational wrote:If your job involves convincing people to do something, slick deceit is probably the method of least effort.
I'm not asking you about effort, I'm asking you if deceit is morally acceptable and, if it is, under what conditions. A related moral question is, "does the end justify the means?"
How are we going to know, if nobody tries?  Like Edison, finding ways that don't work has a certain amount of value.
The point is that if you think there is a better way, then something is wrong with the current way. But the current way was produced by Nature, so if you think there is a better way, then what Nature did was wrong. But that means that there is a standard, apart from Nature, by which you judge. What is that standard?
But as long as nobody is trying to coerce unwilling parties, they should be allowed to.
Why is coercing unwilling parties wrong? My dad made me take music lessons when I didn't want to. Was he acting immorally? If not, then why can't similar justifications be found for other cases?
This is why it's so hard to have sensible discussions with theists ...(because you see teleology in everything)
This has come up in discussions with you before. We see teleology in everything because evolution has resulted in the majority of mankind being wired that way. In fact, most atheists think teleologically -- but then suppress it. So why is suppressing it right and but embracing it wrong? Did Nature make a mistake in the wiring of the majority of mankind? If not, then why should we listen to those who are cognitively mis-wired?
We are all going to die.
Non-responsive. I asked about the ought-ness of death; you responded with the is-ness. The question is whether or not Nature provides any clues as to whether life ought to be preferred over death, or whether it's simply personal individual preference decided on the spur of the moment based upon chemical states in the brain?
If anything is morally wrong, it's using cognitively-cheap heuristics for matters where they yield faulty results and other people get hurt.
This leads to a long discussion all by itself. For now, is it morally wrong to hurt yourself if hurting yourself hurts other people?
Unless you're willing to delimit the zone of liberty of action you'd allow, there's no way to address this.
It's the boundary conditions of your morality that I'm trying to ascertain. On the one hand, you appear to not like coercion of individuals. On the other hand, I'm trying where this would break down in your ethic -- and why.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey March 20, 2017 6:23 PM  

@Jose

"Huh. It's almost as if cultural constructions that survive for millennia are whatsitcalled? evolutionary stable strategies"

Chesterton's fence comes to mind. It's as if these supposedly "intelligent," "educated" people are too full of hubris and the autistic delusion that one can redesign a society from the ground up, in "year zero" fashion, without ever stopping to think "Maybe some of these societal structures that make no sense to me, are evolved solutions to problems that have been solved for so long that no one even remembers the original problem?"

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 22, 2017 2:26 AM  

BadThink655321 wrote:I'm not asking you about effort, I'm asking you if deceit is morally acceptable and, if it is, under what conditions. A related moral question is, "does the end justify the means?"
AGAIN you confuse "is" with "ought".  MPAI, and you are one of them.

90+% of people cannot be convinced with dialectic, no matter how logically air-tight.  Period.  They can only be moved by rhetoric.  The cause supported by the rhetoric can be right or wrong, because any related dialectic is ignored by those susceptible to it.  This is how you get SJWs; they fall for the rhetoric and ignore the dialectic that debunks it.

When politics depends on the masses and the masses are moved by rhetoric that they are intellectually unable to parse, you get... pretty much the situation in the small-d democratic West, no?

We don't have to worry if the end justifies the means, because the power-hungry left will use any means at their disposal to arrogate more power to themselves.  ANY means is justified by our right to keep ourselves free of them.  (And I think you just gave me a plot element for my work-in-progress.)

The point is that if you think there is a better way, then something is wrong with the current way. But the current way was produced by Nature, so if you think there is a better way, then what Nature did was wrong.
Idiot.  This was answered before you asked it:  "Was nature wrong then, or is it wrong now?   Or are right and wrong meaningless in this context?"

You're also implicitly denying the notion of progress.  What's "wrong" with the way of 1917 or 1817, that you prefer the way of 2017 to it?  Antibiotics and the Internet including electronic everything are better than horse-shit in the streets and operator-assisted local phone calls, or lighting with only tapers or whale oil.  We have built on what came before.  So what was morally wrong with 1917, or 1817?  Nothing.  But we improved on it.

Why is coercing unwilling parties wrong? My dad made me take music lessons when I didn't want to.
Idiot.  Who stands in loco parentis to adults?  What justifies you substituting your judgement of what others should do for theirs?  As long as they are carrying out their civic obligations, what right have you to tell them to do or not do ANYTHING?

This has come up in discussions with you before. We see teleology in everything because evolution has resulted in the majority of mankind being wired that way.
And that is one of the key defects in cognition that humans need to overcome.  Western children think magically.  Non-westerners appear to be unable to grow beyond that; this seems to be the core of phenomena like cargo cults.  If you think you see teleology, you must test it.  If the test proves false, you either abandon the notion or you are provably deluded.

Non-responsive. I asked about the ought-ness of death; you responded with the is-ness. The question is whether or not Nature provides any clues as to whether life ought to be preferred over death
Oh, come now.  As a theist, you believe that death is divinely ordained.  The only thing nature (small-n) offers against death is propagation; the line goes on, but the individual still dies.

is it morally wrong to hurt yourself if hurting yourself hurts other people?
Who stands in loco parentis to judge that, and rule actions out of bounds?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It's the boundary conditions of your morality that I'm trying to ascertain.
You're asking the wrong questions all the time, when the answers are right in your face.

Blogger Theproductofafineeduction March 23, 2017 10:07 PM  

It most certainly does not suffice because the golden mean I'm no way accounts for the dark side of human nature nor subjectivity. Christianity does on both counts.

Blogger Theproductofafineeduction March 23, 2017 10:14 PM  

It was actually the indigenous tribes who used Cortez to rebel who did most of the slaughter. Cortez was actually appalled by what he witnessed.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts