Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

What do you see as a non-divisive secular ideology?

Even UU as a religion is in a sense divisive.

 

[Augustus]

Even UU as a religion is in a sense divisive.

People often see certain beliefs as being 'neutral' and thus 'inclusive', that is they are what you are left with after removing something oppressive. So for example, secularism is simply what you get when you remove religion from governance rather than it being a specific positive ideological position that is the product of a specific cultural tradition.

Given this is true about pretty much all ideological positions, everything is 'divisive', as we expect any inclusion to happen on our terms, as our values are what we should unite around.

Different universalist ideologies propose different and incompatible ways to unify be they secular humanist, Muslim, Christian, etc.

Non-universalist/culturally specific ideologies reject homogenisation of culture and are thus incompatible with universalism.

Many people want unity, but always on their terms, they are not willing to unify around someone else's preferences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People often see certain beliefs as being 'neutral' and thus 'inclusive', that is they are what you are left with after removing something oppressive. So for example, secularism is simply what you get when you remove religion from governance rather than it being a specific positive ideological position that is the product of a specific cultural tradition.

Given this is true about pretty much all ideological positions, everything is 'divisive', as we expect any inclusion to happen on our terms, as our values are what we should unite around.

Different universalist ideologies propose different and incompatible ways to unify be they secular humanist, Muslim, Christian, etc.

Non-universalist/culturally specific ideologies reject homogenisation of culture and are thus incompatible with universalism.

Many people want unity, but always on their terms, they are not willing to unify around someone else's preferences.

Here is a fun example in the "weeds" of how words work as for one version of objective:
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

That is all fair and well, but to choice to be objective in that sense is a what? A personal interpretation sometimes connected to that it is better to be objective than subjective.
So the joke that it is not objective that objectivity is better than subjectivity. Go figure.

 

[icehorse]

@Augustus the last post of yours to me is rambling and repeatedly strawmanning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Augustus the last post of yours to me is rambling and repeatedly strawmanning.

It made perfect sense to me. The general idea some people have, is that in effect their qualitative value judgments are neutral. They are apparently not that, because it turns out they are first person subjective interpretations and thus divisive to other different ones.

 

[icehorse]

It made perfect sense to me. The general idea some people have, is that in effect their qualitative value judgments are neutral. They are apparently not that, because it turns out they are first person subjective interpretations and thus divisive to other different ones.

What I think you're saying is that it's hard to be objective? If I got that right, then of course I'd agree.

But what choice do we have but to do our best and try?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What I think you're saying is that it's hard to be objective? If I got that right, then of course I'd agree.

But what choice do we have but to do our best and try?

Because you can't be objective when you do morality/ethics. So if you do that and think you are objective, you are doing GIGO.
The same with logic, reason, evidence, truth, proof, rationality and other relevant words. They all have limits as methodologies and if you don't get those you are doing GIGO.
That is not unique to religion.

Here it is as simple as it gets:
Person one: I am objective and you are not as to X is Y and not Z.
Person two: No, it is reverse and X is Z and not Y.

Now if you test that, you can figure out cases where neither are objective, but they are both certain that they individually are and the other person is not.

 

[icehorse]

Because you can't be objective when you do morality/ethics. So if you do that and think you are objective, you are doing GIGO.
The same with logic, reason, evidence, truth, proof, rationality and other relevant words. They all have limits as methodologies and if you don't get those you are doing GIGO.
That is not unique to religion.

Here it is as simple as it gets:
Person one: I am objective and you are not as to X is Y and not Z.
Person two: No, it is reverse and X is Z and not Y.

Now if you test that, you can figure out cases where neither are objective, but they are both certain that they individually are and the other person is not.

In the last few days on RF I discussed "relativism" with someone, was that you?

In any case, I find relativism to be irrefutable but ultimately unsatisfying. I take as an unprovable, faith-based axiom, that we should operate to improve the aggregate well being of conscious creatures. (a la Sam Harris).

If you can grant me that being healthy and pain free is "good", and that pain and disease are "bad", then we can use that to construct a decent set of "objective" claims with which to work on universal morals and ethics.

But I understand that the pure relativist won't even grant me those axioms of good and bad, so if that's where you're coming from, then I'll throw in the towel.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the last few days on RF I discussed "relativism" with someone, was that you?

In any case, I find relativism to be irrefutable but ultimately unsatisfying. I take as an unprovable, faith-based axiom, that we should operate to improve the aggregate well being of conscious creatures. (a la Sam Harris).

If you can grant me that being healthy and pain free is "good", and that pain and disease are "bad", then we can use that to construct a decent set of "objective" claims with which to work on universal morals and ethics.

But I understand that the pure relativist won't even grant me those axioms of good and bad, so if that's where you're coming from, then I'll throw in the towel.

No, I will grant you good and bad, as a starting point, if you understand that in some cases what is good for you can be bad for me or so in reverse.
That is the problem, not that there is no such categories as good and bad, but sometimes they are relative.

 

[Augustus]

@Augustus the last post of yours to me is rambling and repeatedly strawmanning.

You could try actually highlighting what you think is a “strawman” because I’m 99% certain that it’s you not understanding the point being made as you don’t seem to have understood it from the very start, particularly what an ideology is and why it contributes to division, alongside basic human psychology. Simply assuming anything you don’t understand must be fallacious is not a particularly good faith approach to discussion.

Human division is not a nice simple subject that can be summed up in short platitudes and blaming that which we don’t like.

 

[icehorse]

You could try actually highlighting what you think is a “strawman” because I’m 99% certain that it’s you not understanding the point being made as you don’t seem to have understood it from the very start, particularly what an ideology is and why it contributes to division, alongside basic human psychology. Simply assuming anything you don’t understand must be fallacious is not a particularly good faith approach to discussion.

Human division is not a nice simple subject that can be summed up in short platitudes and blaming that which we don’t like.

Up until that last post of mine, I never once in this conversation even hinted at criticizing you. you have not been so kind.

Maybe instead of constantly assuming I don't understand something, you might try steelmanning for once. or asking if clarification is needed, or any such approach that doesn't show you to be so embarrassingly cock sure of yourself.

 

[icehorse]

No, I will grant you good and bad, as a starting point, if you understand that in some cases what is good for you can be bad for me or so in reverse.
That is the problem, not that there is no such categories as good and bad, but sometimes they are relative.

So a key facet of what you granted me was the idea of aggregate well being. As I understand it, this is a key idea of utilitarianism, or what Spock the Vulcan used to say: the good of the many outweighs the good of the one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So a key facet of what you granted me was the idea of aggregate well being. As I understand it, this is a key idea of utilitarianism, or what Spock the Vulcan used to say: the good of the many outweighs the good of the one.

Yes, but even that has a limit. Example from philosophy - If you kill one human and harvest the organs you get a net positive for the many.
Now if you want to do this in earnest I can explain it for how it in practice works for a robust moral system. And yes, that is just one.
But be forewarned, it is still subjective in the end and not universal. It is just in some sense more emotionally rational. That is all.

 

[Augustus]

Up until that last post of mine, I never once in this conversation even hinted at criticizing you. you have not been so kind.

If you can find me criticising you rather than your ideas, quote me doing that and I'll apologise.

Maybe instead of constantly assuming I don't understand something, you might try steelmanning for once. or asking if clarification is needed, or any such approach that doesn't show you to be so embarrassingly cock sure of yourself.

If you actually explain what you think is a "strawman" instead of just using using it in a bad faith manner to end a good faith discussion, then it's easier to see if it is me or you who has made the error.

So which of these is a strawman:


1. You gave the golden rule as an example of a less divisive ideology. I pointed out it's not an ideology and that it is compatible with religion anyway.

2. You said you didn't claim religions were more divisive than the average alternative. I said your argument seems confused as if religions are not more divisive than their likely alternative, it makes no sense to view them as fundamentally divisive in the real world. Things can only be judged divisive compared to realistic alternatives.

3. You said highlighting the divisiveness of religion might persuade some fence sitters and they can persuade others. I said that while that may be true, overall, irreligious people saying things like "religion is fundamentally divisive" is both unpersuasive and an impediment to unity

4. You said we can teach XYZ to help a bit. I said that many things that cause division are structural, and religious/ideological divisions are often consequences rather than causes. As a result, fixing structural issues is often more important than teaching XYZ which have less impact than we may think.

5. You said we shouldn't rule out things that are difficult. I said there is a difference between things being difficult, and them being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human psychology and society.

 

[Augustus]

That is all fair and well, but to choice to be objective in that sense is a what? A personal interpretation sometimes connected to that it is better to be objective than subjective.
So the joke that it is not objective that objectivity is better than subjectivity. Go figure.

You are right that there is an assumption by many that it is noble and a marker of intellectual superiority to "see the world as it is" that is taken axiomatically.

The funny thing is that it often exists alongside a belief that being "rational" and "seeing the world as it is" automatically leads one to a kinder, gentler more progressive world which is an obvious fantasy.

Civilisation of any kind is entirely dependent on fictions

 

[icehorse]

Okay @Augustus - we've had productive debates in the past, so I'll do some reviewing here:

1 - You are missing the point completely. Humans are divided by their nature, not by things like religion.

2 - It's not a "ploy" to point this out, the fact remains the environment is very political and therefore not something humans are good at uniting round.

3 - And some platitude like "reducing income inequality" is about as much use as saying "diversity equity and inclusion" is a potentially unifying topic. You don't seem to think "woke" DEI culture has unified us very well though, do you? Why do you think that is? Surely no one can object to something as noble as DEI?

4 - There is no point in engaging in magical thinking about humans uniting around some vague platitude when any method for achieving this goal would be intensely political and divisive. This is because it involves diverse groups of humans who cannot help but see the world through contrasting lenses based on differing interests and group identities.

This is especially true when ones political identity is increasingly becoming the highest marker of identity for many.

1 - You have an OPINION that humans are divided by nature. So you could have said "you are missing MY point", but instead you said "THE point" as if this claim of yours is set in stone true. It's not, it's your opinion. I understand that this is not a strawman, but as I review the thread, it's near the beginning of you wandering away from debating ideas in a civil manner.

2 - You have an OPINION that the environment is very political. Sure, it often is, but again, it's not cast in stone.

3 - We need to reduce income and wealth inequality. It's been true for a long time. Bringing up a long standing problem should not be dismissed as a platitude. You asked for an example, and I gave you one.

4 - You have an OPINION that uniting people to save the environment is "magical thinking". I would call it a necessity. In any case, in this context using the phrase "magical thinking" is far from civil. I agree that humans are often divisive. But not always.

So far, no strawmen, just snark. Why the snark?

Now go back and read my initial responses to your snarky post. It seems to me I bent over backwards to keep the conversation civil.

==

The idea we can unite behind something as vague as the golden rule and honesty is not a meaningful proposal.

It’s like saying “won’t somebody think of the children!”

Okay, here's an early example. I never made the claims that you're poo-pooing above. And, BTW, if I had, you cast your counter argument as if it was established fact, when it's again your OPINION.

It's not that I didn't bring up the golden rule, it's that the context was different. So you've found something with a grain of truth, and then twisted it.

Also, as you said religion is divisive and we should aim to replace it with something else, how would you explain this in the context of it not being a desire to change people towards your way of thinking?

I never said we should replace religion.

If we can cooperate with those who don’t share our values, why the need to highlight religion as a specific problem blocking this?

I never discussing cooperating with those who don't share our values. In fact I pretty much said the opposite.

Without any attempt to address the "how", the "what" is pretty meaningless though. This is my point.

Here's a different tactic, shifting the goalpost. You asked me to name a problem, which I did, and now you're criticizing me for not having a solution - which I never claimed to have.

How do you put "getting rid of religion" in the non-divisive column though?

If goals are things like the environment and poverty, is it really religion that is causing the problems here?

Two more. You are taking my ideas, and shifting them a bit so that you can attack them. What do you call that, if not strawman?

Many of these people believe their ideas are held due to high standards of reason and evidence, yet in reality they are stuff they assume or believe uncritically for ideological reasons.

Someone who pounds the table for the importance of critical thinking and rationality is as obtuse regarding the acceptance emotionally displeasing facts as ardent fundies are.

Now here, I admit to speculating. These claims seem to come out of thin air, so to me they read like veiled, ambiguous, cowardly insults.

They don't just wave a platitude about and let the chips fall where they may. You are comparing apples with oranges.

What Patton-related platitude was I waving?

Yes, I know this. My point is that saying "religion is divisive we must get rid of it" requires one to offer less divisive alternatives, and no one seems able to do that.

Same strawman, slightly different suit. AND, who made the rule that you cannot bring up issues unless you have solutions? Science certainly does NOT work that way. I think it's frequently the case that the first step in solving a problem is making it explicit.

"I can do X therefore everyone should be able to do X", or "X works in this localised situation therefore it should work on a global scale too" are faulty lines of reasoning.

I never said that. So while you're at it, why not trot out all the weak arguments you've ever heard anyone make, that ought to help.

==

Alright. I stopped at page 12, I'm pretty sure I could find more examples later in the thread, but how many strawmen to you think you get per thread anyway?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are right that there is an assumption by many that it is noble and a marker of intellectual superiority to "see the world as it is" that is taken axiomatically.

The funny thing is that it often exists alongside a belief that being "rational" and "seeing the world as it is" automatically leads one to a kinder, gentler more progressive world which is an obvious fantasy.

Civilisation of any kind is entirely dependent on fictions

Yeah, and as a former professional of being objective, rational and see the world as it is, as a soldier, that is not always what some civilians believe it to be.
Civilization is a lot of things but it is also the ability to kill the enemy better than the enemy can kill you.

 

[Augustus]

Okay @Augustus - we've had productive debates in the past, so I'll do some reviewing here:

I thought it was a perfectly decent discussion here, albeit one where we seemed a bit at cross purposes as I don't think you quite understood the main point I was making (as some of the below answers will show).

Alright. I stopped at page 12, I'm pretty sure I could find more examples later in the thread, but how many strawmen to you think you get per thread anyway?

The tldr is they are basically either you misrepresenting what I said or taking it out of context, you criticising me for doing something that you had done earlier in this thread, or you complaining about something I had already clarified.

Would have been easier to just focus on the 5 points I listed where I summarised what I think you said, and explained my response and which of these you thought was a "strawman", but seeing as you replied I'll do you the courtesy.

You have an OPINION that humans are divided by nature. So you could have said "you are missing MY point", but instead you said "THE point" as if this claim of yours is set in stone true. It's not, it's your opinion. I understand that this is not a strawman, but as I review the thread, it's near the beginning of you wandering away from debating ideas in a civil manner.

2 - You have an OPINION that the environment is very political. Sure, it often is, but again, it's not cast in stone.

In your OP, did you highlight your opinions as opinions? (no)

Or did you assume that people reading in good faith understand that they are opinions and don’t feel the need to waste time and effort stating the obvious?

If you read posts charitably, you remove a lot of problems.

So far, no strawmen, just snark. Why the snark?

Now go back and read my initial responses to your snarky post. It seems to me I bent over backwards to keep the conversation civil.

The snark is largely imagined, but in context of what I was replying to:

Well from a systems thinking perspective you could say that about anything, so that seems like a sort of lame, get-out-of-jail-free debating ploy, no?

The point you said was a "ploy" was me saying decisions about the environment are by definition political as they involve resources, economics, etc. Something being true by definition, is not a ploy and doesn't rely on "systems thinking" or anything of the sort.

So you are strawmanning while claiming I’m being disingenuous by using “lame debating ploy” rather than making a simple point about the basic definition of a term we are discussing.

To me that's not exactly bending over backwards...

4 - You have an OPINION that uniting people to save the environment is "magical thinking". I would call it a necessity. In any case, in this context using the phrase "magical thinking" is far from civil. I agree that humans are often divisive. But not always.

We do not need divisive, magical thinking.

Were you being uncivil in your OP when you used the term? Were you trolling? Or were you making a serious point?

That's twice you've found fault with me doing the same thing as you.

On that subject, seeing as you are so keen on crying strawman, what I originally asked for was a unifying identity/ideology, and noted no one seems able to present one and that "There’s lots of things that would be great in theory, but it’s akin to magical thinking to expect them to happen in the real world."

You said "saving the environment", I pointed out that it's not an identity/ideology and people can't unite around it without it actually being turned into an ideology because people radically disagree on how best to save the environment as it involves so many political dimensions.

Seeing as you could not formulate it as a real world ideology, just as a platitude (i.e. a vague good), I said it was magical thinking to assume that such a nondescript goal would be unifying given all the divisive factors that it must entail (many of which I actually listed for you to clarify my point).

There is no point in engaging in magical thinking about humans uniting around some vague platitude when any method for achieving this goal would be intensely political and divisive. This is because it involves diverse groups of humans who cannot help but see the world through contrasting lenses based on differing interests and group identities.

It's not that I didn't bring up the golden rule, it's that the context was different. So you've found something with a grain of truth, and then twisted it.

As noted above, you might not have been paying attention to what I asked, but you provided the golden rule as an example of a unifying ideology.

I was replying as if you had responded to the question I asked, which I assume you were trying to seeing as you didn't try to say otherwise.

What Patton-related platitude was I waving?

"Save the environment".

I was saying that Patton's dictum was context dependent and not applicable when applied to the generic mass of humanity on an ill defined and completely unstructured problem, which is true of pretty much any management principle.

Again, directly responding to the topic at hand is standard discussion is it not?

Here's a different tactic, shifting the goalpost. You asked me to name a problem, which I did, and now you're criticizing me for not having a solution - which I never claimed to have.

From the very start, I said no one seems able to offer an explanation of these unifying ideologies, and you presented several vague goals as examples that a) were not ideologies, and b) any solutions would be ideologically dependent.

That is not shifting the goalposts, perhaps you misunderstood what you were replying to?

Now here, I admit to speculating. These claims seem to come out of thin air, so to me they read like veiled, ambiguous, cowardly insults.

As I said earlier, if you read charitably you avoid lots of problems. If you read with bad faith you can always find something to take offence at.

It was a specific point about human psychology that affects all of us, and how people often hold dogmatically that which they believe is based on sound reason.

Do you actually disagree with that point?

Two more. You are taking my ideas, and shifting them a bit so that you can attack them. What do you call that, if not strawman?

I've already explained this

It makes little difference.

An “outsider” lecturing you about how you need to buck up your ideas is divisive, especially when these ideas form a core part of your identity and are not directly relevant to the important issues you are seeking to build consensus over.

So whatever phrase you prefer, it’s divisive and for no real benefit to your stated goals and helps contribute to an "us v them" mentality.

This is why it is incongruous.

Whatever phrase you prefer (i.e. getting rid of religion, reforming religion, make religion better, make incremental improvements to your religion, etc.) makes little difference to how most people perceive it when it comes from a self-described anti-theist.

I never said that. So while you're at it, why not trot out all the weak arguments you've ever heard anyone make, that ought to help.

If you read that in context, you claimed that "such long term thinking is possible at the societal level" regarding a small native American society governed by personal relations.

So I explained the problems about scaling from a small society to a large, impersonal one.

So you are quoting me out of context to accuse me of committing a fallacy, which is a bit ironic, no?



There were a few more points, but you get the gist...

 

[icehorse]

As I said earlier, if you read charitably you avoid lots of problems. If you read with bad faith you can always find something to take offence at.

That would be good advice for you to follow.

==

I think we're so far from seeing eye to eye here that we ought to agree to disagree, and move on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That would be good advice for you to follow.

==

I think we're so far from seeing eye to eye here that we ought to agree to disagree, and move on.

Well, just report to the nearest hospital and donate your body to organ harvest. Never mind that it is against the good for you, it is for the good of the many.