Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strongpoint]

is that the world cannot actually be divined through pure logic and reasoning, so we have to use heuristics

I read it as: "We can't know everything... So we will pretend that we know." And this is exactly one of my main problems when we talk about religion in politics. They look at a complex problem, "know" a solution from the holy text, revelation, or whatever, and start "fixing it" according to this "knowledge".

What is even worse, they try fixing stuff that is not a problem at all because their religion says that it is a problem.

I never said that's the right way either. Unlike them I recognize that these holy texts were written in a different time for a different culture... what worked for Mesopotamian farmers or Romans won't work for America or anywhere else on 21st-century Earth.

That is where secular, ideological faith should come in.

The very statement that it "worked for ancient people" already means that you accept solutions listed there as true, just outdated. How exactly do we update those true but outdated holy texts? What parts of the holy texts are fine to use nowadays without updating? We can't use logic to determine that... Then what? Prayers? Revelations? Authority of Biblical scholars?

For me, It is the same - should your version of Christianity come to power, it will push through irrational decisions based on pseudo-knowledge and authority.

[MaxTheFox]

is that the world cannot actually be divined through pure logic and reasoning, so we have to use heuristics

I read it as: "We can't know everything... So we will pretend that we know." And this is exactly one of my main problems when we talk about religion in politics. They look at a complex problem, "know" a solution from the holy text, revelation, or whatever, and start "fixing it" according to this "knowledge".

What is even worse, they try fixing stuff that is not a problem at all because their religion says that it is a problem.

I never said that's the right way either. Unlike them I recognize that these holy texts were written in a different time for a different culture... what worked for Mesopotamian farmers or Romans won't work for America or anywhere else on 21st-century Earth.

That is where secular, ideological faith should come in.

The very statement that it "worked for ancient people" already means that you accept solutions listed there as true, just outdated. How exactly do we update those true but outdated holy texts? What parts of the holy texts are fine to use nowadays without updating? We can't use logic to determine that... Then what? Prayers? Revelations? Authority of Biblical scholars?

For me, It is the same - should your version of Christianity come to power, it will push through irrational decisions based on pseudo-knowledge and authority.

Faith. Simple as. It just feels right to me. That's what it comes down to. I don't need logic for such things.

And my version of Christianity is about tolerance and equity of all of humanity. If that comes from pseudo-knowledge and authority, so be it. I don't really value the hard truth, I value utility (which happens to, most of the time but not always, coincide with the "truth" as divined by hard logic). Meanwhile the real Truth to me is subjective. That is where we differ.

[McTraveller]

Logic and faith don't have to be independent!

You can have logical faith - faith doesn't have to be irrational.  In fact, irrational faith is the dangerous kind: when adherents of a belief system don't hold themselves to make sure there is no contradiction (or at the very least, honestly explore claims of contradiction and don't just write them off¹), and make sure behaviors follow logically from the belief system, then you get people who will do anything "in the name of our belief."

There is even a good bit about Christianity that I don't like, per se, but I think it's true nonetheless.  If I agreed with everything about it, it would be guaranteed to be erroneous.

This isn't unique to "religion" either - it also wholly applies to politics.  The amount of illogic for many of the platforms in political parties and candidates across the world is baffling. Mostly the economic platforms - many of those are just astonishingly illogical and don't even match observation.  Some of the platforms are more logical, but questionable - like it's logical to talk about the costs associated with mitigating climate change, but it's illogical to jump from "it's expensive" to "therefore it's just a scam people are using to get rich off us and make us eat bugs."  Or the illogic in "we want to protect the downtrodden" but "people in that demographic group are privileged so we're going to force them to pay the bills."

¹I'm familiar with most claims to contradiction in reform Christianity, and most of those are not really considered to be academically valid as they stem from logically faulty assumptions. But these are studied, not just "oh you think it's wrong? Don't worry about it!" or worse "You think it's wrong? Off with your head!".

Note that this doesn't mean that many many supposed followers of Christianity don't have contradictions though because, oh boy, do they!  Like the amount of mental gymnastics people must go through to think it's OK to just deport immigrants instead of caring for them, or the arguments from not long ago about how "those aren't actually humans so it's ok to enslave them" kind of stuff.

[Folly]

Logic and faith don't have to be independent!

Okay, I had to break out the Dictionary on this one. Most definitions of 'Logic' say that it is a system of understanding through clear and verified evidence. Most definitions of 'Faith' say that it is a system of understanding without any evidence or proof. These sound about as independent as two things can possibly be. But maybe that's just because I'm thinking about it logically...I guess I can see how a person of faith would believe something that is verifiable nonsense.

[nenjin]

You mean like "Christian Scientist"?

[McTraveller]

What do you mean, "most" definitions? The number one definition of faith is "complete trust in something".  It's the #2 definition that is "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

You can, and pretty much always in your daily life, have (some degree of) faith in things without proof.  Is that food you just bought going to give you an infection? Is the building you are in going to collapse?  Can you prove it? No - you take it on logical belief based on engineering standards, food protection laws, the fact that the building didn't collapse yesterday, etc.  This is despite the fact that there are and have been examples of such failures in the world.

Perhaps that is to say - saying it's all spiritual apprehension or all logic is the problem; it's a matter of degree.  Would you throw out a belief system that generally says to treat everyone kindly, including giving your resources to others, just because that belief system says the reason you do that is because we have inherent value given to us by a creator?  Would you keep a belief system that says that there is no supernatural and might makes right, so just do whatever it is that increases the chance of your particular genes propagating, merely because it is spirituality-free?

That's one mere example of faith being compatible with logic.

[Il Palazzo]

Can y'all take it to that thread where pointless spiritual arguments about railguns or something reign eternal? Each time this one updates I click on it half expecting Trump to have had another ear shot off, and it's just Christians being wrong again (runs away).

[Frumple]

It's been twenty days since the railgun thread got posts, even odds folks have just forgotten it exists. It's still there, though! Not locked or anything. The discussion pointedly not about the evangelical heresies actually heavily involved in ameripol issues really could stand to migrate, heh.

[pisskop]

bumped lol

[McTraveller]

So back to politics - Senate apparently had strong bipartisan support to pass the controversial KOSA and COPPA bills. Let's see what the House does...

But I thought we weren't talking about legislating morality... 

[anewaname]

Politics and religion... keeping them separate or keeping them together.

And just like arguing about mixing peanut butter and chocolate, some jerk will make a a single candy combining the flavors of both but will replace most of the valuable qualities with sugar and hydrogenated vegetable oil.

[Kagus]

Ah, yes... Achieving a stable politic-religion emulsion.

[nenjin]

You have to blend the religion in slowly or the whole emulsion breaks.

[anewaname]

Well, what ratio of non-chocolate and non-peanut sugars and oils should be added? And what would those ingredients represent in analogous political and religious mixture?

[StrawBarrel]

Phil Williams: 'When I look at you guys, I do not think master race.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpKMWj7g0_I

Nashville belongs to us — not the out-of-state neo-Nazis who have created havoc this week on our streets with their symbols of hate and vile words.

------------
Ziklag Exposed: Secretive Christian Nationalist Network Tries to Purge Voters in Battleground States
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIh6X_sXAr4

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump made headlines this week after suggesting the 2024 election could be the last U.S. election if he wins in November. We look at a secret organization of wealthy Christians called Ziklag that is backing Trump's efforts by working to purge more than a million voters from the rolls in battleground states and mobilize Republican voters to back Trump. The news outlets ProPublica and Documented obtained thousands of Ziklag's internal files and found the group has divided its 2024 activities into three different operations: Steeplechase, which uses churches to get out the vote; Watchtower, which aims to rally voters around opposition to transgender rights; and Checkmate, which is focused on funding so-called election integrity groups, explains ProPublica investigative reporter Andy Kroll.

Trump Tells Christians They Won’t Have to Vote in Future: ‘We’ll Have It Fixed’
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-if-reelected-wont-have-to-vote-fixed-1235069397/
Archive.is mirror: https://archive.ph/FGU8C

It looks like trump is continuing to signal to his voter base that he will implement fascism.