4 ms·

> A lack of shared philosophy means there's no open, shared spaces. Like tonight, I'm going to a Knights of Columbus meeting. On Thursday, we're leading marriag

by flukus 7y ago

> A lack of shared philosophy means there's no open, shared spaces. Like tonight, I'm going to a Knights of Columbus meeting. On Thursday, we're leading marriage prep at our church. On Monday, it's my men's club meeting. Later in the month, we're having a church BBQ. Most of the time, we're over socialized. Church is not only open shared space, my equivalent is the local sports club for instance. There are many optional activities through the week, lawn bowls Saturday Afternoon and Tuesday night, Cricket Saturday afternoon, pool Wednesday night, darts Thursday night, the parents from the next door school meet there (often with teachers) on Friday afternoon when thye pick the kids up and the bar is open everyday. On any given day you can find children running around to people in their 90's and everyone from the wealthiest few percent of society to the destitute. The lack of shared philosophy is a good thing, it exposes you to a much broader range of society. Places like this might be a lot rarer than they should be, but that is not an intractable problem, I've seen similar communities develop from as little as a bit of land granted by the local government and a shed. There are still some things groups like this could learn from some churches though, as things get increasingly legalistic the answer to personal infractions is to throw them out, we need to be more community oriented and forgiving for instance.

tathougies 7y ago
No no no. Your examples of sports clubs are exactly antithetical to the kinds of shared spaces I described. My point was that you need shared space based on a shared philosophy (or metaphysics or religion). Interest-based groups are nice, but they do not foster the kinds of connectedness that are fostered in religious-like groups. For example, my brother and I share little interests in common. However, we would trust each other with our children. On the other hand, I would not trust my programming language community friends with my kids. Why not? Because my relationship with my brother is based on a shared philosophy of what's important in life (given to us by our parents of course), whereas my relationship with the PL community is based on simple shared interests. For all I know, my PL friends could all be nazis. That's the problem with interest-based clubs -- without an underlying worldview, they cannot foster the kind of intimate social experiences fostered in church. I mean, I would trust many of my church friends with taking care of our children, despite having absolutely no shared interests in common. That's really different to how I view my friends with shared interests, who -- although I may spend more time with -- I don't trust at that intimate level.
- flukus 7y ago
  > Interest-based groups are nice, but they do not foster the kinds of connectedness that are fostered in religious-like groups. My example was that they can, without the authoritarian thought police that you seem to think is necessary. > On the other hand, I would not trust my programming language community friends with my kids. How much time do you spend socializing in those groups compared to church? You're not comparing like with like here, in my example we spend a comparable about of time together as you do at the church and got to know each other over many years. And yes, people can and do trust each other with their children. > Because my relationship with my brother is based on a shared philosophy of what's important in life (given to us by our parents of course), whereas my relationship with the PL community is based on simple shared interests. It's important for kids to be exposed to many ideas within reason. > That's the problem with interest-based clubs -- without an underlying worldview, they cannot foster the kind of intimate social experiences fostered in church. Have you ever wondered how many people there don't share your worldview but don't speak up for fear of being ostracized from the community aspects? I don't get the impression that you're a very tolerant bunch.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > My example was that they can, without the authoritarian thought police that you seem to think is necessary. I never said anything about an authoritarian thought police. Those are your words not mine. > How much time do you spend socializing in those groups compared to church? You're not comparing like with like here, in my example we spend a comparable about of time together as you do at the church and got to know each other over many years. And yes, people can and do trust each other with their children. The majority of my day is spent socializing here. > It's important for kids to be exposed to many ideas within reason. Indeed. I think it's important for children to be exposed to pretty much every idea, but I do not think we need to give up on the one they find safety in to do that. > Have you ever wondered how many people there don't share your worldview but don't speak up for fear of being ostracized from the community aspects? I don't get the impression that you're a very tolerant bunch. I feel this is the worst argument to levy against Catholicism in particular (which honestly, is the only group of this nature I'm familiar with; indeed, I do think certain other groups would be scarier, like the Neonazis or antifa), given the prevalence of cultural catholics, who -- despite not believing in the theology -- still see something of value. From a purely secular perspective, the church teaches a particular epistemology and metaphysics, which I'd reckon even the most agnostic (which I'll admit to being at one point) among the congregation share.

by flukus 7y ago

tathougies 7y ago

No no no. Your examples of sports clubs are exactly antithetical to the kinds of shared spaces I described. My point was that you need shared space based on a shared philosophy (or metaphysics or religion). Interest-based groups are nice, but they do not foster the kinds of connectedness that are fostered in religious-like groups. For example, my brother and I share little interests in common. However, we would trust each other with our children. On the other hand, I would not trust my programming language community friends with my kids. Why not? Because my relationship with my brother is based on a shared philosophy of what's important in life (given to us by our parents of course), whereas my relationship with the PL community is based on simple shared interests. For all I know, my PL friends could all be nazis. That's the problem with interest-based clubs -- without an underlying worldview, they cannot foster the kind of intimate social experiences fostered in church. I mean, I would trust many of my church friends with taking care of our children, despite having absolutely no shared interests in common. That's really different to how I view my friends with shared interests, who -- although I may spend more time with -- I don't trust at that intimate level.

flukus 7y ago
> Interest-based groups are nice, but they do not foster the kinds of connectedness that are fostered in religious-like groups. My example was that they can, without the authoritarian thought police that you seem to think is necessary. > On the other hand, I would not trust my programming language community friends with my kids. How much time do you spend socializing in those groups compared to church? You're not comparing like with like here, in my example we spend a comparable about of time together as you do at the church and got to know each other over many years. And yes, people can and do trust each other with their children. > Because my relationship with my brother is based on a shared philosophy of what's important in life (given to us by our parents of course), whereas my relationship with the PL community is based on simple shared interests. It's important for kids to be exposed to many ideas within reason. > That's the problem with interest-based clubs -- without an underlying worldview, they cannot foster the kind of intimate social experiences fostered in church. Have you ever wondered how many people there don't share your worldview but don't speak up for fear of being ostracized from the community aspects? I don't get the impression that you're a very tolerant bunch.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > My example was that they can, without the authoritarian thought police that you seem to think is necessary. I never said anything about an authoritarian thought police. Those are your words not mine. > How much time do you spend socializing in those groups compared to church? You're not comparing like with like here, in my example we spend a comparable about of time together as you do at the church and got to know each other over many years. And yes, people can and do trust each other with their children. The majority of my day is spent socializing here. > It's important for kids to be exposed to many ideas within reason. Indeed. I think it's important for children to be exposed to pretty much every idea, but I do not think we need to give up on the one they find safety in to do that. > Have you ever wondered how many people there don't share your worldview but don't speak up for fear of being ostracized from the community aspects? I don't get the impression that you're a very tolerant bunch. I feel this is the worst argument to levy against Catholicism in particular (which honestly, is the only group of this nature I'm familiar with; indeed, I do think certain other groups would be scarier, like the Neonazis or antifa), given the prevalence of cultural catholics, who -- despite not believing in the theology -- still see something of value. From a purely secular perspective, the church teaches a particular epistemology and metaphysics, which I'd reckon even the most agnostic (which I'll admit to being at one point) among the congregation share.