5 ms·

The author doesn't quite put it in one sentence, perhaps because they feel that it would commit them to a side, but I notice that they lay out all the ingredien

The author doesn't quite put it in one sentence, perhaps because they feel that it would commit them to a side, but I notice that they lay out all the ingredients for the thesis that one side of the culture wars is fueled by a desire to impose Christian moral authority upon the USA. Such authority has been undermined by a pair of understandable happenstances: It happens that empiricism and the scientific method are simply better at making predictions about the world than priestly divination, and it also happens that the abuses and frauds committed behind church doors keep coming to light. I wonder to what degree some participants in the culture war are trying to simply communicate the idea that we do not need a deity to deliver unto us tablets of moral rules, and running up against folks who cannot imagine existence without Jehovah.

magicsmoke 6y ago
The orthodox-progressive split was Hunter's original thesis 1991 and last part of this essay suggests that digital media has fragmented the sides and this two-side model may no longer be sufficient. 1. There's a split within the atheist progressives between trust in scientific rationality and trust in individual subjective experiences. 2. The loss of national identity as previously shared histories and values are challenged and how this leads to some trying to ground national identity in ethnicity while others try to abandon patriotism instead. 3. A new split emerging between those committed to economic growth and consumption above all and those that believe that economics should be tempered by some kind of morality.
- blargmaster33 6y ago
  >tempered by some kind of morality. Communism is evil eye incarnate and that's what they are pushing!! No it's the age old struggle between slavery and horrible horrible FREEDOM!
- jojobas 6y ago
  Simplifying, it boils down to "it's good as it is" vs "it's awful and unsalvageable".
  - jmeister 6y ago
    No
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The loss of national identity as previously shared histories and values are challenged and how this leads to some trying to ground national identity in ethnicity while others try to abandon patriotism instead. This point is kind of patently ridiculous as a supposed change since the 1991, since the “orthodox” side of the American culture wars had a large faction seeking to ground national identity in ethnicity against the (relatively, but equally clearly only relatively) secularist/technocratic progressives since time immemorial. > A new split emerging between those committed to economic growth and consumption above all and those that believe that economics should be tempered by some kind of morality. This is even more patently ridiculous as a new development since 1991, which was near the height of the neoliberal consensus when both major political factions in the US were dominated by technocratic neoliberal capitalist factions, and both had—quite different—large-but-less dominant factions differentiated by the belief that a vision of justice (very different on each side) should temper or even trump economic concerns.
tengbretson 6y ago
I'm curious to hear how you are making the jump from "empiricism and the scientific method are simply better at making predictions about the world" to deriving any kind of moral order that instructs how you ought to act in this world.
- recursivedoubts 6y ago
  Exactly. [1] 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
  - bobthechef 6y ago
    That's a false dichotomy. In natural law theory, the "ought" proceeds from the "is". The good of a thing is determined by its nature. Thus, we eat food because it IS good for us to do so and we OUGHT to do what is good. A thing's excellence is teleological. In other words, is/ought is only a problem in a materialistic/Cartesian metaphysics. A hylomorphic metaphysics, on the other hand, has no problems with this. I encourage reading Aquinas and Aristotle to this effect. We've been brain damaged by a very crude worldview taught in schools that must be confronted and undone. So given that, while empirical science doesn't determine moral truths per se, it can give enrich out understanding to permit us to make moral determinations. A good example is fetal development. Before science was able to know how prenatal human life begins and develops exactly, the accepted theory in the West held that the human organism comes into being 40 days after fertilization. However, we now know that the human organism comes into being at the moment of fertilization. This fact has moral consequences and we must adjust our moral judgements and actions accordingly.
    - recursivedoubts 6y ago
      > That's a false dichotomy > In natural law theory It's a real dichotomy. You confirm the dichotomy by bringing in Natural Law for the aught, which is not scientific. I am an orthodox catholic I and agree entirely with your moral reasoning. But science, as strict empirical observation, can't get us from here to there. Fides et ratio.
082349872349872 6y ago
I suspect the Puritans wound up in the new world because they were worried their children would grow up far too tolerant amongst the dutch. (hypothesis: empires eventually wind up with two somewhat arbitrary factions squabbling over the imperial rents. Blues vs Greens, Guelphs vs Ghibellines, etc.)
- jojobas 6y ago
  And not we've run out new world.
bobthechef 6y ago
> one side of the culture wars is fueled by a desire to impose Christian moral authority upon the USA. Impose? A broadly Christian ethos (I say broadly because America is heretic central) was already in place and has been blandly fading out of existence in the West. Certainly, there are those who are actively defending their rights, but the hierarchy of the Church sold out long ago (50s/60s are generally treated as an important period in that respect). Currently, an amalgamated Marxist/secularist/scientistic/New Age-y pseudo-ethos is aggressively imposing its vision using the instruments of the state and private (corporate) coercion, propagating through the media and the education system. The revolutionaries of the 60s are in positions of power and have been working from within the system. > Such authority has been undermined by a pair of understandable happenstances: It happens that empiricism and the scientific method are simply better at making predictions about the world than priestly divination, Huh? First of all, contrary to the bizarre fetishism some have for "prediction", the ends of Christianity are not technological or predictive. Priests don't make predictions or engage in divination (certainly not in the Catholic Church). The very fact you'd said that casts serious doubt on your understanding of the basics of Christianity. > and it also happens that the abuses and frauds committed behind church doors keep coming to light. The latest wave of abuses and frauds are coming to light, absolutely, and this is a good thing because the current hierarchy is mired in weakness, cowardice, and corruption. But if you think in centuries instead of years and remove some of your prejudice, you'll notice that, first, the Church has gone through various crises involving elevated levels of corruption and mediocrity in the clergy and it has recovered from each (name another 2,000 year old institution, let alone one that could survive the wickedness and failures of its own clergy and leadership time and time again), and second, the frauds and abuses in question are hardly unique to the Church. Sex abuse of minors, for example, is a problem across all institutions where there are minors, and indeed, abuse rates are higher in other institutions such as public schools. > I wonder to what degree some participants in the culture war are trying to simply communicate the idea that we do not need a deity to deliver unto us tablets of moral rules, and running up against folks who cannot imagine existence without Jehovah. Again, you do not understand. While Protestants tend to have more issues defending their moral positions (divine command theory comes to mind), the Catholic tradition is firmly rooted in natural law theory. Natural law theory is generally understood as having its origins in Plato, which of course means its predates Christianity. What that means is that we can, to a large degree and in principle, reason morally using our own unaided faculties of reason (and indeed know the existence of God without recourse to revelation). Revelation does furnish additional knowledge with moral consequences, but not all moral knowledge is revealed. The "tablets" you refer to are presumable the Ten Commandments, but they are essentially expressions of the natural law. There is no reason why a pagan Greek could not have come up with that list.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> but I notice that they lay out all the ingredients for the thesis that one side of the culture wars is fueled by a desire to impose Christian moral authority upon the USA. Well, it could be read [0] as advancing the thesis either that that is the case but that the established order has flipped from that side being the status quo incumbent to the opposition, or it could be read as advancing the thesis that the culture wars have moved past that, that technocratic secular (neo)liberal materialists have displaced Christianists as the conservative side of the culture wars and that the other side is now the progressive social justice set. (Though I think both he and the authorities he appeals to—to borrow a term from George W Bush—misunderestimate the degree to which the broad opposition to what he calls the old “orthodox” side was driven by a strong belief in moral authority, most commonly with a religious source, with a vision of justice differing from that of the “orthodox” in it's content on the specific issues, and not technocratic rationalism, one which differs particularly in that it is more concerned that others align with it's substantive content of moral authority than it's concept of the source of that authority.) [0] the key part in both cases being the shift described in section 4.

magicsmoke 6y ago

The orthodox-progressive split was Hunter's original thesis 1991 and last part of this essay suggests that digital media has fragmented the sides and this two-side model may no longer be sufficient. 1. There's a split within the atheist progressives between trust in scientific rationality and trust in individual subjective experiences. 2. The loss of national identity as previously shared histories and values are challenged and how this leads to some trying to ground national identity in ethnicity while others try to abandon patriotism instead. 3. A new split emerging between those committed to economic growth and consumption above all and those that believe that economics should be tempered by some kind of morality.

blargmaster33 6y ago
>tempered by some kind of morality. Communism is evil eye incarnate and that's what they are pushing!! No it's the age old struggle between slavery and horrible horrible FREEDOM!
jojobas 6y ago
Simplifying, it boils down to "it's good as it is" vs "it's awful and unsalvageable".
- jmeister 6y ago
  No
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The loss of national identity as previously shared histories and values are challenged and how this leads to some trying to ground national identity in ethnicity while others try to abandon patriotism instead. This point is kind of patently ridiculous as a supposed change since the 1991, since the “orthodox” side of the American culture wars had a large faction seeking to ground national identity in ethnicity against the (relatively, but equally clearly only relatively) secularist/technocratic progressives since time immemorial. > A new split emerging between those committed to economic growth and consumption above all and those that believe that economics should be tempered by some kind of morality. This is even more patently ridiculous as a new development since 1991, which was near the height of the neoliberal consensus when both major political factions in the US were dominated by technocratic neoliberal capitalist factions, and both had—quite different—large-but-less dominant factions differentiated by the belief that a vision of justice (very different on each side) should temper or even trump economic concerns.

tengbretson 6y ago

I'm curious to hear how you are making the jump from "empiricism and the scientific method are simply better at making predictions about the world" to deriving any kind of moral order that instructs how you ought to act in this world.

recursivedoubts 6y ago
Exactly. [1] 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
- bobthechef 6y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. In natural law theory, the "ought" proceeds from the "is". The good of a thing is determined by its nature. Thus, we eat food because it IS good for us to do so and we OUGHT to do what is good. A thing's excellence is teleological. In other words, is/ought is only a problem in a materialistic/Cartesian metaphysics. A hylomorphic metaphysics, on the other hand, has no problems with this. I encourage reading Aquinas and Aristotle to this effect. We've been brain damaged by a very crude worldview taught in schools that must be confronted and undone. So given that, while empirical science doesn't determine moral truths per se, it can give enrich out understanding to permit us to make moral determinations. A good example is fetal development. Before science was able to know how prenatal human life begins and develops exactly, the accepted theory in the West held that the human organism comes into being 40 days after fertilization. However, we now know that the human organism comes into being at the moment of fertilization. This fact has moral consequences and we must adjust our moral judgements and actions accordingly.
  - recursivedoubts 6y ago
    > That's a false dichotomy > In natural law theory It's a real dichotomy. You confirm the dichotomy by bringing in Natural Law for the aught, which is not scientific. I am an orthodox catholic I and agree entirely with your moral reasoning. But science, as strict empirical observation, can't get us from here to there. Fides et ratio.

082349872349872 6y ago

I suspect the Puritans wound up in the new world because they were worried their children would grow up far too tolerant amongst the dutch. (hypothesis: empires eventually wind up with two somewhat arbitrary factions squabbling over the imperial rents. Blues vs Greens, Guelphs vs Ghibellines, etc.)

jojobas 6y ago
And not we've run out new world.

bobthechef 6y ago

> one side of the culture wars is fueled by a desire to impose Christian moral authority upon the USA. Impose? A broadly Christian ethos (I say broadly because America is heretic central) was already in place and has been blandly fading out of existence in the West. Certainly, there are those who are actively defending their rights, but the hierarchy of the Church sold out long ago (50s/60s are generally treated as an important period in that respect). Currently, an amalgamated Marxist/secularist/scientistic/New Age-y pseudo-ethos is aggressively imposing its vision using the instruments of the state and private (corporate) coercion, propagating through the media and the education system. The revolutionaries of the 60s are in positions of power and have been working from within the system. > Such authority has been undermined by a pair of understandable happenstances: It happens that empiricism and the scientific method are simply better at making predictions about the world than priestly divination, Huh? First of all, contrary to the bizarre fetishism some have for "prediction", the ends of Christianity are not technological or predictive. Priests don't make predictions or engage in divination (certainly not in the Catholic Church). The very fact you'd said that casts serious doubt on your understanding of the basics of Christianity. > and it also happens that the abuses and frauds committed behind church doors keep coming to light. The latest wave of abuses and frauds are coming to light, absolutely, and this is a good thing because the current hierarchy is mired in weakness, cowardice, and corruption. But if you think in centuries instead of years and remove some of your prejudice, you'll notice that, first, the Church has gone through various crises involving elevated levels of corruption and mediocrity in the clergy and it has recovered from each (name another 2,000 year old institution, let alone one that could survive the wickedness and failures of its own clergy and leadership time and time again), and second, the frauds and abuses in question are hardly unique to the Church. Sex abuse of minors, for example, is a problem across all institutions where there are minors, and indeed, abuse rates are higher in other institutions such as public schools. > I wonder to what degree some participants in the culture war are trying to simply communicate the idea that we do not need a deity to deliver unto us tablets of moral rules, and running up against folks who cannot imagine existence without Jehovah. Again, you do not understand. While Protestants tend to have more issues defending their moral positions (divine command theory comes to mind), the Catholic tradition is firmly rooted in natural law theory. Natural law theory is generally understood as having its origins in Plato, which of course means its predates Christianity. What that means is that we can, to a large degree and in principle, reason morally using our own unaided faculties of reason (and indeed know the existence of God without recourse to revelation). Revelation does furnish additional knowledge with moral consequences, but not all moral knowledge is revealed. The "tablets" you refer to are presumable the Ten Commandments, but they are essentially expressions of the natural law. There is no reason why a pagan Greek could not have come up with that list.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> but I notice that they lay out all the ingredients for the thesis that one side of the culture wars is fueled by a desire to impose Christian moral authority upon the USA. Well, it could be read [0] as advancing the thesis either that that is the case but that the established order has flipped from that side being the status quo incumbent to the opposition, or it could be read as advancing the thesis that the culture wars have moved past that, that technocratic secular (neo)liberal materialists have displaced Christianists as the conservative side of the culture wars and that the other side is now the progressive social justice set. (Though I think both he and the authorities he appeals to—to borrow a term from George W Bush—misunderestimate the degree to which the broad opposition to what he calls the old “orthodox” side was driven by a strong belief in moral authority, most commonly with a religious source, with a vision of justice differing from that of the “orthodox” in it's content on the specific issues, and not technocratic rationalism, one which differs particularly in that it is more concerned that others align with it's substantive content of moral authority than it's concept of the source of that authority.) [0] the key part in both cases being the shift described in section 4.