5 ms·

Religion has no place in the classroom, in the halls of ivy, in our codes of ethics, or in deciding how we express ourselves, and almost all of us spontaneously

Religion has no place in the classroom, in the halls of ivy, in our codes of ethics, or in deciding how we express ourselves, and almost all of us spontaneously understand that and see any misunderstanding of the premise as backward. Yet since about 2015, a peculiar contingent has been slowly headlocking us into making an exception, supposing that this new religion is so incontestably good, so gorgeously surpassing millennia of brilliant philosophers’ attempts to identify the ultimate morality, that we can only bow down in humble acquiescence. It’s continually amusing to me that some of the most outwardly “anti-religious” people (I’m reminded of this Silicon Valley scene [1]) adopt belief systems and act in ways that are nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism, with the minor difference of the content of beliefs being different. It makes sense, really: cultures don’t suddenly go 180 in the opposite direction. They adjust and build on already-established modes of thought. I think this is called the Horseshoe theory, but that’s usually applied to politics. 1. https://youtu.be/TWoRVaGlFRc https://youtu.be/TWoRVaGlFRc

dragonwriter 6y ago
> adopt belief systems and act in ways that are nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism, with the minor difference of the content of beliefs being different Look, as an American Catholic it's not unusual for me to encounter people who drastically stereotype Protestants, but literally the only thing that unites the quite diverse group encompassed by the term “American Protestantism” is the content of their beliefs systems, and at that a fairly small subset of the content. Pretty much any thing you could imagine is “nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism” but for the content of belief systems.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  I wasn’t intending to stereotype Protestants at all. But I think it’s not a controversial thing to say that American Protestantism in particular has some very unique aspects, especially in comparison to say, German Protestantism. Just off the top of my head, Puritanism, Prosperity theology, and Mormonism all strike me as very American phenomena. If you look at them from a certain angle, the first two have nearly identical value systems to contemporary Silicon Valley, with the content of the belief being slightly different. I should also make clear that I’m not casting any judgment on anything I’ve listed. In fact, I’d consider myself a fan of many of them. Just pointing out the similarities and the funny hypocrisy that sometimes appears by those who are very vocal in their criticism.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Just off the top of my head, Puritanism, Prosperity theology, and Mormonism all strike me as very American phenomena. Puritanism obviously isn't particularly American (nor is it a thing anymore in any coherent, nonmetaphorical sense), Prosperity theology isn't broadly characteristic of American Protestantism (though, yes, it's origin is within American Protestantism and it is more common within American Protestantism than elsewhere; OTOH, many of it's fiercest opponents are also within American Protestantism)—and, moreover, it's a component of a belief system, not something that could be shared with another group outside of the content of beliefs—and Mormonism isn't a subset of Protestantism, or, at least by the shared definition used by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity, even strictly Christian (religion doesn't use cladistic taxonomy, which you can tell by the fact we don't refer to all Abrahamic monotheists as “Jewish”.) EDIT: To tie this back and summarize my objection to the description, “American Protestantism” is a broad, diverse group united only by a small subset of the content of their religious beliefs, so saying that some other group ends up creating something that looks just like American Protestantism except for the content of belief is using lots of individually meaningful words to concoct a description that says nothing at all.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - tanseydavid 6y ago
      Why would Puritanism need to be a 'thing' anymore for the previous post to make sense? It is not a necessary condition for the comparison that is being made.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Why would Puritanism need to be a 'thing' anymore for the previous post to make sense? It would need to be a currently existing, non-belief, unifying feature of American Protestantism for it to be a rebuttal of the argument that saying that another thing was like American Protestantism except for the content of beliefs is meaningless because American Protestantism is a diverse community united only by a set of shared beliefs.
omginternets 6y ago
From a clinical psychological perspective, one of the things you often see in a therapeutic setting is that people fall prey to behavioral patterns they don't fully understand. Often, they don't understand them because they're deliberately ignoring them. I've found people who build an identity around hyper-rationality (e.g. logical positivists) to be -- on average -- some of the most emotionally-driven people. For example, they will have scathing, visceral, passion-fueled outbursts against religion (often despite knowing very little about it, save for the New Atheist talking points). When you try to point out that they're getting impassioned, they deny it. I think this denial is earnest; they might notice their heart-rate increasing, but they will tell you that there is a rational reason for it to be doing so, and that it is therefore not clouding their judgement nor stunting their curiosity for the subject of discussion. In exactly the same way, I suspect the people running from "American Protestantism" hardly know what it is and hardly pay attention to it, hence your observation. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
- dpoochieni 6y ago
  It is usually a case of "the lady doth protest too much". They project their own emotionality onto others while professing to follow logic and restraint. I'm not a trained psychologist by any means but is the modern cultural obsession with image a kind of widespread narcissism? I see these self-professions of rationalism as just another flavor of the same thing "look at me, I'm special, I'm very logical". Furthermore I speculate if the modern world with the gray dullness of equality, democracy, and mass culture drives people to find ways to differentiate from the rest. I'm interested on what's your take as I too have seen religious thought in the loudest atheists. One interesting essay on the history of some philosophies and worldviews you might like is Eric Vogelin's Science, Politics and Gnosticism (1968). Here he traces a lot of modern thought back to the early Gnostic religion. The lack of self-reflection and particularly the righteousness I see today makes me think his point is very accurate.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    >I'm not a trained psychologist by any means but is the modern cultural obsession with image a kind of widespread narcissism? I agree to the point where I'd rather hold my tongue than risk creating an echo chamber :P I will say one thing, though. I grew up in the US and spent about a decade in Europe, and one thing that seems apparent to me (though I can't quite articulate it) is that our short view of history produces a shallow view of culture, and that this in turn inhibits the development of a truly meaningful form of conservatism from emerging. Conserve what, exactly? There are obviously good answers to that question, but nobody seems know them, here. All we have is a narrow, shallow and intellectually stunted slogan of "America was founded on Christian values!". It certainly was, and much of that is worth preserving. So why is it that nobody seems to have a deep understanding of (1) what these values are, (2) their philosophical, theological, historical and political origins, and (3) their absolute singularity? And why isn't anyone talking about these things (except, arguably, someone like Jordan Peterson)? With such a soft target in its sights, it's no surprise that progressives have fallen to the same level of hollow, saccharin discourse. Calling Christianity a fairy tale is a good counter-point when arguing with fundamentalists, but it's literally no smarter than that. It ignores that fairy-tales are informative, universal, and incredibly resilient to the the passing of time. They're actually useful. I don't know how to fix this. I don't even know how to properly express it. My point seems to be devolving into a ramble, but hopefully you kind of see what I mean. Reading recommendations are welcome. :) >One interesting essay on the history of some philosophies and worldviews you might like is Eric Vogelin's Science, Politics and Gnosticism (1968). This seems right up my alley. Thank you for this.
jkingsbery 6y ago
The "or in deciding how we express ourselves" is what gets me in that passage. The social contract we had was described by Voltaire in Letters on England #6 ("as there are such a multitude, they all live happy and in peace", https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2445/2445-h/2445-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2445/2445-h/2445-h.htm). My religion should affect how I express myself; my religion should not affect how you express yourself (or vice versa).
- posterboy 6y ago
  Not directly (it can't anyway), but surely it does indirectly through your expression. That is, unless your religion leads to expressions that have no effect, or at least no effect about anyone's opinion on your religion. You are kind of denying that there is a meta game. The fastest way to loose is not to play and you are telling people not to play. Conversely however, the typical sectarian individualist would demand their religious feelings be respected. Answering the demand would of course affect validation. In this context I find your rule is a contradiction in terms. I'm already playing the meta game. The claim would be much stronger if your religion should not affect how you express yourself. Would be difficult to talk about it then, and so it would fulfil your demand, except that religion would likely not be your religion. But really, any good programm should terminate. Can we talk about hacking again?
anm89 6y ago
>It’s continually amusing to me that some of the most outwardly “anti-religious” people (I’m reminded of this Silicon Valley scene [1]) adopt belief systems and act in ways that are nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism, This is an empty statement. You accuse him of somehow behaving similar to "protestants" with zero further description of why or how this is true. Lot's of disparate intellectual movements share many ideas, it doesn't make them any better or worse or have any bearing on their value at all.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  I’m quoting the author, who made the comparison. If you disagree, take it up with him.
  - anm89 6y ago
    fixed above to show the context I'm commenting on your response, not the author's quote.
ardy42 6y ago
> It’s continually amusing to me that some of the most outwardly “anti-religious” people (I’m reminded of this Silicon Valley scene [1]) adopt belief systems and act in ways that are nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism, with the minor difference of the content of beliefs being different. I used to hang out with a bunch of ex-Evangelicals, and I noticed the same thing. The content of their beliefs changed (radically), but their outlook and habits of mind stayed the same. > They adjust and build on already-established modes of thought. I think this is called the Horseshoe theory, but that’s usually applied to politics. I don't think that's Horseshoe theory. IIRC horseshoe theory is more about extremists from different "ends" of the political spectrum having uncanny commonalities, and establishing a kind of moderate/extremist political axis as its own thing.
belorn 6y ago
From where I live (EU), I strongly disagree with that analysis. Anti-religious people tend to mostly be people who perceive religion as any other personal opinion and perspective of the world. The European declaration of Human rights come to mind, which also make it clear that religion hold no special distinction over a personal opinion. The rejection of religion as something special that should handled outside of common rules and laws is just that, a rejection. A religious school in my view is no better than one segregated by race, and a religious leader that is talking about believers and unbelievers is no different if they had picked the two groups based on race.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> adopt belief systems and act in ways that are nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism, with the minor difference of the content of beliefs being different Look, as an American Catholic it's not unusual for me to encounter people who drastically stereotype Protestants, but literally the only thing that unites the quite diverse group encompassed by the term “American Protestantism” is the content of their beliefs systems, and at that a fairly small subset of the content. Pretty much any thing you could imagine is “nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism” but for the content of belief systems.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
I wasn’t intending to stereotype Protestants at all. But I think it’s not a controversial thing to say that American Protestantism in particular has some very unique aspects, especially in comparison to say, German Protestantism. Just off the top of my head, Puritanism, Prosperity theology, and Mormonism all strike me as very American phenomena. If you look at them from a certain angle, the first two have nearly identical value systems to contemporary Silicon Valley, with the content of the belief being slightly different. I should also make clear that I’m not casting any judgment on anything I’ve listed. In fact, I’d consider myself a fan of many of them. Just pointing out the similarities and the funny hypocrisy that sometimes appears by those who are very vocal in their criticism.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Just off the top of my head, Puritanism, Prosperity theology, and Mormonism all strike me as very American phenomena. Puritanism obviously isn't particularly American (nor is it a thing anymore in any coherent, nonmetaphorical sense), Prosperity theology isn't broadly characteristic of American Protestantism (though, yes, it's origin is within American Protestantism and it is more common within American Protestantism than elsewhere; OTOH, many of it's fiercest opponents are also within American Protestantism)—and, moreover, it's a component of a belief system, not something that could be shared with another group outside of the content of beliefs—and Mormonism isn't a subset of Protestantism, or, at least by the shared definition used by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity, even strictly Christian (religion doesn't use cladistic taxonomy, which you can tell by the fact we don't refer to all Abrahamic monotheists as “Jewish”.) EDIT: To tie this back and summarize my objection to the description, “American Protestantism” is a broad, diverse group united only by a small subset of the content of their religious beliefs, so saying that some other group ends up creating something that looks just like American Protestantism except for the content of belief is using lots of individually meaningful words to concoct a description that says nothing at all.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tanseydavid 6y ago
    Why would Puritanism need to be a 'thing' anymore for the previous post to make sense? It is not a necessary condition for the comparison that is being made.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Why would Puritanism need to be a 'thing' anymore for the previous post to make sense? It would need to be a currently existing, non-belief, unifying feature of American Protestantism for it to be a rebuttal of the argument that saying that another thing was like American Protestantism except for the content of beliefs is meaningless because American Protestantism is a diverse community united only by a set of shared beliefs.

omginternets 6y ago

From a clinical psychological perspective, one of the things you often see in a therapeutic setting is that people fall prey to behavioral patterns they don't fully understand. Often, they don't understand them because they're deliberately ignoring them. I've found people who build an identity around hyper-rationality (e.g. logical positivists) to be -- on average -- some of the most emotionally-driven people. For example, they will have scathing, visceral, passion-fueled outbursts against religion (often despite knowing very little about it, save for the New Atheist talking points). When you try to point out that they're getting impassioned, they deny it. I think this denial is earnest; they might notice their heart-rate increasing, but they will tell you that there is a rational reason for it to be doing so, and that it is therefore not clouding their judgement nor stunting their curiosity for the subject of discussion. In exactly the same way, I suspect the people running from "American Protestantism" hardly know what it is and hardly pay attention to it, hence your observation. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

dpoochieni 6y ago
It is usually a case of "the lady doth protest too much". They project their own emotionality onto others while professing to follow logic and restraint. I'm not a trained psychologist by any means but is the modern cultural obsession with image a kind of widespread narcissism? I see these self-professions of rationalism as just another flavor of the same thing "look at me, I'm special, I'm very logical". Furthermore I speculate if the modern world with the gray dullness of equality, democracy, and mass culture drives people to find ways to differentiate from the rest. I'm interested on what's your take as I too have seen religious thought in the loudest atheists. One interesting essay on the history of some philosophies and worldviews you might like is Eric Vogelin's Science, Politics and Gnosticism (1968). Here he traces a lot of modern thought back to the early Gnostic religion. The lack of self-reflection and particularly the righteousness I see today makes me think his point is very accurate.
- omginternets 6y ago
  >I'm not a trained psychologist by any means but is the modern cultural obsession with image a kind of widespread narcissism? I agree to the point where I'd rather hold my tongue than risk creating an echo chamber :P I will say one thing, though. I grew up in the US and spent about a decade in Europe, and one thing that seems apparent to me (though I can't quite articulate it) is that our short view of history produces a shallow view of culture, and that this in turn inhibits the development of a truly meaningful form of conservatism from emerging. Conserve what, exactly? There are obviously good answers to that question, but nobody seems know them, here. All we have is a narrow, shallow and intellectually stunted slogan of "America was founded on Christian values!". It certainly was, and much of that is worth preserving. So why is it that nobody seems to have a deep understanding of (1) what these values are, (2) their philosophical, theological, historical and political origins, and (3) their absolute singularity? And why isn't anyone talking about these things (except, arguably, someone like Jordan Peterson)? With such a soft target in its sights, it's no surprise that progressives have fallen to the same level of hollow, saccharin discourse. Calling Christianity a fairy tale is a good counter-point when arguing with fundamentalists, but it's literally no smarter than that. It ignores that fairy-tales are informative, universal, and incredibly resilient to the the passing of time. They're actually useful. I don't know how to fix this. I don't even know how to properly express it. My point seems to be devolving into a ramble, but hopefully you kind of see what I mean. Reading recommendations are welcome. :) >One interesting essay on the history of some philosophies and worldviews you might like is Eric Vogelin's Science, Politics and Gnosticism (1968). This seems right up my alley. Thank you for this.

jkingsbery 6y ago

The "or in deciding how we express ourselves" is what gets me in that passage. The social contract we had was described by Voltaire in Letters on England #6 ("as there are such a multitude, they all live happy and in peace", https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2445/2445-h/2445-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2445/2445-h/2445-h.htm). My religion should affect how I express myself; my religion should not affect how you express yourself (or vice versa).

posterboy 6y ago
Not directly (it can't anyway), but surely it does indirectly through your expression. That is, unless your religion leads to expressions that have no effect, or at least no effect about anyone's opinion on your religion. You are kind of denying that there is a meta game. The fastest way to loose is not to play and you are telling people not to play. Conversely however, the typical sectarian individualist would demand their religious feelings be respected. Answering the demand would of course affect validation. In this context I find your rule is a contradiction in terms. I'm already playing the meta game. The claim would be much stronger if your religion should not affect how you express yourself. Would be difficult to talk about it then, and so it would fulfil your demand, except that religion would likely not be your religion. But really, any good programm should terminate. Can we talk about hacking again?

anm89 6y ago

>It’s continually amusing to me that some of the most outwardly “anti-religious” people (I’m reminded of this Silicon Valley scene [1]) adopt belief systems and act in ways that are nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism, This is an empty statement. You accuse him of somehow behaving similar to "protestants" with zero further description of why or how this is true. Lot's of disparate intellectual movements share many ideas, it doesn't make them any better or worse or have any bearing on their value at all.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
I’m quoting the author, who made the comparison. If you disagree, take it up with him.
- anm89 6y ago
  fixed above to show the context I'm commenting on your response, not the author's quote.

ardy42 6y ago

> It’s continually amusing to me that some of the most outwardly “anti-religious” people (I’m reminded of this Silicon Valley scene [1]) adopt belief systems and act in ways that are nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism, with the minor difference of the content of beliefs being different. I used to hang out with a bunch of ex-Evangelicals, and I noticed the same thing. The content of their beliefs changed (radically), but their outlook and habits of mind stayed the same. > They adjust and build on already-established modes of thought. I think this is called the Horseshoe theory, but that’s usually applied to politics. I don't think that's Horseshoe theory. IIRC horseshoe theory is more about extremists from different "ends" of the political spectrum having uncanny commonalities, and establishing a kind of moderate/extremist political axis as its own thing.

belorn 6y ago

From where I live (EU), I strongly disagree with that analysis. Anti-religious people tend to mostly be people who perceive religion as any other personal opinion and perspective of the world. The European declaration of Human rights come to mind, which also make it clear that religion hold no special distinction over a personal opinion. The rejection of religion as something special that should handled outside of common rules and laws is just that, a rejection. A religious school in my view is no better than one segregated by race, and a religious leader that is talking about believers and unbelievers is no different if they had picked the two groups based on race.