I had some mild 'debates' with distant relatives at Christmas. The main thing I noticed among my liberal family members was that they always go back on their education. They use their flimsy major(s) in college as proof that they are somehow experts. Additionally, they always bring up their white collar jobs as somehow proof of their superior intelligence.
They also like to elevate the newspapers they read as gospels of truth. They will outright dismiss any other source, without addressing the argument. Their explanations are often overwrought with big words, and could be said in half the time. I also notice they tend to speak condescendingly when they disagree: they'll say things like, 'you misunderstand' or 'you don't grasp' or 'you lack comprehension'...
They will go to great lengths to parse words rather than to address the substance. It's like I'm talking to a human Snopes...
Well said. In a sense, they have abandoned religion, and replaced "science" and liberalism in place of religion. Now to question their politics or "settled science" is to question their faith, and that faith is where they get their self worth, and is a direct insult to their person. You can't disagree or have a debate, because "they know", but all they know is what the "experts" (with their own agenda)/media told them what to believe....
Yes, this is a good way to describe the situation. It's almost as if science and knowledge is better sought as an addition to religion. Have an objective moral code based on religion and then seek knowledge+science. When people have no religion, they latch onto knowledge+science as their religion and lose objectivity.
People thought that by embracing atheism and anti-theism, it was the only way to objectively view science without religion clouding their judgement but when learning science without a strong objective moral code, people in fact latched onto science like a religion and lost their ability to see the science from an impartial perspective.
Interesting stuff. Good philosophical ideas here worth thinking into more. There's definitely something here.
Very interesting point!
Like when someone says "conservatives don't believe in science " I respond " I do believe in science, as well as its limitations" they tend to implode.
Science may one day be able to explain everything we currently don't know, like how intuition works, but until then we can't just toss out God-given sense & sensibility. Science is a process invented by humans, within our limited understanding of the universe. Just like mathematics work as far as in our known plane of existence.
For all we know, our scientific process could be missing something major that is limiting us from uncovering other realms.
Could be missing something like a definition of consciousness? We cannot define consciousness because we have to use consciousness to analyze consciousness. It's inherently recursive. It's why the ultimate truth has to be revealed. We cannot reason our way to it.
Username checks out!
I come back again and again to the existentialists Nietszche and Dostoyevsky. One cannot blow out the moral and philosophical underpinnings of a society without something equally as veracious and vital to replace it. Whether we like it or not, the Judeo-Christian ethos is in the water we are swimming in; it is impossible to divorce this from our society without wavering in the wind untethered searching for some sort of moral locus. We are not supermen who can just create our own values out of nothing. Nihilism is the inevitable result.
Western civilization was built on the interplay between Platonic idealism and Aristotlean empiricism within a Judeo-Christian framework. One cannot omit nor hyper focus on one aspect or the other; to do so swings our society to the horrors of the authoritarians at either end of the spectrum or both.
Great insight. I personally, don't see any value in moving away from Christian morality. As someone who grew up atheist and anti-theist, I've come to realize exactly what you've said. The very fabric of our society that binds us together is rooted in Christian morality. The more we rebel against it, the worse off we are. The outcome from following this morality is far greater on a spiritual, happiness and overall cohesiveness level for society than the nihilism that is replaced by the rebellion against it.
I grew up in the church, but was a materialist of the atheist variety for years. I think I got stuck in the reaction against dogmatic religion rather than the "truth" Christianity conveys. The first conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson was kind of a watershed moment. Peterson's perception of truth opened up the concept in ways I had never considered. Not true in the literal, materialist sense, but truth in that it correctly identifies the abstractions in the correct ratios underneath all of the symbolic metaphors.
A great historical treatise on this topic (which comes to the same conclusion) is Dominion by Tom Holland. I'm close to finishing it now and it's fantastic.
What's funny and disturbing to me is that many people who think of "science" as their source of values don't take the time to recognize that "science" has no comment with regard to values. Science can't tell you which knife is better, a butter knife, or a butcher knife, unless YOU determine the purpose of the knife FIRST. THEN science has something to say. But science has no comment on whether you should cut butter or cut meat.
Scientism.