Young people aren't buying far-right religious beliefs
By: Serene Jones (Religion News Service)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
(RNS) — Far-right politicians and influencers are on a rampage to impose their views on all Americans.
They're pushing for book bans, unfettered access to guns, anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, abortion restrictions and more — all in the name of "God."
These sorts of hate-filled biblical interpretations might appeal to politicians' bright-red bases. But overwhelmingly — at the ballot box and beyond — young people are showing us that they will not buy into them.
Quite frankly, for too many young people, religion means embracing weapons that kill their peers. It means stopping them from having control over their bodies. It means restricting people from loving who they want to love.
By and large, young Americans don't want to be part of that. They want to join communities that provide safety, support and acceptance.
Just look at some of the purportedly "Christian" messages young Americans have heard recently.
This month, Missouri State Rep. Brad Hudson — a pastor and the sponsor of a looming bill to ban gender-affirming care for minors — said that he would advise adults seeking to transition to "embrace the way that God made them."
North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson — who just launched his gubernatorial campaign — recently stated that God formed him to fight against LGBTQ+ rights and that flying a rainbow flag in a church is a "direct spit in the face of God almighty."
Days after a shooter slaughtered three children and three adults at Christian Covenant School, far-right influencer Charlie Kirk said that gun deaths are worth it "so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
And as state representatives debated a draconian 6-week abortion ban in Florida, several lawmakers cited their religious beliefs to support the bill.
Young people are wholeheartedly rejecting these messages. In recent months, young people have spearheaded major protests to condemn a wide variety of far-right efforts — like loose gun rules in Tennessee and the silencing of trans lawmaker Rep. Zooey Zephyr.
Young voters also showed up in unprecedented numbers to resoundingly elect a pro-choice judge to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Simultaneously, young people are going to church less often and increasingly consider themselves religiously unaffiliated. In fact, recent data shows that nearly half of Gen Zers have no religious affiliation.
That's no coincidence. They simply don't feel like they can connect with traditional faith institutions. In fact, a brand-new survey from PRRI found that 30% of people who switched religions said that they were turned off by the religion's negative teachings about or treatment of LGBTQ+ people.
Far-right leaders know they're losing with young people.
But rather than reexamine their religious messages, they're doubling down — and hoping censorship will save the day. They're banning books, stopping truthful discussions of our history and pushing religion in public schools — yet more unChristian displays of power.
The reality is, young people are open to faith and spirituality in some form. Fortunately, beneath the screams of far-right Christian extremists, there is a religious movement that supports progressive, inclusive policies, and it's growing stronger.
For example, a few weeks ago, thousands of Catholic nuns wrote a letter calling for "the full inclusion of transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive individuals." Many faith groups are also fighting against the scourge of gun violence.
At the school I lead, Union Theological Seminary (UTS), it's clear that students are clamoring for faith practices that align with their progressive values. Our students — who identify with many different faith traditions, or as spiritual but not religious — are focused on dismantling racism, protecting our planet, supporting LGBTQ+ communities and other social justice goals.
All the while, they're supported by the message of love and justice from the Bible and other sacred texts. This year alone, we've hosted a number of inclusive events, like an evening of singing to cultivate peace and harmony with renowned Buddhist Venerable Sister Chan Khong, a symposium to foster collaboration between Black churches and LGBTQ+ communities, and annual ceremonies to honor members of Union's LGBTQ+ graduating student body.
Young people can see through the facade of restrictive policies clothed in the guise of religion. And thanks to them, we can move toward a world that God and the Bible actually ask us to build — a world of love, respect and acceptance.
(Rev. Dr. Serene Jones is president of Union Theological Seminary, a globally recognized graduate school of theology, where faith and scholarship meet to reimagine the work of justice. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)
Tags
Who is online
372 visitors
Now I can see why they want indoctrination in schools.
They're losing their grip.
Amazes me. I seem to say that a lot lately.
Most people can understand what this man is saying yet the extremes double down...
I see it pretty often. Object to the more hateful aspects of conservative Christianity, get called out as evil and told you're going to regret it when you get to Hell. I'm not sure how the people who spout this stuff can't see that it's not nearly as loving as they'd like to claim it is. They'd make terrible salespeople.
I agree. mandating fringe religious ideologies is a last ditch desperate attempt to hold onto their rapidly diminishing power. young people today rightly reject the rigid religious conformity to 2000+ year old ideals that oppose their inclusive values. the tighter religious nuts try to squeeze, the more young people they lose. kids today are a lot more astute than we were and historical and religious hypocrisy drives them away. they realized in 2022 the power they now wield at the ballot box as a voting block, as have republicans with their attempted efforts to repress the student vote. these kids today aren't going to let republicans push them backwards.
creating fear in the consumer is a dated sales technique that only works on dated human relics.
It sells snake oil, and not much else.
I read an article that was stating the reason the Wisconsin SC judge was elected was because of the young vote.
Grew up in a tiny Midwestern town where most professed to love god and Jesus and were more than willing to kick the shit out of anybody if they didn't claim the same thing.
Read the Bible a few times and was never able to believe any of it.
Had to learn how to fight instead.
more of that "believe in our god of love, forgiveness, and inclusion, or we'll kill you" spirituality ...
"For example, a few weeks ago, thousands of Catholic nuns wrote a letter calling for "the full inclusion of transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive individuals."
Highly unlikely. Source or link?
Good job, Ender
I would say that, compared to many more conservative Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church could be considered quite progressive on many issues. Not all, but many.
the most progressive woman client that I ever met was a nun. sister susan was also my favorite client. I loved and respected her so much that I went out of my way to do construction consulting for her, free of any fees. we talked about everything and absolute truth was our bond from the first meeting when she asked me if what I was telling her was true and my reply was something to the effect of "I'm not a catholic, but lying to a nun was for me the surest ticket to hell". I don't like 99.9% of most clergy, but I loved her. she had a wicked sense of humor that could brighten my darkest day and her perspective on church politics was jaw dropping.
My biggest rival for #1 in early college chem classes was a nun.
She wouldn't admit that the competition made us both better.
She blushed when I mentioned that lying and pride were sins.
We ended up being lab partners and left religion out of it.
Nice, smart girl but with her fair share of emotional problems.
... she was probably getting nailed regularly by a local priest.
sister susan confided in me during the little sisters of the poor/birth control bullshit that she was losing teacher/nuns due to being impregnated by priests.
She was getting nailed regularly by god. I couldn't compete.
She claimed that I was the first bad-boy atheist she'd ever met.
Our chem. prof. was amused at how well we got along. We were his favorites.
We settled for being friends without benefits.
I can see young people not buying what religions are selling more because most of what is taught simply does not make sense (is illogical) and is entirely unevidenced. So not so much because religion teaches bigotry, etc. but more because they flat out do not believe what they are being told.
But, for that matter, one would expect that most everyone in modern society would come to the conclusion that religions are man-made systems designed to secure power / influence over the masses. Religions all make grand claims and all fall pitifully short of providing persuasive evidence to back up these claims. And on top of that, with so many religions, how does anyone think that their religion actually nailed truth? While there is an emotional appeal (it is comforting to think that there is life after death and we will see grandma again) one would expect that logic (and a basic understanding of modern science) would prevail over emotion. Yet ...
I'd say it's a bit of each.
Try telling a young woman of today that she can't hold a position of authority over men because she's female and the Bible says so, and she'll tell you to fuck off. She may tell you to take your Bible with you, or she may point out that the Bible was written in a period when men were ignorant and warlike, and that all of it isn't applicable to today. But she's unlikely to just accept it as an inerrant guide to how she should live, even if she believes in the supernatural aspects.
I went on a group vacation (never again!) with some of my family, a physician with whom my sister worked, his daughter, and her best friend. The daughter and friend were both attending Liberty University, so obviously, Christian. The friend made several remarks about how badly churches treat LGBTQ people. As it happened, while we were travelling, SCOTUS legalized same-sex marriage nation-wide, which was how the conversation arose. She was supportive of that decision.
What changed since I last went to bed?
organized religion is basically the spiritual version of the threat "wait till your dad gets home".
most of my favorite bosses and peers were women.
My favorite boss was a woman.
My least favorite boss was a woman.
Personalities are everything.
We now allow ignorant, warlike people of any gender to lead us along. We even vote for some of them!
Yes, we have truly arrived! /s
I haven't been following very closely, but it seems like the young have more or less the same mindsets as their elders. There are fundies and liberals, MAGAs and progressives, ...
And then there are the black sheep of the family.
thank god for them...
Evangelical Fundamentalistism made "Christian" into a slur. They are mere small c fake christians!
They don't know Christ. Jesus doesn't love them.
That's where you're wrong, JBB. Jesus loves everyone. Even the ignorant and the tightly wound and those that would say they would kill for them...but he doesn't know them
No true Scotsman fallacy.
Who is to judge "real christians" from "false christians"?
Anyone and everyone. Christ told us to love one another Anyone who sincerely tries to follow Christ's teaching is a Christian. Anyone who does not, is not.
Simple.
Does that mean that there are a lot of people who call themselves Christian, but who are objectively not? Yes.
Anyone who sincerely tries to follow Christ's teaching is a Christian. Anyone who does not, is not.
Simple.
Lol. So simple as to be eternally controversial? This is the epitome of no true Scotsman. One man’s interpretation is another man’s misinterpretation. When a person spends decades as a criminal and then “turns themself around” on death row, are they or are they not a Christian?
That changes it from a "judgement" to a simple "opinion".
40 rainy days on a boat with 2 lions and only 2 zebras? After a week they're coming for you.
nah, they fished all the floaters out of the water and fed them to the carnivores...
Flat-earth fundamentalist christians are so 1999!
Young people aren't buying any sort of religious beliefs. Young people pursue hedonism and oppose confining restrictions of any sort of moral philosophy. That's not new. IMO it would be very difficult to find a time in recorded history where young people defended moral traditions and moral institutions.
What's concerning is that old politicians are exploiting the hedonism of youth to justify pursuing ends by any means without considering morality.
People can take their so called morality and shove it where the sun don't shine.
I do not need an ancient book to tell me what is moral or not.
not a day goes by where bible thumpers so called rigid adherence to their own ideals are shattered in the news. oh, but then they atone and are forgiven, and then it's right back the next day to more lying, humping and thieving...
Which ancient books? Hindu moral philosophy? Asian moral philosophy? Greek moral philosophy?
If you don't need ancient moral philosophy then don't play the hypocrite about Islamic inclusion. Islam incorporates the same ancient moral philosophy.
You know I was talking about the bible which from what I can tell is actually old Hebrew text.
So, this is an anti-Semitic trope? Supposedly those old Hebrew texts built upon ancient pagan religious beliefs. What made the Hebrew texts unique was mono-theism and not a new morality.
Trying to find something evil in my words? Actually is was a diss at the phony Christians that swear by the passages...
Actually, most of the Old Testament books were written in Hebrew with some written in Aramaic. The New Testament books were written in Greek which was the common language around the Eastern Mediterranean, in order to be available to a wider audience.
Just as you try to turn my words into something evil. And you are dodging the point that moral philosophy and beliefs are older than the Bible. The Bible did not establish a new morality. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt so were required to conform to Egyptian morality. Why not blame the Pharaohs?
I fail to see your point. Morals and values were different for different people as well as differences through the ages.
I seriously doubt morals will be gone in an instant with one younger generation.
Young people oppose the confining restrictions of morality. Young people are more hedonistic. That's been human nature for a very long time. Morality gains more importance with age (and life experience).
Young children sometimes don't realize death or the finality of it. Teenagers often have an I will live forever attitude.
I don't think either one of those is intertwined into any morals they may have.
Teenagers have a different perspective on life than does the parents of teenagers. And teenagers turn into parents.
Well, religious bigotry is evil. And your words were chock full of it.
To imply that those who do not believe in the supernatural must also be immoral and hedonistic is bigoted, and therefore evil.
“Teenagers have a different perspective on life than does the parents of teenagers”
And if anything, they can smell the bullshit a mile away. As parents, we can choose to discount their perspective or honor it and perhaps learn a thing or three.
So where or how did you learn what's moral or not.
He didn't say that.
Sure. Next you'll be telling me you've got a bridge you can sell me for cheap.
We are taught morality by our culture. Each of us then refines what we are taught based on our individual experiences.
I would say mostly society.
Some people describe morals as empathy.
Indeed. One does not need religion to be moral.
Maybe it is just me. When I was a kid we all ran around everywhere. Sometimes I think some people didn't really grow up in groups of other kids. There was always a bunch of people to run around with. We learned what to do and what not to do in social settings at a young age.
We went to church but it was not shoved down our throats.
I am a believer that people learn behavior more so while acting out in certain environments.
I also believe my last statement above, that morals is empathy.
Who has more morals, the kid that watches another kid get beat up, the kid that feels really bad for the kid beat up or the kid that breaks up the fight...
Sorry, not ranting at you, just ranting in general...Haha
No worries. Rant away. 👍
Since you seem to equate moral philosophy with religious bigotry then you've taken the position to oppose all forms of morality. Attempting to justify secular strictures and prohibitions based upon supernatural concepts of 'good' and 'evil' refutes your own premise. Without morality there can only be causality. And causal relationships cannot be measured in terms of 'good' and 'evil' without applying metaphysical metrics.
What's 'good' for you is a hedonistic outlook that twists morality to serve your own self centered interests. And those self centered interests will oppose constraints and restrictions imposed by an institutional morality. It's a conflict between a 'greater good' and your self centered 'good'.
What I have stated is that young people are more concerned with self centered pursuits than with institutions of any sort; which includes religious institutions. That's a truism that can be found throughout recorded human history. The theme of the seeded article is bogus because it shapes human nature into a deliberately misleading argument.
Don't try to gaslight me to justify your apparent Christianophobe bigotry. I have not invoked any sort of Christian beliefs or Biblical morality. That's all on you.
You equate religiosity with morality and accuse the irreligious of being hedonists and immoral, which is religious bigotry. The rest of us are saying that morality doesn't require religion, and are therefore obviously NOT opposed to morality. We're not the ones doing the gaslighting here, Nerm. That's YOU. You put forth a bigoted position, and are being called out for it.
Who here has proposed self-centeredness as an acceptable moral position? The nonbelievers haven't. Ender proposes empathy. I'll add reciprocity. Neither is self-centered. "I'd better do as the Bible (well, some parts, anyway) says to avoid punishment" is, ultimately, a self-centered moral philosophy. It's all about the consequences, real or imagined, to oneself, rather than the impact of one's actions on others.
Throughout human history religion has been more than some sort of pseudo-science to explain reality. Religions explain reality (and human nature) in terms of 'good' and 'evil'. Even with our exquisitely refined understanding of causality, it's still necessary to view reality in terms of the supernatural metrics of 'good' and 'evil'.
Morality is the basis for any religion. Establishing a universal morality for society creates the foundation for religion. Empathy as a moral stricture is a moral principle found in a variety of religions. Universal secular morality would be just as religious as anything found in other established religions. Expounding any sort of universal morality is religiosity.
How can a society without universal moral strictures be considered civilized? Those moral strictures must be described in supernatural terms of 'good' and 'evil'. The only way to avoid the constraints and restrictions of supernatural measures of 'good' and 'evil' is to become an uncivilized society. Even secular moral strictures would require the threat of punishment or exclusion to maintain a civilized society. Who in society will enforce those secular moral strictures?
Attempting to separate morality from religiosity is a spurious argument deliberately intended to mislead, misinform, and justify bigotry. And arguments that a self centered hedonistic morality can provide the basis for a civilized society is objectively false.
You seem to be making ill considered and self refuting arguments to justify bigotry against the Bible and Christians since that is what that you refer to. The moral strictures in the text of the Bible are also the basis for Judaism and Islam. So, banning the Bible from society requires banning the Torah and Koran, too. But that's not the focus of your prejudice, is it?
Some have been mere attempts to explain. Some have incorporated morality. In some, that morality is questionable, at best. Genocide, slavery, allowing the murder of one's slave, prohibitions on sexual activity while simultaneously condoning slavery for the purposes of sex. The Greek and Roman gods weren't all that concerned with morality, and in fact were often quite immoral themselves, even by the standards of those who worshipped them. Some of the best evidence that man creates gods.
Faith is the basis for any religion.
If this were true, all religions would promote the same morality. They do not.
And also NOT found in many religions.
Who has proposed such a thing? Nobody.
No, Nerm, not everybody needs to get their morals from fairy tales.
Insisting that morality requires religiosity is bigotry against nonbelievers.
How, exactly, can one be "bigoted" against a book, Nerm? An inanimate object?
Nobody has said the Bible should be banned. Straw man arguments are dishonest.
You've omitted pagan sacrifice, witchcraft, genital mutilation, cannibalism, collecting body parts as trophies, trial by combat, ritual killings, and a host of other practices made obsolete by today's religions. Pagan religions really did celebrate violence in a variety of forms. To the victor goes the spoils has been a moral principle in cultures on every continent except Antarctica. Indigenous tribal cultures and religions were not liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
But, by all means, ignore the span of human history to select episodes that feed a particular prejudice.
Genital mutilation is condoned by some of today's religions, Nerm.
But basically, you've just put forth a really good argument for why religion is unnecessary to morality, and indeed, can sometimes counter morality. You just want a pass for your religion when it does so.
Maybe so. What replaces religiosity, as you call it?
Logic and reason.
Adulthood, when grown up adults stop believing in magic, stop believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy...
When people are free to live their lives without superstitions and foolish fear of eternal punishment from Mommy or God!
The Renissance and The Enlightenment followed The Dark Ages centuries ago. We live in The Space Age. We have computers!
About time we stop believing in bullshit!
Who has authority to regulate fallacies? How does logic and reason avoid confusing correlation with causation? How does logic and reason avoid extrapolating the specific to the general and creating fairy tales in process?
IMO logic and reason do not include empathetic or sympathetic considerations. Logic and reason would invariably arrive at a conclusion that the 'good for the many outweigh the good for the few'; which has been a source of vocal opposition to religion. And there would still be a need to clarify the meaning of 'good' and 'evil'.
Aren't dreams and aspirations magical thinking? Pursuing what 'could be' while dismissing obvious obstacles requires a belief in magic.
We're being told that the Space Age is risking the extinction of humankind and killing the planet. But we're supposed to have faith that the magic of human intellect will save us.
Do you understand what a logical fallacy is? What is considered good or evil is subjective. Logic and reason helps keep things objective.
Logic and reason avoid confusing correlation and causation by way of logic and reason. It is illogical that increased consumption of ice cream causes increased numbers of drownings directly. Logic would lead one to conclude that the link is actually warm weather leading to an increase in both ice cream consumption and activities that put one at risk for drowning.
Dreams are a neurological function. No magic necessary. The human intellect, such as it is, is useful to find solutions problems. Magical and/or wishful thinking will not.
What does my understanding of logical fallacies have to do with determining who has authority to regulate logical fallacies? Since the implication is that I lack understanding then it follows I would be precluded from having authority. Would I have a vote in who should be allowed that authority? Even if I don't have a vote, I'm still required to accept and trust whoever does have the authority.
If what is considered good or evil is subjective then how will logic and reason overcome that subjectivity? You've already dismissed objectivity by claiming good and evil are subject. Logic and reason would invariably arrive at a conclusion the good for the many outweighs good for the few. Even (arbitrarily?) defining an objective good won't avoid that logical conclusion.
Using your reasoning arrives at a conclusion that warm weather causes an increase in drownings. Since we cannot control the weather wouldn't a logical response be that pools, water parks, and beaches should be closed during warm weather to protect lives?
Of course not.
Logic tells us that those who never learn to swim are more likely to drown if they accidentally enter deep water. And swimming is excellent exercise. We want people to swim.
It tells us that we need to remain vigilant to protect those in the water and provide safety measures - life guards, rip current warning, and...swimming lessons.
Who regulates spelling, grammar, syntax, sentence structure, ect.? Do you not accept any of those? You use logical fallacies, which only hurts your argument and credibility. It's that simple.
What is your point?
an open mind and an IQ above 80 points...
I wrote off the rantings of anyone long ago that has proclaimed sex is only meant for the purpose of procreation.
Sounds like somebody advocates for Christianity only. Universal morality?
Genital mutilation is not really about religion, it's more cultural. It's not just Muslims who practice it
Agreed. It's not commanded by religion, but it has become associated with religion, Islam in particular. Muhammed approved of it when asked, IIRC
Why not? Isn't closing pools, water parks, and beaches a logical response to prevent drownings associated with warm weather? Is the increase in drownings during warm weather not factual?
So, changing the premise and objective alters the reasoning. Now the source of the problem has been changed to swimmers instead of warm weather. Which makes the original premise moot. The fact that drownings increase during warm weather has been removed from the logic and reasoning to arrive at a different (more desirable?) conclusion. And that change in premise and objective wasn't the result of logic and reason but, rather, a change in beliefs and priorities.
How does this example and exercise in logic in reason demonstrate anything different than what you have called religiosity?
Aren't dictionaries compendiums of common usage of words and meanings? Dictionaries are a social construct that is subject to change by common usage. Dictionaries are influenced by a majority within a society and by cultural traditions within a society. As an example, dictionaries of American english are different than dictionaries of British english.
So, spelling, grammar, syntax, sentence structure, ect. are determined by usage of a majority and not by objective rules. Applying the same model to logic and reason indicates that fallacies would become a social construct determined according to common usage by a majority.
Garbage in, garbage out. Logic and reason are a process, a methodology, to evaluate a premise and arrive at a conclusion. The process cannot overcome biases in premise or preferences for a conclusion.
The objections to religions have not been about the process of logic and reason. The objections have been about the premise of religions. Logic and reason won't overcome the biases introduced in formulating a premise. And, as the objections reveal, it is possible to reverse the process of logic and reason to use a preferred conclusion to arrive at a desired premise.
Isn't 'we hold these truths to be self evident' a premise for universal morality? Even a completely secular morality must be universal to serve as a guide for a civilized society.
Is 'the right to choose' a premise for morality? The debate over 'the right to choose' has focused on right and wrong, good and evil. And the advocacy for 'the right choose' really has been based upon the idea that the good for the many outweighs the good for the few.
Yet that is not the case. Propositional logic, as with mathematics in general, is a formal system based on proven objective rules. Mathematics is not a result of consensus but rather a result of discovery and formal proof. The rules of arithmetic are not determined by majority rule.
Catalogued fallacies are based on propositional logic.
Yes, mathematics is a better analogy than language. But mathematical logic consists of operators to arrive at a Boolean result. The mathematical operators cannot overcome bad numerical input. The numerical input (the premise, by analogy) determines the numerical result. And the mathematical operators won't change the constraints of biased input or preferred result.
2+2=4 But that is only applicable to an input (a premise) of 2. A different premise of 3 would result in 3+2=5. If we prefer a result of 4 then the constraints of premise and preferred result forces the logic to operate as 3+1=4. The logic can be manipulated to provide a preferred result of 4 from three different premises (1, 2, 3).
The mathematical logic also allows 2+2 not 5. The result is objectively correct but not conclusive or informative.
So, logic won't overcome biases in input or preferences for result. If 3 is the chosen premise and 4 is the preferred result then the logic only allows 3+1=4 or 3+1 not 5. Biases in input and preferences for result controls the logic and not the other way around.
What utter bullshit Nerm ... deflection and Gish Gallop.
My point was that catalogued fallacies are based on propositional logic. They are not determined by majority rule.
Did you miss where I agreed with you that mathematics is a better analogy for comparison than language?
I was responding to an analogy comparing the authority over logic to authority over language. And I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning.
How can a proponent of logic and reason object to its application? Why would application of logic and reason be characterized as a Gish Gallop? Why isn't that the fallacious logic of appealing to authority?
My point was that catalogued fallacies are based on propositional logic. They are not determined by majority rule.
Your questions are irrelevant (and more obnoxious arguing for the sake of arguing).
And my point was that an authority over logic and fallacies that's the same as authority over language would mean that logic would be determined by majority rule. I applied reason to demonstrate why the comparison of authority was flawed. And I agreed with you that authority over mathematics is a better comparison than authority over language.
I'm not the one that compared the authority over the rules of logic to the social construct of language. I'm the one that used reason to point out flaws in that comparison. Why aren't you addressing your comment to the person that made the original comparison?
What you are (inadvertently?) demonstrating is that logic and reason won't overcome irrational prejudices. You are providing support for my 'Gish Gallop', as you characterized it. You are attempting to overwhelm my application of logic and reason with your appeal to the authority of objective correctness. But that objective correctness is neither conclusive or informative.
You are demonstrating logical irrationality. How is that different than the religiosity that is being objected to?
There is no authority over mathematics (and logic). These are formal systems that are based on provably correct (internally consistent) theorems founded on time-tested axioms.
I have no further patience for your incessant arguing for the sake of arguing.
No matter how many words you add your gobbledygook is still just gobbledygook...
Society is moving past old superstitions.
I have already agreed, no matter how often the assertion is reiterated in different forms.
But I've also shown that logic and reason doesn't address the objections to religiosity. Those objections to religiosity are based upon objections to premises and conclusions. Application of logic and reason to an objectionable premise will invariably provide an objectionable conclusion. The rules of logic do not exert control over biases in premise and won't avoid preferences in conclusions.
IMO the argument that logic and reason will address objections to religiosity is a red herring. The real issue concerns biases in establishing premise and preferences for a desired conclusion. The process and methodology of logic and reason can be used to support those biases and preferences.
Really? Isn't the concept of 'democracy' a superstition? Defending and protecting 'democracy' has been elevated to the status of a moral imperative. Yet nature (objective reality) does not provide support or justification for the concept of 'democracy'. Causality is certainly not democratic. Evolution is certainly not democratic. Survival of the fittest (or better adapted) is certainly not democratic.
I wonder if anyone is reading your bullshit at this point.
Who the fuck knows? That comment and the questions you ask are mere Abstract Bullshit Artistry! Do you have one cogent point you can make in a cogent manner?
Gobbledygook is singularly unimpressive.
The application of logic and reason only has merit when there is adulation?
The logic and reason of meme arguments ain't rational. Is that cogent enough?
Well then, I will take that as a definite no!
Well then, you've confirmed my assertion that meme logic ain't rational by your lack of thought or reason.
I already explained why not, Nerm.
That response only ignores the points made in the discussion to highlight your preference. If your mind is already made up then explanations only serve to disparage and diminish other points of view. How is that different than the religiosity that is being objected to?
How is 'logic says' any different than other religious declarations? Especially when the premise can be altered to fit the preferred conclusion?
“How is 'logic says' any different than other religious declarations?”
Well, nerm…the best advice my most logical and most devout grandmother passed along rings true always…less is more.
No! Or at the very least, simply dismissing it at this point.
my fellow black sheep of the family granny also gave me great advice when I was going thru my divorce 20 years ago. she told me if it flies, floats or fucks, you're probably better off renting...
You asked how logic determines whether a link is causative or correlative. I gave you the classic example. You moved on to closing pools, because you couldn't refute the example.
TiG is right. You're Gish galloping. Add in a few straw men and a buttload of non-sequiturs, and it becomes obvious why you eschew logic.
No, that is incorrect. I asked how logic and reason avoids confusing correlation with causation.
You presented a correlation between warm weather and increase in drownings. I applied logic to that correlation to arrive at a conclusion. The logic worked with a correlation.
You then changed the premise to those who never learn to swim are more likely to drown if they accidentally enter deep water. That's still a correlation that focuses on a narrow subset of swimmers. And you applied logic to arrive at a general conclusion from a narrow, specific premise. The logic still worked. Logic and reason are processes that cannot differentiate between correlation and causation.
The objective cause of drowning is asphyxiation due to submergence in water. Logic applied to that objective cause doesn't need to consider correlations with weather, skill, or even desirability of swimming.
That is a lie. I told you. You went sideways because I was right and took away senior citizens' water aerobics.
That is objectively untrue since I quoted both you and myself. The historical record is too recent to ignore or rewrite.
You even applied logic to a correlation between swimmer skills and drowning. So, logic and reason doesn't avoid confusing a correlation with causation by your own example.
Logic and reason work just fine with arbitrarily defined premises. The premise of any argument can be altered to allow logic and reason to arrive at a desired conclusion; especially when the premise is based upon correlations.
A moral imperative of 'greater good' will invariably favor the majority over the minority using logic and reason. That's why today's moral debates involve influencing a majority of the population so that greater numbers outweigh fewer numbers. Logic and reason have only become tools used to influence a majority.
Your patience is admirable. My own is depleted.
How do logic and reason maintain morality? They don't, no more than religion does.
Logic and reason according to Nerm is a one shot equation x+y=z, just as religious morals are same-same. But religion is static and the logic/reasoning side demands testing, data collection,more testing, repeat ad nauseum, change a condition, blah argel-bargle rinse, lather repeat.
Whereas the logician can change his explanation based on facts and data, the religious person has to accommodate new information by rationalizing old stories, often denying that the new information is true. This means that people think absurd things like the earth is 10 thousand years old.
I think that we do ourselves a great disservice when we look too closely at things like religion and try to achieve a level of granularity that is not there. Akin to Nerm's attempts at equating the mathematical and the theological, by attempting to see relationships where there are none is like holding a sheet of newsprint under a microscope: one sees something, but interpreting that something may give one wildly different interpretations that do not really mean anything.
Back up. Sit down. Take a deep breath and exhale. Jesus taught that we need to love everybody. Period. Not just the people who look like you or dress like you or are of the same social standing as you: Everyone. That is a big ask for everybody. It is hard. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. That ain't easy either, along with the forgiveness thing it is some of the hardest shit you can do.
Now, when we look at the younger generations and say that they are turning away from religions, it probably is not because the asks are so large but because they look at the revealed religions and see a vast array of hypocrisy made even worse by social media driven tribalism.
Peace and love are big sellers of religions. "Let's see how many people we can bash," feeds the tribal beast, but does nothing for whatever you may consider to be a soul.
Not what I asked.
See @8.1.48
As I've stated repeatedly, logic cannot overcome biases in premise or preferences for conclusions. BTW, I have not invoked any theology. Several have tried to claim I have but I'm not responsible for the voices in their heads being echoes. Ignoring what I've written to engage in Christianophobic prejudice is, frankly, dishonest.
My contention is that civilization requires morality to function in a civilized manner. The need for morality is why there is religion. Any religion provides moral authority. Even tribal shamans represented a moral authority.
Yes. But the mores of a society do not guarantee the society WILL function in a civilized manner. It may function in a manner IT considers civilized (per its mores & values) but some extra-societal perspectives will see things differently.
A religion's mores & values come from its authors (and funders) and their mores & values result from their societal upbringing (coupled with life experiences). Religions simply codify a particular set of mores & values and that set is not necessarily consistent. But, as I noted days ago, established religions will in turn influence the mores & values of the societies which embrace said religions.
Only for those who grant the religion authority over them.
Tell that to Copernicus or Newton or Einstein or Martin Luther or Gandhi.... the list goes on and on. Some people look at what is considered knowledge or place in a society and say "makes sense " and go about their lives. Some people have access to the same information and say "wait, I see something different." The people listed above and others like them have throughout history not done as you say and overcame the biases of both logician and clergy.
So the acceptance of rules at face value is what you are saying is important to civilization, not religion. The lines have been blurry on the role of religion in government for more than two centuries. The more that religion sticks it's head into government these days, the more ignorance and repression arise. Just look at the fundamentalist religious groups of today trying to wrest control to their way only. They are not interested in peace, they are all about conquest and "Do things my way" Look at Uganda or Afghanistan. There is no place for objective reasoning. It is all about control.
The founders of the USA had it right when they proscribed religion from government. Revealed religion is merely a dogma-house waiting to infect society with the fleas of false gods who only lust for power.
pass...
Well, there have been a number of distinct civilizations (and societies) throughout history. And there hasn't been uniformity in morality or religion. That historical perspective does tend to support the idea that morality is subjective at a societal level but that logical conclusion shouldn't be extrapolated to individuals.
That could be partially true, at best. Historians do not create history; they chronicle history. Authors of dictionaries do not create language; they chronicle common usage of language.
Mathematics is a better analogy for logic. But, IMO, language is a suitable analogy for moral premises and principles. The emergence of morality (and religion) is influenced by a collaborative progression of common usage.
Mayan, Ethiopian, and Tibetan civilizations may share certain moral premises and principles. But its difficult to claim those shared moral premises and principles are universal or coincidental without a more objective comparison. Humankind seems to have avoided that task.
Not the point. I have not suggested that there is any uniformity in morality or religion. In fact, I will state to you that there is a wide variety in both.
All one need do is open their eyes and observe the many varied societies and varied mores & values. Further, within a society, individuals evolve their own personal mores & values based on their upbringing (in their societies) and their personal experiences. Sound familiar?
Irrelevant. Tangent.
Yes
Yes, I certainly do not claim these would be universal. Societies influence each other so we will see shared mores & values in various cases. In addition, there are certain mores such as "do not kill children" that most human beings possess inherently through evolution.
Akhenaten, Diogenes, Aristotle, Socrates, Confucius, Christopher Columbus should be added to that list.
The long list highlights disruptions. But that ignores that adoption requires collaboration. A disruptive change in worldview requires a communal effort to achieve the shift. Which, to some extent, provides a possible explanation for why politicians try to assume a moral authority.
Einstein did not change physics. Einstein introduced a disruptive concept to physics. That disruptive concept only shifted physics through collaboration. And physics is a rather simplistic way of looking at reality compared to morality.
No, what I am saying is that moral premises and principles are the basis for religion. It's not a chicken and egg supposition. I contend that morality comes first; religion is an outgrowth of morality.
There had to be a Buddha before there was Buddhism. Buddha introduced a disruptive worldview. But Buddhism grew from a collaborative effort. Buddha did not create Buddhism. Society created Buddhism through common usage (similar to language). Buddha has been adopted as a moral authority but society created that morality through common usage.
I agree. History suggests that lawmakers are not very adept at acting as moral authority. The 'lust for power', as you state it, overwhelms the collaborative process of developing moral premises and principles. The moral authority in a society doesn't actually create the morality for a society. At best, a moral authority can only introduce a disruption. It's up to society to adopt or reject that disruption through common usage.
I supported your contention that "But the mores of a society do not guarantee the society WILL function in a civilized manner. It may function in a manner IT considers civilized (per its mores & values) but some extra-societal perspectives will see things differently."
So, what exactly is your gripe?
Again, I supported your contention. So, what exactly is your gripe?
A logical progression is an irrelevant tangent? How is logic supposed to work, in your view?
Doesn't that raise questions about the 'universal ideals' of the Enlightenment? Supposedly the thinkers of the Enlightenment outlined moral premises and principles that were considered universal. But those universal ideals were established by authority of an elite class. I am contending that collaborative social convention and common usage can establish universal ideals, too.
Is the concept of moral authority residing in the common masses a threatening concept?
If by that you mean that some common mores & values can evolve as a result of societal and individual experiences, then I agree.
Not to me, it is reality. Morality that we can observe in reality (versus philosophy) is subjective and varies per society (and, at a more precise level, per individual).
Lack of religion does not equate to hedonism, nor to lack of morality. That's a very religiously bigoted comment.
Ignoring history doesn't refute the importance of religion for tens of thousands of years before a bunch of slaves left Egypt.
Nobody said anything about history, Nerm. And yours is inaccurate, anyway. The Exodus is bullshit.
You said something about history, although you may not recognize it. History certainly indicates that humans have never lacked religion. Have you considered that religion was created by humans because of the need for morality?
Do you understand what the story of Exodus is about? There is a moral to the story. Exodus teaches that to not be a slave, it's necessary to become master of yourself.
Religion was created to explain the unknown and to control the masses.
There have likely always been humans who lacked religion. Being subject to religious bigotry, however, their stories were either not told, or were retold with them as the villains.
The Exodus is an attempt to paint one people as "God's people" and the victims of persecution going back millennia. Their successors took up the mantle, and see persecution in disagreement and pushback against their own religious bigotry.
I dont completely agree with that.
I think early religion was more of a "how did we get here?" response . We're here, the physical world is here. Why? Early people also thought about death, since it was so ever present for them. Was death the end? Is there something that exists outside of nature?
If religion focused on explanations, I might agree with you. But it jumped right to rules and killing for disobeying rules. That's all about control.
That's far too simplistic.
If you need the threat of hellfire in order to behave yourself how moral are you really?
You are detailing the 'explaining the unknown' part of my comment.
Because ... ?
... and a large segment of them either belonged to a church or were in the clergy.
xtianity has morphed into keeping the exploited from killing off the exploiters.
... same thing with those that feel the need to attend a meeting to be forgiven every week.
Development of stone tools took centuries and they are far simpler than a religion.
Hi. I'm Dave. I'm.....wait....
How does that change the motivating reasons for the development of religion?
Another factor in the 'explaining the unknown' aspect is comfort. Religions typically (as part of their explanations) provide comfort to people. For example, it is comforting to have a belief that there is an afterlife. Comfort is, IMO, one of the major draws for religions.
Moses did not need the Hebrew god to deliver the ten Commandments. The same rules were lifted straight out of Egypt...
It was copied off ancient Egyptian temples!
To honor our god/gods, our parents and the holy days and to not kill, steal, envy, cheat or lie. It wasn't exactly rocket science!
Religion explains reality in terms of 'good' and 'evil'. Religion is more than some sort of pseudo-science. And religious control over the masses is really about exerting control over 'good' and 'evil'.
A valid debate over what constitutes 'good' and 'evil' is beyond what I am pointing out. I am not advocating for any specific strictures concerning 'good' and 'evil'. My premise is that a society needs moral strictures to be civilized. And that need for societal moral strictures is why religion has been prominent in all of human history.
Science explains causality in terms of cause and effect. Religions explain morality in terms of 'good' and 'evil'. The two are not interchangeable.
It should not even be viewed as pseudo-science; religion fills in the unknowns with fiction.
It is political control. Good and evil are the props.
Societies evolve their own moralities. Religious morality originally reflected the mores of a society but nowadays religion does indeed influence the mores of societies.
Is someone arguing that they are interchangeable?
Difference between religion and science...
Things most likely started as a way to explain the world while people gathered into family groups, but all groups also need "rules". It's the very nature of groups that gives comfort. So a person joining a group with either seek out a group where the rules are reflective of their world perspective OR conform to the rules of group they decide to join.
I find the complexities of group dynamics fascinating.
As a Christian (Lutheran) myself, I don’t believe there is, or should be, anything inherent in Christianity that obliges the hostility we see toward LGBT+ people, or anyone else, for that matter. This obsession is based on prejudice, not the teachings of Jesus.
From our national bishop, Elizabeth Eaton, this year:
In our regional synod, and community church, we are all in. We have LGBT pastors. Our synod’s bishop is lesbian, and an amazing lady. We’re involved in pride events. In short, the LGBT community is our community, and we do whatever we can to let everyone know it.
We’re not unique, either. There are many hundreds of churches across the country doing the same things.
The Methodist church actually split over letting women become pastors.
As an ex-Lutheran and now atheist I agree entirely. These biases are not based on the teachings of Jesus. The rest is generations of political bias from the Council of Nicaea, the mis- interpretation of scripture in the King James version up thru to today's populist political Christian class.
Being Wiccan I follow the Wiccan Rede:
The bolded lines are of the upmost importance. Those lines for me describe "morality".
I have noticed an uptick in younger people seeking a nature based spirituality. I often get asked about it.
I'm reading a rather interesting article from the WaPo (it's behind a paywall) on religious homeschoolers who've rebelled against their fundamentalist upbring. Most were abused under the guise of religion. The most interesting part is when what was thought to be "inviolable dogma" is found to be false it sets off an identity crisis and all of their reality is up for grabs. Depression and feeling adrift leads to exploration of other sources of information and then their whole world opens up.
Raw story has that article up .
I've seen that happen quite a few times in my extended family. the strict religious upbringing totally repress these kids and as soon as they come of age and are out of sight of their parents, boom. like stepping off an escalator the first time. my kids have noticed it as well with their religious cousins. I can't tell you how many times my kids have thanked me for not forcing religion on them and letting them find their own peace within.
oh goody, it's street corner preacher season again. I've got my cooler filled with water balloons, a super soaker, and an unrinsed milk jug filled with tepid water. I'm talking about having some good clean fun this summer...
witness this shit while you testify, thumper...