as biological humans, the millennium have wired us for spirituality.
clans that believed in the same tree/rock/cloud/rain "god" outperformed clans with no common belief system.
over millennium, offspring have become wired to see spirituality in the world.
.
over a few hundred years, we've advanced so far in our scientific knowledge, that belief in spirit beings has been largely eroded. Fewer and fewer in Western society believe in a spirit god of any denomination.
Those that do, have landed largely in the conservative political parties.
those that don't, have landed largely to the Left.
.
but we're biologically still wired for it. Result: demagogic, dogmatic, illogical belief in humanism, communism, socialism, leftism.
.
this column asks "WHY WON'T THE DEMOCRATS BUDGE?"
the answer is: because they harbor largely irrational religious-style emotions about their politics.
.
you may try to argue a leftist out of their belief in transism or global warming.
you may try to argue a Christian out of their belief in Jesus Christ
You won't have any more luck trying to talk atheists out of their beliefs either. Glass houses, stones, etc.
I would recommend watching this very friendly and informal debate on YouTube. It's between Graham Oppy (one of the top-5 atheist philosophers) and Rob Kuhns (one of the top-5 Christian philosophers). Even if you don't know much cutting-edge philosophy (modal logic, necessary entities, etc.) it's pretty clear from the subtext that Kuhns has the upper hand, which is a fair reflection of where analytic philosophy of religion stands today.
Edit: just for fun, here is the simplest but probably the most powerful argument for the existence of a theistic God:
Contignent vs Necessary
--------------------------
We can divide truths into "necessary" and "contingent". Necessary truths are things like 2 + 2 = 4 given Peano arithmetic. It is not only true that 2 + 2 = 4, but cannot possibly be false. You would get a logical contradiction. By contrast, contingent truths are things like "I'm wearing a gray shirt." It is true, but it could be false.
Another way of thinking about it is that contingent truths could be different if we had time travel or travel to another dimension. I might be wearing a white shirt today. Harris could be president. Canada might have won the gold medal in hockey. The Roman Empire might not have existed. The Earth might be 1% bigger. Africa might have navigable waterways and protected ports. By contrast, there is no alternate dimension where 2 + 2 = 5 under Peano arithmetic.
Necessary Truths Exist
------------------------
Mathematicians and physicists, including atheists, overwhelmingly believe that mathematical truths have a mind independent existence. Atheist philosophers, who are trained to battle Christians, instead typically believe that mathematics is invented. But there are good reasons to believe that is simply wrong:
- Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. It holds that in any axiomatic system expressive enough to include arithmetic (e.g. Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions that cannot be proven. If math is invented, then how can there be true mathematical theorems that were never invented?
- Math is surprising. This is more intuitive, but math surprises people, particularly mathematicians. The Wright brothers weren't surprised by the shape of their plane. Ford wasn't surprised by the shape of the Model T. But mathematicians are constantly surprised by where mathematics leads. Statements like e^iπ + 1 = 0 are surprising. There are innumerable stories of mathematicians reduced to tears when they found this out. Or watch the Veritasium video on the Mandelbrot set. There are so many surprising interconnections in math.
- Math is a universal language. There is, more or less, only one math. Yes you can add or change axioms, but math ultimately leads you down essentially one path. So aliens would have essentially the same math as us. Which is why SETI and science fiction writers always rely on math to begin communication with aliens.
Math, and perhaps all necessary truths, have a mind-independent existence. It violates materialism/physicalism/naturalism - the belief that all things that exist are made up subatomic particles. Note that we are now in position to refute Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Argument". Math is far more complex than a Boeing 747, or the universe. E.g. There is a real number between 0 and 1 that is the computer code for everything that happens in our universe, and that will ever happen. So, pace Dawkins, complex things can simply exist without a creator.
If you want to get a handle on how God can exist, think about math. Math is infinite, complex and has a mind-independent existence.
The Contignent argument
--------------------------
Most contingent truths can be explained by some other contingent truth. The apple fell because of gravity. Harris lost because more people voted for Trump, etc. But this leads to a problem: how do you explain the first contingent truth? E.g. the Big Bang.
- you could have a circle of contingent truths. A caused B which caused C which caused A. But given that time is linear, that seems unlikely.
- you could have an infinite series of contingent truths. But this is a flagrant violation of Ockham's razor, speculative, and unfalsifiable.
- or you could simply deny that contingent truths need explanation, which amounts to rejecting science, because science is literally the study of causes of contingent events.
- or you could have a necessary truth as the source of all contingent truths. E.g. God. Some atheists (notably Oppy) do this but reject the idea that God is the cause, but instead some other type of necessary entity exists.
Excellent podcast! Here are some random followup thoughts:
The popularity of "Romantasy"
-------------------------------
This is under massively discussed. When creating art for a mass market (e.g. Star Wars),
white women create art where the white men are incompetent and constantly need to have their messes cleaned up by women. But "Romantasy" is basically 50 shades of Grey--BDSM porn for women. The standard trope is the tiny 4'11" heroine falling for the 900 year-old 7' tall "morally gray shadow daddy". Interestingly, these shadow daddies are overwhelmingly white men, but - and this is important - they are brunette. You can't have a blond morally grey shadow daddy. We need to get the postmodernists on this ASAP. It might actually be the first socially useful thing they've done.
The Enlightenment Was Conservative
---------------------------------------
Pamela Paul probably genuinely believes that the Enlightenment was lefty, but it wasn't. Both postmodernism, which gave us (trans)gender ideology and Critical Theory (which gave us DEI, Critical Race Theory, and open borders) are based on rejecting the Enlightenment as a form of oppression.
A good example is this: the Critical Theorist Herbert Marcuse argues in "Repressive Tolerance" that giving all viewpoints an equal voice, as the Enlightenment position on free speech does, is a form of oppression. Given the wealth and power of oppressors, open debate in the public square privileges oppressors over victims. Marcuse calls this "repressive tolerance" and instead favors what he calls "liberalizing tolerance" in which oppressors (read: anyone who disagrees) is banished from polite society and public debate (and, arguably, arrested). See also: cancel culture.
To forestall the obvious rebuttal: the Enlightenment was originally based on three important Protestant events in 17th century England: John Locke's Treatises on Government which created the modern concept of natural rights, Isaac Newton's Principia Mathmatica which showed the universe was rational and followed orderly laws, and the Glorious Revolution in which the Catholic King James II was bloodlessly deposed and replaced with the Protestants William and Mary. (Locke and Newton were devout Protestants). And these Protestant ideals themselves came from Christianity.
Do you want to know what conservatives are trying to conserve? It's the original spirit of the Enlightenment before it grew secular and started to create horrors like atheism and the Reign of Terror.
Anti-trans
-----------
Anti-trans is the correct framing. Let's get the rapists out of women's prisons immediately. Let's stop cutting off the breasts of teenage girls immediately. I'm sorry (not sorry) that this offends leftists and "inflames passions" to quote the end of the interview. The left gets their passions inflamed by Trump saying "I guess this means I've got to invite the women's team too". There is nothing you can do to make the left happy except kowtow to their most offensive desires.
“…the Democrats want to show that they are … the party of compassion. I think the challenge for them is to reframe this so that this is seen as compassionate, this is seen as science-based, it's evidence-based.”
“Compassionate,” while refusing to bring bills to the floor that would ensure health care coverage for those harmed by this abusive medical model; or ensure fairness, opportunity, honors, safety, and dignity for young women involved in sports; or protect incarcerated women from harassment, assault, and rape by male prisoners.
“Science-based” and “evidence-based,” while refusing to acknowledge the lack of credible evidence, as corroborated by every systematic review.
Despite your efforts, Ms. Paul, liberal media outlets have done the Dems no favors by keeping their constituents misinformed and on high alert. Listen to NPR and it’s full of blatant misinformation on this topic to the point of parody. The NYT might add the rare sentence suggesting that there is a left-leaning cohort that opposes this illiberal movement and its damaging medical interventions but reporting is still mired in the obfuscating language and the dictums of the ideology. Woe unto any candidate that suggests pulling back the curtain a bit.
Still, Democrats could have moved voters along with them. They have been offered off-ramp after off-ramp — the Cass Review, the WPATH Files, the HHS report, rising numbers of those who are managing adverse health effects and profound regret, and the ASPS/AMA statements, plus clear polling on sports — but Democratic lawmakers avert their eyes and speed by with few, if any, (quiet and often temporary) defectors. Getting off this road will only become more difficult as the harm becomes more obvious.
I agree with the basic premise. But I don’t think it’s the reason the D brand is in trouble. The D’s are seen as way too weak and that is entirely our fault and specifically that of imcomprehensively weak leadership
- Option A: lacking political and cultural power. That is obviously wrong.
- Option B: lacking character, fortitude, and an internal locus of control. This is more reasonable, and it might explain disgust reactions towards Democrats, but is not directly relevant.
- Option C: the Democrats are so freethinking that getting them to vote in agreement is like herding cats! By contrast, the hierarchical and authoritarian Republicans march in lockstep to their leaders. This is why we can't implement progressive policies!
I suspect you mean option C? The Democrats are attracted to this theory because it makes them seem virtuous, but look at how Seth Moultin was forced to kowtow to the trans lobby after stating that he was nervous about biological males in women's sports (discussed in the podcast).
Edit: And yes, I do think the orange man is just fine.
I’m pleased for you. I’m very old, a very long time ago in the middle,of,the civil rights era a friend commented that it is hard to find a middle,ground between people who want to vote and people,who want to shoot people,who want to,vote. Thanks for your comments.
The Jacobins felt equally righteous as they sent thousands to the guillotine, and the communists felt equally righteous as they sent millions to the gulags. Today, leftists in Europe feel equally righteous as they arrest thousands for conservative comments on social media.
Leftism has never been on the right side of history, and leftism had nothing to do with Civil Rights, which emerged from Modernism and Enlightenment ideals in the 1950s. The Democratic Party became ideologically captured by the New Left (AKA Critical Theory) in the late 60s and 70s, and except for a moderate lull in the 80s and 90s, the left has been on a steady downwards trajectory into authoritarianism.
as biological humans, the millennium have wired us for spirituality.
clans that believed in the same tree/rock/cloud/rain "god" outperformed clans with no common belief system.
over millennium, offspring have become wired to see spirituality in the world.
.
over a few hundred years, we've advanced so far in our scientific knowledge, that belief in spirit beings has been largely eroded. Fewer and fewer in Western society believe in a spirit god of any denomination.
Those that do, have landed largely in the conservative political parties.
those that don't, have landed largely to the Left.
.
but we're biologically still wired for it. Result: demagogic, dogmatic, illogical belief in humanism, communism, socialism, leftism.
.
this column asks "WHY WON'T THE DEMOCRATS BUDGE?"
the answer is: because they harbor largely irrational religious-style emotions about their politics.
.
you may try to argue a leftist out of their belief in transism or global warming.
you may try to argue a Christian out of their belief in Jesus Christ
you will be wasting your time on each effort.
.
You won't have any more luck trying to talk atheists out of their beliefs either. Glass houses, stones, etc.
I would recommend watching this very friendly and informal debate on YouTube. It's between Graham Oppy (one of the top-5 atheist philosophers) and Rob Kuhns (one of the top-5 Christian philosophers). Even if you don't know much cutting-edge philosophy (modal logic, necessary entities, etc.) it's pretty clear from the subtext that Kuhns has the upper hand, which is a fair reflection of where analytic philosophy of religion stands today.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw61T-zaeQ
Edit: just for fun, here is the simplest but probably the most powerful argument for the existence of a theistic God:
Contignent vs Necessary
--------------------------
We can divide truths into "necessary" and "contingent". Necessary truths are things like 2 + 2 = 4 given Peano arithmetic. It is not only true that 2 + 2 = 4, but cannot possibly be false. You would get a logical contradiction. By contrast, contingent truths are things like "I'm wearing a gray shirt." It is true, but it could be false.
Another way of thinking about it is that contingent truths could be different if we had time travel or travel to another dimension. I might be wearing a white shirt today. Harris could be president. Canada might have won the gold medal in hockey. The Roman Empire might not have existed. The Earth might be 1% bigger. Africa might have navigable waterways and protected ports. By contrast, there is no alternate dimension where 2 + 2 = 5 under Peano arithmetic.
Necessary Truths Exist
------------------------
Mathematicians and physicists, including atheists, overwhelmingly believe that mathematical truths have a mind independent existence. Atheist philosophers, who are trained to battle Christians, instead typically believe that mathematics is invented. But there are good reasons to believe that is simply wrong:
- Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. It holds that in any axiomatic system expressive enough to include arithmetic (e.g. Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions that cannot be proven. If math is invented, then how can there be true mathematical theorems that were never invented?
- Math is surprising. This is more intuitive, but math surprises people, particularly mathematicians. The Wright brothers weren't surprised by the shape of their plane. Ford wasn't surprised by the shape of the Model T. But mathematicians are constantly surprised by where mathematics leads. Statements like e^iπ + 1 = 0 are surprising. There are innumerable stories of mathematicians reduced to tears when they found this out. Or watch the Veritasium video on the Mandelbrot set. There are so many surprising interconnections in math.
- Math is a universal language. There is, more or less, only one math. Yes you can add or change axioms, but math ultimately leads you down essentially one path. So aliens would have essentially the same math as us. Which is why SETI and science fiction writers always rely on math to begin communication with aliens.
Math, and perhaps all necessary truths, have a mind-independent existence. It violates materialism/physicalism/naturalism - the belief that all things that exist are made up subatomic particles. Note that we are now in position to refute Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Argument". Math is far more complex than a Boeing 747, or the universe. E.g. There is a real number between 0 and 1 that is the computer code for everything that happens in our universe, and that will ever happen. So, pace Dawkins, complex things can simply exist without a creator.
If you want to get a handle on how God can exist, think about math. Math is infinite, complex and has a mind-independent existence.
The Contignent argument
--------------------------
Most contingent truths can be explained by some other contingent truth. The apple fell because of gravity. Harris lost because more people voted for Trump, etc. But this leads to a problem: how do you explain the first contingent truth? E.g. the Big Bang.
- you could have a circle of contingent truths. A caused B which caused C which caused A. But given that time is linear, that seems unlikely.
- you could have an infinite series of contingent truths. But this is a flagrant violation of Ockham's razor, speculative, and unfalsifiable.
- or you could simply deny that contingent truths need explanation, which amounts to rejecting science, because science is literally the study of causes of contingent events.
- or you could have a necessary truth as the source of all contingent truths. E.g. God. Some atheists (notably Oppy) do this but reject the idea that God is the cause, but instead some other type of necessary entity exists.
These are some very good points!
Excellent podcast! Here are some random followup thoughts:
The popularity of "Romantasy"
-------------------------------
This is under massively discussed. When creating art for a mass market (e.g. Star Wars),
white women create art where the white men are incompetent and constantly need to have their messes cleaned up by women. But "Romantasy" is basically 50 shades of Grey--BDSM porn for women. The standard trope is the tiny 4'11" heroine falling for the 900 year-old 7' tall "morally gray shadow daddy". Interestingly, these shadow daddies are overwhelmingly white men, but - and this is important - they are brunette. You can't have a blond morally grey shadow daddy. We need to get the postmodernists on this ASAP. It might actually be the first socially useful thing they've done.
The Enlightenment Was Conservative
---------------------------------------
Pamela Paul probably genuinely believes that the Enlightenment was lefty, but it wasn't. Both postmodernism, which gave us (trans)gender ideology and Critical Theory (which gave us DEI, Critical Race Theory, and open borders) are based on rejecting the Enlightenment as a form of oppression.
A good example is this: the Critical Theorist Herbert Marcuse argues in "Repressive Tolerance" that giving all viewpoints an equal voice, as the Enlightenment position on free speech does, is a form of oppression. Given the wealth and power of oppressors, open debate in the public square privileges oppressors over victims. Marcuse calls this "repressive tolerance" and instead favors what he calls "liberalizing tolerance" in which oppressors (read: anyone who disagrees) is banished from polite society and public debate (and, arguably, arrested). See also: cancel culture.
To forestall the obvious rebuttal: the Enlightenment was originally based on three important Protestant events in 17th century England: John Locke's Treatises on Government which created the modern concept of natural rights, Isaac Newton's Principia Mathmatica which showed the universe was rational and followed orderly laws, and the Glorious Revolution in which the Catholic King James II was bloodlessly deposed and replaced with the Protestants William and Mary. (Locke and Newton were devout Protestants). And these Protestant ideals themselves came from Christianity.
Do you want to know what conservatives are trying to conserve? It's the original spirit of the Enlightenment before it grew secular and started to create horrors like atheism and the Reign of Terror.
Anti-trans
-----------
Anti-trans is the correct framing. Let's get the rapists out of women's prisons immediately. Let's stop cutting off the breasts of teenage girls immediately. I'm sorry (not sorry) that this offends leftists and "inflames passions" to quote the end of the interview. The left gets their passions inflamed by Trump saying "I guess this means I've got to invite the women's team too". There is nothing you can do to make the left happy except kowtow to their most offensive desires.
“…the Democrats want to show that they are … the party of compassion. I think the challenge for them is to reframe this so that this is seen as compassionate, this is seen as science-based, it's evidence-based.”
“Compassionate,” while refusing to bring bills to the floor that would ensure health care coverage for those harmed by this abusive medical model; or ensure fairness, opportunity, honors, safety, and dignity for young women involved in sports; or protect incarcerated women from harassment, assault, and rape by male prisoners.
“Science-based” and “evidence-based,” while refusing to acknowledge the lack of credible evidence, as corroborated by every systematic review.
Despite your efforts, Ms. Paul, liberal media outlets have done the Dems no favors by keeping their constituents misinformed and on high alert. Listen to NPR and it’s full of blatant misinformation on this topic to the point of parody. The NYT might add the rare sentence suggesting that there is a left-leaning cohort that opposes this illiberal movement and its damaging medical interventions but reporting is still mired in the obfuscating language and the dictums of the ideology. Woe unto any candidate that suggests pulling back the curtain a bit.
Still, Democrats could have moved voters along with them. They have been offered off-ramp after off-ramp — the Cass Review, the WPATH Files, the HHS report, rising numbers of those who are managing adverse health effects and profound regret, and the ASPS/AMA statements, plus clear polling on sports — but Democratic lawmakers avert their eyes and speed by with few, if any, (quiet and often temporary) defectors. Getting off this road will only become more difficult as the harm becomes more obvious.
I agree with the basic premise. But I don’t think it’s the reason the D brand is in trouble. The D’s are seen as way too weak and that is entirely our fault and specifically that of imcomprehensively weak leadership
Weak? All your leaders make videos using the F bomb, wow, so strong! Plus you mobilize mobs with whistles and air horns, so strong!
I don’t think they are anywhere near strong enough. But my guess is that you think the orange guy and the regime are just fine. I don’t
Let's unpack "weak":
- Option A: lacking political and cultural power. That is obviously wrong.
- Option B: lacking character, fortitude, and an internal locus of control. This is more reasonable, and it might explain disgust reactions towards Democrats, but is not directly relevant.
- Option C: the Democrats are so freethinking that getting them to vote in agreement is like herding cats! By contrast, the hierarchical and authoritarian Republicans march in lockstep to their leaders. This is why we can't implement progressive policies!
I suspect you mean option C? The Democrats are attracted to this theory because it makes them seem virtuous, but look at how Seth Moultin was forced to kowtow to the trans lobby after stating that he was nervous about biological males in women's sports (discussed in the podcast).
Edit: And yes, I do think the orange man is just fine.
I’m pleased for you. I’m very old, a very long time ago in the middle,of,the civil rights era a friend commented that it is hard to find a middle,ground between people who want to vote and people,who want to shoot people,who want to,vote. Thanks for your comments.
The Jacobins felt equally righteous as they sent thousands to the guillotine, and the communists felt equally righteous as they sent millions to the gulags. Today, leftists in Europe feel equally righteous as they arrest thousands for conservative comments on social media.
Leftism has never been on the right side of history, and leftism had nothing to do with Civil Rights, which emerged from Modernism and Enlightenment ideals in the 1950s. The Democratic Party became ideologically captured by the New Left (AKA Critical Theory) in the late 60s and 70s, and except for a moderate lull in the 80s and 90s, the left has been on a steady downwards trajectory into authoritarianism.