To say the obvious: Post Dobbs, many states have imposed tighter restrictions on abortions, and this movement is religiously motivated. I fail to see how your response of “availability bias” refutes the notion that pregnant women seeking abortions in such states oftentimes cannot easily overcome these hurdles. If I am not mistaken, elsewhere you’ve claimed you don’t follow the news much. If true, how best to classify your weak rebuttal? “News-blackout bias”?
“Religiously motivated” is precisely what this movement is NOT, but abortionists know that they’re sunk if they admit that.
Messenger-shooting is vital to the pro-abortion camp. I have never, in my life, encountered a single abortionist who can allow that ANY abortion opponents genuinely believe that abortion is murder. Not one. As I am living proof that we DO exist, no abortionist is sincerely attempting to change my mind.
I don’t think that movement is religiously motivated at all. There’s a whole organization called Secular Pro-Life, and it’s not the only one of its kind. Maybe it’s the case that most pro-life people are religious, but I suspect these laws don’t say “God says not to kill babies in the womb.”
The graph is one data point supporting the claim that religious views motivate many evangelicals' opposition to abortion. A full empirical argument would, of course, require more data points, etc.
A fun question: let's say I was to post something similar (a singular study) about African Americans and violence (in the context of a discussion about race having a causal relationship to violence) , *and everything else stays the same as in this conversation* - would you have any issues with that?
And this proves what? That 7% of religiously unaffiliated people say that their religious views affect their views on abortion is the most interesting part of this link, to me anyway.
Well, it would be the most interesting part for you, wouldn't it? After all, it enables you to dimiss the 93% of anti-abortionists who are religious as irrelevant. If the figure were 0.01% it would still be the most interesting part for you, right? But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of anti-abortionists ARE religious, which in itself is an interesting fact and neither counts against nor towards the rights and wrongs of anti-abortionism.
It’s hard to take Caplan’s views on religion seriously after I read what he had to say about the discussion of the arguments for God in Huemer’s Knowledge, Reality, and Value. His opinions, in my view, revealed a deep dogmatism on par with that of young earth creationists. But what do I know? I’m just a silly Christian.
Are there any atheists whose views you do take seriously or is it just Bryan Caplan's views on religion that you can't take seriously? I'm asking because it's hard for most of us to take seriously views we disagree with.
I'm an atheist who is glad for all the religious people around and wish there were more. They are mostly my allies in matters cultural and political, tend to be good citizens and taxpayers, raise their kids well and generally don't want to mess with me. This in contrast to the adrift liberals looking to fill their "God shaped hole" with climate alarmism, identitarian politics and big government - not to mention the lower classes and less intelligent who simply turn to crime and idleness and porn and whatever in this cultural void. Very few people are smart and strong enough to jettison our long standing institutions and fill the vacancy properly.
This "god shaped hole" stuff is a very popular claim, but it seems far too convenient for me to dismiss the lack of evidence. "Faith is dumb, wokeism is dumb, therefore wokeism is a type of faith."
Religion is characterized by ritual - what rituals does wokeism possess? What about holy texts or figures? God(s)?
It strikes me that, while religious people largely live their own values, they are likely to stay out of one’s face about it. I suspect that is Dr. Caplan’s concern. I doubt he cares if someone believes something privately, he wants people to stay out of his face about it.
However, as mainstream religions have receded, wokeness nonsense has increased. It is in our face everyday: movies, protests, workplace seminar garbage, etc. Traditional religions are being replaced by the intersectionality religion.
To some of us the generally harmless nonsense of Christianity has been replaced by the very harmful nonsense of runaway leftist progressivism. Had we known that humanity appears to need nonsense in its life, we would have left Christianity well alone. But it's like asking a gardener to leave a benign weed in his garden so that a more virulent weed doesn't take root. The gardener yearns for a weed-free garden.
I don't know. We gardeners tend to agree what constitutes a pretty/useful thing and what constitutes a nuisance. It's not as though the categories flower/weed/herb are completely random.
Also, the cults of science, democracy, anti-russia, anti-china (the ease of making The Normies flip beliefs on this one offers great insight into how reality works).
Sorry about the kinds of religious people you have encountered; they are, unfortunately, pretty common.
That said, in my experience atheists are a bit more inclined to advertise their disagreement with religion than religious people are to advertise their disagreement with atheism.
Then there's the problem of government dominated by the predominant religion. The revenge being issued out of Israel is of course increasing the number of neighbors who hate Jews from a few percent to a hundred percent. That religion-government of Israel reacted to an attack the way any primitive tribe would react. The increased amount of hatred they created will last generations.
Revenge is so baked into human nature that religion and government can’t help but feel that way too. The invention of "revenge is mine sayeth the lord" was an attempt to stop the cycle of revenge upon revenge. But even that saying reveals that God is obedient to a higher authority; the universe, I guess. The universe demands of God (as well as mortals) that suffering of the innocent must be balanced by the suffering of the guilty. Instead of eliminating revenge, "revenge is mine sayeth the lord" makes revenge holy.
Everyone knows, that no one ever says. "Oh, I guess I deserve that." Yet no one thinks of that when they are hurt by someone. Why? Because revenge is holy; even God must obey the Universe. Atheists bypass the God thing, and obey the Universe directly about revenge.
There is one religion that doesn't care what the universe thinks, however. And because of that, it doesn't endorse revenge. It is the religion that recognizes that profit is everything and there's no profit in revenge.
We all live with the negative legacy of Christianity, prostelytizing or no. The base assumption that humans are bad at heart and need hostile external control is crushingly bad for society and is uniquely Euro-Christian.
Maybe, but then why is this attitude more pronounced among secular "Progressives" (Capitalism! racism! colonialism! Xophobism) than garden variety religious folk?
Wokeness has passed as the primary threat to the rational society. It's now the frog flag of the groypers that rises high, and the air hums with chants of "Christ is King".
It is high time for New Atheism to make a comeback.
The religion-symbols at the bottom of the post are all shown as if illuminated from over my right shoulder. What is the significance of that? Is it some subtle atheist arcana?
To say the obvious: Post Dobbs, many states have imposed tighter restrictions on abortions, and this movement is religiously motivated. I fail to see how your response of “availability bias” refutes the notion that pregnant women seeking abortions in such states oftentimes cannot easily overcome these hurdles. If I am not mistaken, elsewhere you’ve claimed you don’t follow the news much. If true, how best to classify your weak rebuttal? “News-blackout bias”?
“Religiously motivated” is precisely what this movement is NOT, but abortionists know that they’re sunk if they admit that.
Messenger-shooting is vital to the pro-abortion camp. I have never, in my life, encountered a single abortionist who can allow that ANY abortion opponents genuinely believe that abortion is murder. Not one. As I am living proof that we DO exist, no abortionist is sincerely attempting to change my mind.
I don’t think that movement is religiously motivated at all. There’s a whole organization called Secular Pro-Life, and it’s not the only one of its kind. Maybe it’s the case that most pro-life people are religious, but I suspect these laws don’t say “God says not to kill babies in the womb.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2022/05/PF_05.06.22_abortion.views_0_11.png
Would you mind revealing why you posted this link?
The graph is one data point supporting the claim that religious views motivate many evangelicals' opposition to abortion. A full empirical argument would, of course, require more data points, etc.
A fun question: let's say I was to post something similar (a singular study) about African Americans and violence (in the context of a discussion about race having a causal relationship to violence) , *and everything else stays the same as in this conversation* - would you have any issues with that?
And this proves what? That 7% of religiously unaffiliated people say that their religious views affect their views on abortion is the most interesting part of this link, to me anyway.
Well, it would be the most interesting part for you, wouldn't it? After all, it enables you to dimiss the 93% of anti-abortionists who are religious as irrelevant. If the figure were 0.01% it would still be the most interesting part for you, right? But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of anti-abortionists ARE religious, which in itself is an interesting fact and neither counts against nor towards the rights and wrongs of anti-abortionism.
Exactly what I though when I saw the post.
I think it's fascinating how the topic of religion seems to somehow disable people's ability to reason logically.
It’s hard to take Caplan’s views on religion seriously after I read what he had to say about the discussion of the arguments for God in Huemer’s Knowledge, Reality, and Value. His opinions, in my view, revealed a deep dogmatism on par with that of young earth creationists. But what do I know? I’m just a silly Christian.
Are there any atheists whose views you do take seriously or is it just Bryan Caplan's views on religion that you can't take seriously? I'm asking because it's hard for most of us to take seriously views we disagree with.
I'm an atheist who is glad for all the religious people around and wish there were more. They are mostly my allies in matters cultural and political, tend to be good citizens and taxpayers, raise their kids well and generally don't want to mess with me. This in contrast to the adrift liberals looking to fill their "God shaped hole" with climate alarmism, identitarian politics and big government - not to mention the lower classes and less intelligent who simply turn to crime and idleness and porn and whatever in this cultural void. Very few people are smart and strong enough to jettison our long standing institutions and fill the vacancy properly.
This "god shaped hole" stuff is a very popular claim, but it seems far too convenient for me to dismiss the lack of evidence. "Faith is dumb, wokeism is dumb, therefore wokeism is a type of faith."
Religion is characterized by ritual - what rituals does wokeism possess? What about holy texts or figures? God(s)?
It strikes me that, while religious people largely live their own values, they are likely to stay out of one’s face about it. I suspect that is Dr. Caplan’s concern. I doubt he cares if someone believes something privately, he wants people to stay out of his face about it.
However, as mainstream religions have receded, wokeness nonsense has increased. It is in our face everyday: movies, protests, workplace seminar garbage, etc. Traditional religions are being replaced by the intersectionality religion.
To some of us the generally harmless nonsense of Christianity has been replaced by the very harmful nonsense of runaway leftist progressivism. Had we known that humanity appears to need nonsense in its life, we would have left Christianity well alone. But it's like asking a gardener to leave a benign weed in his garden so that a more virulent weed doesn't take root. The gardener yearns for a weed-free garden.
One person's weed is another's herb.
I don't know. We gardeners tend to agree what constitutes a pretty/useful thing and what constitutes a nuisance. It's not as though the categories flower/weed/herb are completely random.
Also, the cults of science, democracy, anti-russia, anti-china (the ease of making The Normies flip beliefs on this one offers great insight into how reality works).
Sorry about the kinds of religious people you have encountered; they are, unfortunately, pretty common.
That said, in my experience atheists are a bit more inclined to advertise their disagreement with religion than religious people are to advertise their disagreement with atheism.
Then there's the problem of government dominated by the predominant religion. The revenge being issued out of Israel is of course increasing the number of neighbors who hate Jews from a few percent to a hundred percent. That religion-government of Israel reacted to an attack the way any primitive tribe would react. The increased amount of hatred they created will last generations.
Revenge is so baked into human nature that religion and government can’t help but feel that way too. The invention of "revenge is mine sayeth the lord" was an attempt to stop the cycle of revenge upon revenge. But even that saying reveals that God is obedient to a higher authority; the universe, I guess. The universe demands of God (as well as mortals) that suffering of the innocent must be balanced by the suffering of the guilty. Instead of eliminating revenge, "revenge is mine sayeth the lord" makes revenge holy.
Everyone knows, that no one ever says. "Oh, I guess I deserve that." Yet no one thinks of that when they are hurt by someone. Why? Because revenge is holy; even God must obey the Universe. Atheists bypass the God thing, and obey the Universe directly about revenge.
There is one religion that doesn't care what the universe thinks, however. And because of that, it doesn't endorse revenge. It is the religion that recognizes that profit is everything and there's no profit in revenge.
My guess is that a similar number of atheists in similar circumstances as Israel would have reacted to 10/7 similarly.
Lord, please save this excellent man's soul.
Don't worry. :)
We all live with the negative legacy of Christianity, prostelytizing or no. The base assumption that humans are bad at heart and need hostile external control is crushingly bad for society and is uniquely Euro-Christian.
Maybe, but then why is this attitude more pronounced among secular "Progressives" (Capitalism! racism! colonialism! Xophobism) than garden variety religious folk?
Wokeness has passed as the primary threat to the rational society. It's now the frog flag of the groypers that rises high, and the air hums with chants of "Christ is King".
It is high time for New Atheism to make a comeback.
The religion-symbols at the bottom of the post are all shown as if illuminated from over my right shoulder. What is the significance of that? Is it some subtle atheist arcana?
I think of religion as something of much greater power/use in situations like ... Gaza today.
For Gazans, I mean, mostly.
I feel the same way, although I suspect that moving from Ohio to California was a big part of the difference.