Please explain. — Athena

I take it that your topic is the apparent turn against democratic values, and to that end you are asking about conservative Christianity. While not solely restricted to the USA, a resurgence of Christianity is not a major feature of the almost ubiquitous turn towards autocracy.

Democracy is underpinned by a liberal system of values. that system was distorted to individualism and greed in the Seventies, and has been exposed to oligarchic alternatives with the opening of trade and travel since then. Libertarian absurdities abound, community institutions are underfunded, the common wealth has been striped to feed private wealth.

That is, there is more going on than is to be seen in the rise of conservative Christianity in the US.

I think, in line with Banno's comments(whether or not he would agree), its probably a good idea to not conflate 'conservative', 'right-wing' and 'evangelical' or something other politically-Christian label.

Correlations are the bane of good analysis.

Is there a problem with God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason? — Athena

Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know — Ciceronianus

I am not disagreeing. However, doesn't this apply, even if to varying degrees to: Communists, Capitalists, Racial Supremacists, Certain groups of Academics and Scholars, etc. Note also that while historically, the same might not have applied to "Hinduism," but the Hinduism of Modi?

IT applies to anyone who thinks they have Morality figured out. You cannot reason with someone who bases their position on a free miracle at the beginning of their reasoning. Almost any ideology includes this free miracle.

You cannot reason with someone who bases their position on a free miracle at the beginning of their reasoning. — AmadeusD

I'm pretty sure I understand your point, but because I especially like this "free miracle," isolated as the common element, what would this free miracle be for institutions other than Abrahamic religions?

Capitalism is based on a 'free miracle' in reasoning, that profit is the (couched in their terms) objective goal of Business practices. From there, Capitalism is almost inarguably 'good'.

Similar for the inverse for Socialists etc... There's nothing that supports the idea that equal treatment is 'correct' or equal ownership or whatever. It's just the miracle they use to support the subsequent, hard-to-defeat arguments.

Morally, the premise that 'happiness' must be attained within a theory for it to be Plausible is a common refrain from moralists. It's one I find to be pretty question-begging.

Very nice! All of it. Thank you

But below especially, intriguing but I am not fully confident I understand: "within a theory"?

Morally, the premise that 'happiness' must be attained within a theory for it to be Plausible is a common refrain from moralists. It's one I find to be pretty question-begging. — AmadeusD

Yeah, that was badly worded - i'm at work.

I mean to say that, Parfit and others claim that any plausible Moral theory, must have, contained in it, an aim toward the happiness of sentient beings. I think this begs the question. They assume morality relates to the increasing happiness (and then, weirdly, reject S-theory and Hedonism...)

Ok!
Yes, I agree with you.

Look, I know this won't sound sincere, an inherent dysfunction in forum etc, but this information you've provided has been very helpful to me, augmenting. Thank you.

weirdly, reject S-theory and Hedonism...)
6m — AmadeusD

And, yes to the "weirdly" reject Hedonism. S-theory, I will look up.

Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know
— Ciceronianus

I am not disagreeing. However, doesn't this apply, even if to varying degrees to: Communists, Capitalists, Racial Supremacists, Certain groups of Academics and Scholars, etc. Note also that while historically, the same might not have applied to "Hinduism," but the Hinduism of Modi? — ENOAH

It would depend, I suppose, on whether they maintain that what they believe or know was revealed to them by something equivalent by to the one, true, all-knowing God who created the universe.

I agree with you but I don't know enough to organize that complexity in my head. I am also loath to give up the notion that this is related to education and a failure to understand the importance of culture and how it is transmitted. However, I want to know more.

What about the book "Immoderate Greatness> Why Civilizations Fall" Might this book be worth buying?

Book Overview
*Immoderate Greatness* explains how a civilization's very magnitude conspires against it to cause downfall. Civilizations are hard-wired for self-destruction. They travel an arc from initial success to terminal decay and ultimate collapse due to intrinsic, inescapable biophysical limits combined with an inexorable trend toward moral decay and practical failure. Because our own civilization is global, its collapse will also be global, as well as uniquely devastating owing to the immensity of its population, complexity, and consumption. To avoid the common fate of all past civilizations will require a radical change in our ethos-to wit, the deliberate renunciation of greatness-lest we precipitate a dark age in which the arts and adornments of civilization are partially or completely lost. This description may be from another edition of this product. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/immoderate-greatness-why-civilizations-fail/9180382/item/7370178/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pmax_high_vol_scarce_%2410_%2450&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwwr6wBhBcEiwAfMEQszmao1Nvr8VQL1R4emGu6cGu0hSDDjBWtbAQhuk2cgBNivMVNrFS6RoCo-MQAvD_BwE#idiq=7370178&edition=8527883

Democracy is underpinned by a liberal system of values. that system was distorted to individualism and greed in the Seventies, and has been exposed to oligarchic alternatives with the opening of trade and travel since then. Libertarian absurdities abound, community institutions are underfunded, the common wealth has been striped to feed private wealth. — Banno

I am reading and rereading what you said and that brings me to a second thought. Around 1835 Tocqueville wrote "Democracy in America" and he warned because of Christianity, Christian democraies would become despots.

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.[1]

Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace. — Wikipedia

"habits of the heart" come through education and the US replaced its liberal education with education for technology and left moral training to the church in 1958. The US added training for technology to education in 1917 for military and industrial reasons but it kept its education for citizenship as a priority until the 1958 National Defense Education Act.

Because of forum communication, this change seems to be universal, even in third-world countries. So the only question would be how might things have been different before leaving moral training to the Church? How has technology birthed a backlash against science? What might the New World Order have to do with destroying family order?

am not disagreeing. However, doesn't this apply, even if to varying degrees to: Communists, Capitalists, Racial Supremacists, Certain groups of Academics and Scholars, etc. Note also that while historically, the same might not have applied to "Hinduism," but the Hinduism of Modi? — ENOAH

I am out of time but want to say all this is very complex and it is my hope when have a good understanding of the complexity, we will gain power and avoid disaster. A lot is going on here beginning with evolution gave us some thinking power but enough to manage without a strong way to work together.

I don't know enough to organize that complexity in my head. — Athena

Your posts show this not to be the case.

There are well known problems with historicism. That civilisations collapse is a Western notion, an expectation that we must reenact the fall of Rome. The collapse of the British Empire was felt keenly in the decline of Great Britain. It did not bring with it social collapse in Australia, Canada, India, and Africa, these nations seeing it instead mostly as an opportunity. The end of the 'mercan hegemony will similarly have the greatest impact inside that nation.

Notice the contradiction in "Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace." Does soft despotism give the illusion of control or induce fear?

Sure, there were mistakes made in education, as there were in health, economics, International relations. None of these are determinative of the course of history.

Perhaps the problem is a turning against 'merca's own expression of liberal values. Or were they ever broadly understood?

Consider the words of H.L. Mencken "The Sage of Baltimore":

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Mencken was a great critic of American democracy, such as it was in his time, and still is. He was a prescient man, who also wrote:

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

if God was termed to speak through dreams, they would be, essentially, indistinguishable phenomena. — AmadeusD

If God speaks to someone at all, that person is presented with two different questions, was it God and what is this God trying to say. If you look only at the question was it God, no one will ever know, because no one can prove the separate existence of any phenomena.

But what if the only evidence there could be that it was God speaking was the content of what was said? Because of what God said, the person sees something new, something new to them. Then they might think, this dream couldn’t have come from me because I could not have understood that, yet I understand something new now because of what was said. Like because of what was said, because of what the dream did to you, you would bother to wonder if it was God, and so you had your evidence in the very content of whatever was making you wonder.

Doesn’t mean it might not still be a hallucination or just a dream, or a fantasy wish, but if what was said really meant something, and hit home to you, and it was new, you might have to wonder about God.

If God speaks to someone at all, that person is presented with two different questions, was it God and what is this God trying to say. — Fire Ologist

I suppose it depends on a person's conception of God, but it is unclear to me why God would have difficulty in articulating what he has to say.

Fair question. I maybe shouldn’t have said questions. Someone has a dream of God or sees a burning bush and hears a voice - that is one whole thing to talk about. Then the voice says something - those words are another whole thing to talk about. I’m saying the words might mean more to someone about these being words from God than the fact that a bush was burning and talking, or the fact that it happened in a dream.

I am out of time but want to say all this is very complex and it is my hope when have a good understanding of the complexity, we will gain power and avoid disaster. A lot is going on here beginning with evolution gave us some thinking power but enough to manage without a strong way to work together. — Athena

Sis, it is not an emergency. There are always enough competing selfish interests to balance things out.

I am currently watching Fareed Zakaria's Sunday program on CNN. During his "Fareed's Take" segment at the beginning of the show, Zakaria discusses religiosity and political events in the US and elsewhere.

It's worth checking out for people interested in this topic.

There are well known problems with historicism. That civilisations collapse is a Western notion, an expectation that we must reenact the fall of Rome. The collapse of the British Empire was felt keenly in the decline of Great Britain. It did not bring with it social collapse in Australia, Canada, India, and Africa, these nations seeing it instead mostly as an opportunity. The end of the 'mercan hegemony will similarly have the greatest impact inside that nation. — Banno

I think our economies are intertwined and the fall of the US would strongly impact other economies and possibly technological advancement as well. Which other country could maintain the satellites and earth studies? I expect China to become a technological leader but it is taking longer than I expected. Japan is very impressive but it is too small to have the economy for space projects. Again I am not confident of what I think but it sure is fun making the effort to think. What if the world united to save our planet and advance technology for the good of the whole world. :groan: That is not going to happen with religion or leaders like Trump because religion relies on a god not the potential of humanity. The religious still have not adjusted to reality of what we have done to feed the world, keep the young and old alive with medicine, improve life on earth with clean water and in-door plumbing, etc.. We have over come evils with science but the religious folks don't see it as what we have done with our desire and effort.

I am watching college lectures about the rise and fall of South American civilizations and they also lived with a prediction of doom. I am thinking, their expectation of doom caused their doom just as it could cause ours. Whoopy, we could be entering a world war and prove all the religious people right about the will of God is to destroy us just it destroyed Mayans and Aztecs who walked away from the great cities.

Notice the contradiction in "Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace." Does soft despotism give the illusion of control or induce fear?

Sure, there were mistakes made in education, as there were in health, economics, International relations. None of these are determinative of the course of history.

Perhaps the problem is a turning against 'merca's own expression of liberal values. Or were they ever broadly understood? — Banno

What a delicious question about despots!!! How do we organize ourselves so the Government can do what Government has to do? The answer may not be that easy. I kind of what to stick with the subject of the thread so I will point out that the organization problem was a big problem for the Church. The Church had to rely on kings to take care of worldly matters. In the competition for power and authority, some kings aligned themselves with the Church to legitimize their claim to power and authority. Then the Church loses the struggle for power and Protestants are broken up seats of power that in the US is no power at all without the blessing of the Government. :lol:

This gets even messier because when Franklin Roosevelt came to power he with the help of Hoover adopted the Prussian model that is Prussian military bureaucracy applied to the masses. This is a huge shift if power and authority away from the people, and the people in the US are clueless. They have no idea that this happened and the are virtually powerless because they are so ignorant of the bureaucratic change and what it has to do with them.

Hum, why would say education does not influence the flow of history? :gasp: How did you come to that notion?

“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” Aristotle

"Give us a child till he's 7 and we'll have him for life." a Jesuit

"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
Vladimir Lenin

Every nation prepares its young for life, just as tribal people did with storytelling and rituals. The word "civilize" means to make another one of us. In some ways, this is even more important in a nation dependent on technology. The US has forgotten what education has to do with being civilized and it may self-destruct as culture wars tear us apart. We began preparing our young to be products for industry. Immigrants who have not had this preparation are not of much value. For military and industrial reasons our children must be prepared as we are doing it but this is not the culture we once had that made us strong in wars.

Oh yes, our liberal values were understood, but the meaning was not shared. In different degrees none Whites were excluded from the benefits of our nation, and most White people saw discrimination and exploitation of the powerless their right. Oh, oh, oh, this has so much to do with the change in our bureaucratic order but now I put so many points into this thread it has lost its coherence. My grandmother walked away from a teaching job when the Principle interfered with her authority in the classroom and today we are seeing teachers, nurses, and doctors walk away from the corporate control of them. Today's reality is not the one I grew up with, where women accepted low pay or did things for no pay because they believed what they were doing was the right thing to do and very meaningful. Our liberty is tied to a sense of dignity and self-worth. We have destroyed that.

Doesn’t mean it might not still be a hallucination or just a dream, or a fantasy wish, but if what was said really meant something, and hit home to you, and it was new, you might have to wonder about God. — Fire Ologist

Reading these posts and thinking about them often is an enlightening experience. I am holding a new concept or get a deeper meaning of a concept and then wonder why it took me so long to realize it before. When we old we have a much broader perspective. We may have trouble learning facts, but our ability to understand meanings increases.

However, if Einstien were to speak to me about math concepts, I am quite sure I would not understand him. If God spoke to me, he would have to make it very simple. It worries me when someone thinks s/he can know the word of God and God's will. I don't think things work that way.

am currently watching Fareed Zakaria's Sunday program on CNN. During his "Fareed's Take" segment at the beginning of the show, Zakaria discusses religiosity and political events in the US and elsewhere.

It's worth checking out for people interested in this topic. — wonderer1

Thank you. He seems well-informed and pleasantly rational. He says it as it is without emotionalism. I think he is right up there with Walter Cronkite. :up:

Sis, it is not an emergency. There are always enough competing selfish interests to balance things out. — L'éléphant

Hum, I should never post when In a rush. My post was missing a lot of words. But to get back on subject, I don't think selfish interest are much good compared to having a good understanding of what is so and why.

"Unless we're motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there's no coherence," Kucinich

If God speaks to someone at all, that person is presented with two different questions, was it God and what is this God trying to say. If you look only at the question was it God, no one will ever know, because no one can prove the separate existence of any phenomena. — Fire Ologist

Why would it matter "what God had to say" if you aren't even sure it was God? Seems backward...

Then they might think, this dream couldn’t have come from me because I could not have understood that, yet I understand something new now because of what was said. — Fire Ologist

Yep, but they are almost certainly wrong.

if it was God, and so you had your evidence in the very content of whatever was making you wonder. — Fire Ologist

This is Akin to saying seeing a UFO could constitute evidence of a particular Alien race. That's kind of absurd, don't you think?

it was new, you might have to wonder about God. — Fire Ologist

I think if this is your reaction to novel forms of thought or conceptualisation, your first port of call might need to be a different kind of confidant than the Church.

Which other country could maintain the satellites and earth studies? — Athena

The US does not have a monopoly even here.

The decline of democracy in the US will have much less of an impact on us than you might suppose.

The United states likes to think of itself one of the strongest democracies. But it does not rank with Europe, Canada and Australia, as much as with India, Brazil and Indonesia.

Why would it matter "what God had to say" if you aren't even sure it was God? Seems backward... — AmadeusD

What if what was said was exactly what the person needed to hear and the person didn’t even know they needed to hear it? Like in the movie the Sixth Sense when the kid says grandma said “everyday” and the kid didn’t know yet what the meaning was and the mom wasn’t ever expecting an answer. The words become more important than how on earth the kid knew to say them.

No big deal here but I’m just saying that the content of the message might have more of an impact than the delivery in a burning bush or whatever.

What if what was said was exactly what the person needed to hear and the person didn’t even know they needed to hear it? — Fire Ologist

This doesn't seem to touch my question. I have often had this experience and never once even considered that it could be 'God'.
Defocalisation/derealisation/depersonalisation/drug use is a well-known tool for insight. Many people claim that they themselves are God, or that Eric Clapton is God, after undergoing such experiences as much as people receive genuinely helpful insight into their well-being or place in the world (or some such else as would be important to a given S). Simply spacing out having given you the impression of an omniscient all-pervading, personal force of Creation is... odd**.

The words become more important than how on earth the kid knew to say them. — Fire Ologist

I would hazard a guess that a religious person would think this, as communication with the dead isn't off the table (and, in fact, is somewhat sought after!). For a Hard Atheist, I cannot imagine giving a toss about the content more than that it had happened. The implications of the latter are immense in comparison to the first. I could also charge one who actually responded the way you seem to imply, as being perspectivally ignorant. The latter matters for everyone. The former only matters to you and yours.

But, this just speaks to biases.** The religious v the irreligious. Only cases such as Francis Collins give me pause here, and it is pause to consider what type of mental facilities are required for being a decent scientist. Gullibility seems to be involved..