Yes, that's what I used to think liberalism was. It did rise for a little while, c. 1960-1980. But what's that got to do with the conservatives' downhill slide from Gerald Ford to Donald Trump? — Vera Mont

We started with me asking about "the inevitable devolution of events from 1963 to the present". I'm still curious about that.

conservative liberals is an oxymoron — Vera Mont

From Wikipedia:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law, and equality under the law.

In his defense Tyler wrote (in part):

For those who are posturing in a high and mighty stance of ostensible moral superiority, I would caution you against falling into the trap of modernism and the liberal watering down of truth. Your fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers would have been entirely sympathetic and supportive of the preservation of a white super majority in America. They would have been utterly hostile to the concept of the mass nonwhite immigration that has ensued over the past half century. They would have never acquiesced to the schemes of forced racial integration foisted upon the states by a usurpatious federal government. By capitulating on these and other related issues, you are dishonoring your fathers and mothers of old in a flagrant and treacherous violation of the 4th Commandment.In the fulness of time, God will surely hold you accountable for this violation of his sacred law. As Isaiah 5:20 states, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Wow, what a nutjob.

God don’t take kindly to the gays neither…

I don't know what that means. — Vera Mont

I asked my personal assistant to help explain…

Progressive liberalism and conservative liberalism are two different ideological perspectives within the broader spectrum of liberal political thought. While they share some common principles, they also have distinct differences. Here's a comparison and contrast of the two:

Progressive Liberalism:

• Role of Government: Progressive liberals generally believe in a more active and interventionist role for the government in addressing social and economic issues. They support government programs and regulations aimed at reducing income inequality, ensuring access to healthcare and education, and protecting the environment.
• Social Issues: Progressives tend to be more open to social change and social justice. They often advocate for civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and women's rights, and they are generally more accepting of multiculturalism and diversity.
• Economic Policy: Progressive liberals favor policies that address wealth inequality, such as progressive taxation, a higher minimum wage, and stronger labor protections. They may also support government ownership or control of certain industries, especially in healthcare and education.
• Environmental Policy: Progressive liberals tend to be strong advocates for environmental protection and may support regulations to combat climate change, promote renewable energy, and protect natural resources.
• Foreign Policy: Their foreign policy views can vary, but many progressives lean towards diplomacy, international cooperation, and humanitarian interventions rather than military force.

Conservative Liberalism:

• Role of Government: Conservative liberals, often referred to as classical liberals, believe in limited government intervention in the economy and individual freedoms. They generally advocate for a smaller government with a focus on protecting individual rights and liberties.
• Social Issues: Conservatives tend to be more cautious about social change and may be resistant to significant shifts in cultural norms or values. They often uphold traditional family values and may oppose policies like same-sex marriage or drug legalization.
• Economic Policy: Conservative liberals support free-market capitalism, deregulation, and lower taxes. They argue that a laissez-faire approach to the economy leads to greater prosperity and innovation.
• Environmental Policy: While conservative liberals may recognize the importance of environmental conservation, they are often skeptical of government regulations and prefer market-based solutions to environmental problems.
• Foreign Policy: Conservative liberals often advocate for a more restrained foreign policy, favoring non-interventionism and a focus on national sovereignty. They may be skeptical of international organizations and military interventions.

In summary, progressive liberalism tends to favor a more active government role in addressing social and economic issues, while conservative liberalism emphasizes limited government intervention, individual liberties, and free-market principles. These differences in ideology can lead to significant policy variations on issues such as healthcare, taxation, environmental protection, and social justice. It's important to note that within each of these broad categories, there is room for variation, and individuals may hold nuanced positions on different issues.

The rank-and-file are not interested in economics. Are not informed about economics. They're it it for the slogan. — Vera Mont

I guess what I’m thinking is that substantial economic pain can lead to civil war but a mere slogan only gets a guy wearing a pair of horns to force his way into the chambers of congress for a few hours.

Any far-right figurehead who assures them that they are important, valued, worthy of ruling the world the way they imagine they used to, will be followed. — Vera Mont

I read DeSantis’s book and in it he seems to paint a picture where pretty much everyone left of center is the elite, if only in attitude. Nonsensical populism that I doubt anyone actually buys.

Whether he wants a war - class, civil or foreign - is immaterial. It's going to happen, because that's the inevitable devolution of events from 1963 to the present. — Vera Mont

The rise of progressive liberalism? I think it would take more than a contrived ‘culture war’ to instigate an actual civil war.

The funny thing economically is that Bidenomics has been more successful in reviving the industrial sector than Trump was, so in a practical (rather than cultural) sense a large portion of Trump’s base should be supporting Biden.

:party:

I see Paul Auster won the prize in 2006.

Curious. There are conservative and liberal elements in the East and the West. Maybe it appears that Easter traditions are more liberal because you mostly see them from a Western perspective, where Westerners have freely adopted Eastern traditions, which is strongly indicative of a liberal bent. Cultural inculcation, on the other hand, would not be indicative of a liberal inclination.

In eastern religions A.I may have an influence but because of the focus on Tradition from Abrahamic religion would make it difficult to implement A.I into it. — Isaiasb

Eastern religions don’t focus on tradition? :chin:

With that said, there will be resistance to these developments. Entire swaths of the population, including individuals in high leaderships roles, will stop at nothing to prevent this from happening. As they are motivated by rather techno-pessimistic religions and/or worldviews. — Bret Bernhoft

On the contrary, individuals in high leaderships roles will jump on any opportunity to rope in the masses, and with the help of GAI it could be easier than ever before in history.

Release the Kraken! (to testify against co-conspirators)

An impressive army of therapists, wellbeing coaches, yoga instructors, self-help experts, entertainers, educators, entrepreneurs and other charitable souls is deployed to make sure that we don’t ever stumble upon the dark side of existence, let alone look the void in the face, as Cioran used to. This is problematic even when it comes to us through the mediation of art or literature. The great books that explore the abyss of the human soul (the mediocre ones never go there) now come with ‘trigger warnings’. Inhaling serious literature is apparently as dangerous as smoking. Granted, this sugarcoating industry has turned life in modern society into a highly artificial affair and largely a mockery, but most people don’t seem to mind. For mindlessness is another important dimension of modern life.

Reminds me of Fahrenheit 451.

My utopian world is a spin on Forbidden Planet. It’s a world with civilization so technologically advanced that all instrumentality has been made obsolete. They can create with mere thought. In Forbidden Planet 2.0 the inventors were wise enough to foresee the potential devastation of “monsters from the id” and circumvented the fate of the Krell. They achieved this by only allowing aesthetic thought and experience to activate the power of the machine, so FP 2.0 is sort of like living in a magical musical or Harry Potter + Schmigadoon!

Plus, you get to ride a dragon. — Vera Mont

That’s a definite plus.

If I recall correctly, Pern is a planet where floating acid stuff regularly rains down and must be burned up by dragon riders before it reaches the ground and destroys whatever it lands on.

Not the kind of place that I’d prefer to call home. :brow:

To be perfectly clear, Dawkins does not claim that "Science disproves God."

Wayfarer "paraphrased" him saying that, presumably to disparage Dawkins and others and make them appear irrational. Because that's how the moderators on this forum roll. :roll:

I haven't claimed that.

This is how that line appears in context:

Science undermines religion and the belief in God.

Science disproves God.

Do you guys actually think these two claims are the same? — praxis

I was addressing Wayfarer's misrepresentation of Dawkins and crew.

atheist entails that you actively believe that there is no God — ButyDude

The activity is continually thinking or vocalizing “I believe there is no God”? :snicker:

There are lots of good reasons to believe in God. Belief in God is necessary for moral realism and objective morality, and human dignity. — ButyDude

That is a very good reason to not believe because it inhibits moral developmental reasoning in followers and allows some rando religious authority to dictate what is moral and what is not.

It is extremely difficult to be a single, individual person and believe in God. — ButyDude

Should it be easy? Most worthwhile things in life are challenging. If following is easy then perhaps it is rather worthless.

The role of the Church is to organize the followers of God in prayer, community, and action. It is through organization only that great charities and Churches across the world provide food, clothing, shelter, vaccines, medicine, and even surgery, to the billions of people around the globe. — ButyDude

I don't think anything can be imposed on people en masse for long that does not satisfy, or appear to satisfy, some need they feel. — Janus

Clearly the need being fulfilled is not salvation so religion must be fulfilling other needs.

I'm assuming this only applies to Christian traditions. I don't know what 'deliverance from sin' means except as a tentative goal of the pious, subject to certain traditions and certain definitions of sin. The only person who knows if this is successful is the individual believer, I guess. — Tom Storm

Deliverance from sin and its consequences. I think the consequences of sin is basically suffering and that’s not unique to any tradition.

Imagine multiple traditions existing for thousands of years all dedicated to the goal of *salvation* but when asked whether they’ve succeeded the answer is “I don’t think so”. Possible explanations for this could be:

A) Salvation is really really hard.
B) People are really really stupid.
C) The goal of religion is not salvation.

If C is true that strongly indicates that most people don’t understand religion. Of course, it’s very difficult or perhaps even impossible to define what you don’t understand.

I’ll ask you the same question that I asked the thread starter (and they ignored). Do you know of anyone who religion has provided deliverance from sin and its consequences?

Yesterday Biden admin waives federal laws to allow border wall construction in Texas.

It would be hilarious if the Biden admin built 53 miles of new wall, one more mile than Trump.

It seems to me that the basic problem that WCS was trying to address is that most people, including both secular folks and people with a dynamic dialectic between cumulative tradition and individual faith, don't understand what religion is, and that quite naturally results in a hot mess of misunderstanding, which can result in a deep schism between the religious and the non-religious. The obvious solution is for people to better understand what religion is. I don't see how abandoning the concept of 'religion' will do that. Also, I don't think that people with cumulative tradition and individual faith are inclined to put their tradition and faith under a microscope. If religion is the 'opium of the people' that would be a total buzz kill.

I don't see how the concept of religion being new, Western, or somehow static, makes it invalid. Is any concept actually static? No, so why does he claim that it is? Maybe this suggests a reluctance to study and analyze cumulative tradition and faith because that might change our concept of it (and be a buzz kill).

In practise, most times when a people start a sentence with 'religion is...' what usually follows is a regurtitation of their inherited prejudices. Kind of an 'anti-dogma'. — Wayfarer

If cumulative tradition and individual faith were all good perhaps there wouldn't be such prejudices.

Religions are such a diverse set of cultural phenomena that it is arguable that the word really has no useful meaning. — Wayfarer

You have trouble recognizing religion? If so, that may be because you want to label something a religion that isn’t a religion, like secularism. Am I right?

Trump's criticisms of a Gold-Star Muslim family on national television is news to me and it is utterly disgusting.

Obama being presidential at that time:

Trump hired him, and he was Trump's longest-serving chief of staff, so I assume that John Kelly is a slime-ball too. It's characteristic of a slime-ball to turn on their master when it's safe to do so.

You seem to be confusing the reports.

No he didn’t. — NOS4A2

Well, uh... he in fact did...

Kelly set the record straight with on-the-record confirmation of a number of damning stories about statements Trump made behind closed doors attacking US service members and veterans, listing a number of objectionable comments Kelly witnessed Trump make firsthand.

“What can I add that has not already been said?” Kelly said, when asked if he wanted to weigh in on his former boss in light of recent comments made by other former Trump officials. “A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.

“A person who is not truthful regarding his position on the protection of unborn life, on women, on minorities, on evangelical Christians, on Jews, on working men and women,” Kelly continued. “A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.

“There is nothing more that can be said,” Kelly concluded. “God help us.”

And again, just out of curiosity, in what context is calling Americans who died in war "Losers" and "Suckers" okey dokey?

Before they spun it in the usual way, by removing context and inserting their own. “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’”, and people still believe it. Dupes passed it around in this very thread even after it was refuted.

Disgraceful propaganda. — NOS4A2

Yesterday John Kelly, the longest-serving White House chief of staff for Trump confirmed that it's true.

Just out of curiosity, in what context is calling Americans who died in war "Losers" and "Suckers" okay?

And humans don't actually love or hate as a matter of their own nature? — wonderer1

They do, according to old Darwinian ideas.

It's God, or the other guy that God created, putting on a puppet show?

The theory of constructed emotion is a theory in affective science proposed by Lisa Feldman Barrett to explain the experience and perception of emotion. The theory posits that instances of emotion are constructed predictively by the brain in the moment as needed. It draws from social construction, psychological construction, and neuroconstruction.

God is not the one doing the constructing in this theory, but it's regarded as just a theory so hopefully no one will cry scientism! :snicker:

Fundamentalists and both Dawkins and Dennett can't grasp romanticism? If you say so.

Many apologists would argue that love emanates from god's nature and our ability to feel it is evidence God in action in our lives. — Tom Storm

I wonder how they would explain the emotions that motivate killers when they commit murder. Surely that doesn't emanate from God's nature.

I think it's an interesting point. Can religion explain the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet?

He rarely says anything about it. — Wayfarer

Laughably, he did in the quote that you picked.

it is indisputable that this is what they both propogate — Wayfarer

Another lie. Of course it's disputable. For example, Dawkins doesn't refuse to consider other forms of knowledge, such as philosophical, ethical, or experiential, as valid or meaningful, and he doesn't ignore or downplay the qualitative, subjective, or personal aspects of human experience, which cannot always be easily studied using the scientific method. This is evident in the quote that you post where he says:

science can't in practice explain things like the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet — Richard Dawkins

As for your fit of pique, get over it. — Wayfarer

I'm insulted by your misrepresenting Dawkins and others???

it was a colloquial expression — Wayfarer

Just locker room talk, aye? Where have I heard that before? :roll:

You missed the point — Leontiskos

His point was that Richard Dawkins and others believe in scientism. An accusation that is often used to discredit atheists and falaciously invalidate their arguments.

Dawkins himself has clarified his position by stating that he does not consider himself a proponent of scientism. He has expressed the view that while science is an incredibly powerful and reliable method for understanding the natural world, there are also limits to what science can address. He acknowledges that there are philosophical, ethical, and metaphysical questions that may fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

"Science disproves God"

A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False

For Dawkins & co. the answer is "B". — Leontiskos

What does B mean? That science mostly disproves the existence of God? That is nonsensical.

If it means that science can undermine religious beliefs such as creation stories, that doesn't seem very indicative of belief in scientism.

Let's try this:

"Richard Dawkins believes in scientism"

A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False

A newcomer to Dawkins would come away with a more accurate understanding if they attended to Wayfarer's posts rather than your own. — Leontiskos

I just reviewed my posts and I've practically said nothing about him, other than what he's said himself. I haven't "paraphrased" anything he's said or misrepresented him.

uncharitable interpretation and the lack of effort to ascertain intended meaning — Leontiskos

:lol: Speaking of...

your quibble here amounts to, “No, Wayfarer, Dawkins does not believe that science provides a 7/7 certainty that God does not exist. He only believes that it provides a 6.9/7 certainty that God does not exist. How intellectually dishonest of you.” — Leontiskos

But thanks for agreeing that Wayfarer was exaggerating the truth, if only by 1.43%. Exaggeration is a misrepresentation. Why exaggerate and misrepresent if you have no agenda?

Again, valid paraphrasing should prioritize accuracy, objectivity, and a faithful representation of the source material's content and meaning.

It’s a valid paraphrase of what Dawkins and Dennett are on about. Not my problem if you can’t see it. — Wayfarer

If a paraphrase is deliberately biased or used to misrepresent the original content to serve a specific agenda, it is considered unethical and misleading. Valid paraphrasing should prioritize accuracy, objectivity, and a faithful representation of the source material's content and meaning.

Claiming that "science disproves God" is clearly indicative of belief in scientism. None of them say that however, so you are forced to exaggerate what they say to make it appear that they believe in scientism. Your "paraphrasing" shows bias and is misrepresentative. That makes it invalid.

It's dishonest for anyone to do this. For a moderator of a philosophy forum to do this can lead to the degeneration of the integrity of the forum, I fear.

He might not use the exact phrase — Wayfarer

I did a page search for "science disproves God" and nope, it's not in any of those quotes.

There are plenty of examples. — Wayfarer

There are no examples of him saying what you claim he says, that science disproves God.

throughout his popular writing career has held up science as an example of rational thinking and religion as no more than bigotry and superstion — Wayfarer

And he probably doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. What does that have to do with you saying that he claims that science disproves God?

He doesn't claim that science disproves God. Your saying he does is dishonest.
Your failure to admit the truth is also dishonest.

Everyone you are disagreeing with has provided sources, with quotes. You have provided neither. — Leontiskos

Except for the quote that addresses my complaint.

To quote myself (which includes me quoting Dawkins):

I could only find religious believers saying that Dawkins claims ‘science disproves God’. Dawkins himself says things like:

I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. — praxis

Do you believe that Wayfarer was merely paraphrasing and it was a happy coincidence that the paraphrasing supported his assertion so well?

For all I know Dawkins or Harris has made the claim that "science disproves God" and I just can't find it. Can you?

I think that I should first back up a bit and point out that atheists such as Harris don't go after fundamentalists because they're easy targets. From what I gather, he's concerned with fundamentalism because he generally considers it the most dangerous (think 9/11) form of theism.

It's interesting to contrast religious liberalism/fundamentalism and science/scientism in terms of power or weakness.

I think everyone can agree that science is valued for its explanatory and predictive power, that it provides a structured framework for identifying and solving problems, that it facilitates technological advancements, etc etc.

I'm not sure what value scientism has as a philosophical position though I think it can interfere with the practice of science by limiting exploration, slowing scientific progress and paradigm shifts, underestimating theory and subjective experience, and neglecting moral and social issues that may arise in science.

Science has power, or rather it has high value. It's unclear what value scientism may have, and it can have a negative impact on science, essentially weakening it.

Considering the power or weakness of religious liberalism and religious fundamentalism, it appears to be the case that the former is on the decline and the latter is on the rise, and the basic reason for that is because religious liberalism is weak tea compared to stricter forms of worship. Stricter worship offers a more potent and fulfilling experience, in other words.

That's why I think religious liberalism is weak compared to religious fundamentalism.

I shouldn't have brought him up — Wayfarer

You should be honest when bringing him up. It’s probably a good idea for the moderators of a philosophy forum to be intellectually honest.