An abstract God about which we can make nothing but moral claims, is compatible with natural law, civic nationalism and ethnonationalism.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-14 16:50:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812530039885267442
An abstract God about which we can make nothing but moral claims, is compatible with natural law, civic nationalism and ethnonationalism.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-14 16:50:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812530039885267442
Ethnonationalism and Civic Nationalism are the only alternatives to supernatural religions.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-14 16:34:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812526069708198398
If you claim god exists you shoulder that same blame.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-12 19:09:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811840244880408937
Reply addressees: @BishopJaxi
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811679724827213893
All,
Other than how Augustine contributed to history of ideas given the knowledge of his age, why are his ideas meaningful in the context of the knowledge that we have today?
We can thank many thinkers for their contributions, but how many of their methods and arguments are…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 12:44:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810293977880437147
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810125322450301280
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY ‘PHILOSOPHER”?
One would only read continental philosophy if one was not competent to read contemporary algorithmic logic, genetics, cognitive science, behavioral economics. Philosophy as a paradigm, as knowledge, and truth rather than just choice…
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1810125322450301280
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY
There is a case for what we call religion (institutions of the production of mindfulness by training moral intuition). There is a better case for a ‘post-supernatural’ religion closer to stoicism, which does achieve mindfulness but without the drawbacks of superstition and supernaturalism.
So historically, christianity has been optimum. Christianity is optimum only because it has been Germanized over the centuries, and instead of a semitic religious monopoly, christianity serves one point of the triangle of European trifunctionalism – meaning competition between elites and institutions of the military-state, cooperation-trade, and social-faith.
So the good in christianity is the odd combination of primitive semitic underclass myths, the long history of European philosophy, and the longer history of European traditional law of individual sovereignty. Europeans made Christianity compatible with aristocratic civilization despite it’s origin as a priestly slave religion in the middle east. And moreover, judaism, christianity, and then islam were revolts against indo European (European and Persian) military, political, economic, and cultural superiority.
In this sense, Christianity (was) the optimum existing religious system (set of moral intuitions) for the same reason European civilization out-innovated, out-governed, out-produced, and out-evolved all other civilizations in such a very short historical time frame, despite being a small population on the edge of the bronze age.
Why? Christianity made it possible for women, the underclass, and slaves to integrate into aristocratic European civilization’s demand for individual heroism as a responsibility by simply doing no wrong, and if possible doing some goods, despite not having strength, skill, education, family and clan productive assets, wealth, or political or military achievements.
Christianity has a very simple rule embodied in the character of Jesus: the elimination of hatred from the human heart, the extension of kinship love to all, forgiveness of petty human frailties until impossibly unrepentant, and a demand for personal acts of charity at personal cost – in exchange for the mindfulness of knowing you’re doing the right thing at all times; that negativity from others is to be forgiven, and that hardship is the cost of this mindfulness, and that ‘offering up’ those costs, and having confidence that ‘god’ loves you, does in fact produce a society in which produces the optimum human behavior whether nor not god exists.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @megs_io
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-07 22:16:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810075526016700416
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809742334428393797
“Many scientists hold religious beliefs or see ways for science and religion to coexist, challenging assumptions about widespread atheism in the scientific community.
Scientists are generally less religious than the general public:
A 2009 Pew Research Center survey found that 51% of scientists believe in some form of deity or higher power, compared to 95% of the American public.
33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
41% of scientists say they do not believe in God or a higher power, compared to only 4% of the general public.
Religious affiliation among scientists:
48% of scientists in the 2009 Pew survey said they have no religious affiliation, compared to 17% of the general public.
21% of scientists identified as Protestant and 10% as Catholic, much lower than the general population.
Only 4% of scientists identified as evangelical Protestant, compared to 28% of the general public.
Jews made up a larger proportion of scientists (8%) compared to the general population (2%).
There is variation in religiosity among scientists globally:
More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious.
In some places like Hong Kong and Taiwan, scientists were found to be more religious than the general population.
Views on science-religion relationship:
Only a minority of scientists in each country surveyed believed that science and religion are in conflict.
Many scientists expressed nuanced views, seeing ways that religion and science can coexist or even complement each other.”
Reply addressees: @meharmsen @RichardDawkins
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-02 14:58:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1808153162735304704
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807858219420901784
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@meharmsen @RichardDawkins Empirically false. The difference is practical, traditional, supernatural, and fundamentalist degrees of religiosity. There are plenty of (especially catholic) scientists. The difference is that their concept of religion is ‘wisdom literature’ and that god is a very abstract…
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1807858219420901784
you do the same by denying demonstrated evidence in favor of the un-demonstrable supernatural.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-01 23:58:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807926811721945196
Reply addressees: @thetruthisheah @meharmsen @RichardDawkins
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807898231684153378
Use Google Scholar or http://Perplexity.ai to search for papers on religiosity of scientists.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-01 19:43:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807862711318888667
Reply addressees: @Schwall_ins_All @meharmsen @RichardDawkins
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807861563375996979
RT @NoahRevoy: @creation247 – Highly patriarchal culture.
– Homogenous, ethnically, culturally, and religiously.
– They do not consume enem…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-01 19:30:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807859396405317780
Empirically false. The difference is practical, traditional, supernatural, and fundamentalist degrees of religiosity. There are plenty of (especially catholic) scientists. The difference is that their concept of religion is ‘wisdom literature’ and that god is a very abstract…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-01 19:26:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807858219420901784
Reply addressees: @meharmsen @RichardDawkins
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807857585178964102