Sunday, July 23, 2017

Donald Trump shows that democracy is working. Alas.

I must confess to indulging in a certain amount of schadenfreude watching Donald Trump squirm.  I have been an unwavering never-Trumper since before he announced he was running for president.  And yet I am mindful of the fact that nearly all of the predictions I have made about Trump's political fortunes have been wrong.  In fact, while researching links for this post I realized that I wrote almost the exact same opening statement a year and a half ago, back when I was smugly confident that Donald Trump and the Republican party would meet their collective downfall Real Soon Now.  I still believe -- or maybe "hope" is a more accurate characterization -- that they will meet their downfall, but I no longer believe it will be Real Soon Now, and I am certainly no longer smugly confident about it.

In science, when your predictions turn out to be wrong that means that your theory is wrong and you must reject it.  My theory, and that of many of my fellow liberals, has been that Donald Trump is plainly a lying, cheating, incompetent, narcissistic poseur, and it is only a matter of time before everyone comes to their senses and realizes this.  And yet this belief flies in the face of the facts: Trump's approval ratings have barely budged in three months, holding steady just under 40%.  Among Republicans, his approval rating is consistently above 80%.  None of the recent Russiagate revelations have made a dent.  The idea that Trump's popularity is plummeting and that he's going down Real Soon Now has about as much empirical support as the idea that Jesus is coming back Real Soon Now.

What liberals don't seem to realize about Trump supporters is the same thing that atheists don't seem to realize about religious people: the reason they believe the things they do is not because they are idiots, it's because they start with fundamentally different assumptions.  (BTW, that link is to an excellent analysis by George Lakoff which should be require reading for all liberals.)  To a liberal, Trump is clearly a corrupt liar trying desperately and not very effectively to cover up an obviously illegal and possibly treasonous collaboration with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.  How do we liberals know this?  Because it's the only theory consistent with the facts.  And how do we know what are the facts?  Because we read the news (though not, of course, Fox News, which is clearly a shill for the Republican party and hence full of lies).

But to a Trump suporter, the world looks very different: the fundamental ground truth is that liberals are conspiring to use government power to indoctrinate people into a secular (a.k.a. Godless) anti-capitalist worldview which undermines the Puritan work ethic that made America the Greatest Country on Earth (tm).  Liberals control both academia and the mainstream media, and so everything originating from either of those two sources is biased in service of this conspiracy and hence untrustworthy.  Fox News is the sole courageous holdout swimming against the liberal tide.

One of the reasons this worldview is so hard to dislodge is that it is actually correct.  There really is a vast left-wing conspiracy, except of course that we who are engaged in it don't think of it that way.  We liberals think of it as fighting for rationality and empirical truth, against superstition and religious demagoguery, for separation of church and state, for advancing the interests of women, minorities, and the economically disadvantaged.  But conservatives think of all this as fighting against God Himself, our Creator and hence the ultimate source of all that is good and just.  This is the reason, for example, that gay marriage is such a hot-button issue: it is clear that there is no rational argument that can be advanced against it.  It is equally clear that it is against God's will (and this, of course, is why we need God: because our reason can lead us astray).

The part of this that causes me the most cognitive dissonance is that when I put myself in the opposition's shoes I come to the realization that this is how democracy is supposed to work.  What if the shoe were on the other foot and I were in the numerical minority trying to swim against the demographic tide?  Would I not want there to be some mechanism by which I could advance my interests against those of the tyrannical majority?  If a political savior somehow arose who promised to Make America Rational again, would I not support that person in spite of the lies and smears that the opposition would inevitably level at him, especially if the alternative was total political defeat?  Might I not support that person even if some of those smears turned out to be actually true?  Could I resist the temptation to rationalize by saying that desperate times call for desperate measures, and that the ends justify the means?  If the alternative were to see the my country become a Christian theocracy?

Replace "Christian theocracy" with "Godless communist hellhole" and that paragraph could have been written by a conservative.

What keeps me from just being philosophical about this, unfortunately, is that I really do believe that we are on multiple roads to catastrophe.  I really do believe that Donald Trump is mentally unhinged, and that he could cause a Constitutional crisis, or even start a nuclear war out of spite, particularly if he's backed into a corner.  I really do believe that climate change is an existential threat to technological civilization, and that the window of opportunity to prevent this is closing rapidly (if it has not already closed).  (BTW, if you're still skeptical about this, you really should take a look at Randall Munroe's take on it.)

Ironically, Conservatives agree that we are on the road to disaster; our dispute is merely a quibble over details.  The disaster they foresee is a moral one, where we drift away from personal responsibility and become unable to function without bread and circuses provided by the nanny state.  We drift away from God and find ourselves unprepared to face His judgement when the rapture comes (which, of course, like climate change, is going to happen Real Soon Now).  They hold these beliefs with every bit as much passion and sincerity as I hold mine.

I wonder if this scares them as much as it scares me.  I'm guessing it does.

56 comments:

ash said...

"""I really do believe that climate change is an existential threat to technological civilization, and that the window of opportunity to prevent this is closing rapidly (if it has not already closed). (BTW, if you're still skeptical about this, you really should take a look at Randall Munroe's take on it.)"""

No, xkcd doesn't help:

1. It's just a comic sketch.
2. It doesn't go far enough. Major ice age cycle period is more than 100 thousand years. Randall's graph goes only to 20 thousand years back.
3. Randall's graph has a disclaimer: "Limits of this data: Short warming or cooling spikes might be “smoothed out” by these reconstructions but only if they’re small or brief enough."

Finally, even major "alarmist" like Michael Mann disagrees with NYMag article you've linked to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/doomsday-scenarios-are-as-harmful-as-climate-change-denial/2017/07/12/880ed002-6714-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html

More responses:

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/

I'm still skeptical, sorry.

Ron said...

@Ash:

> It's just a comic sketch.

That's true. But it is nonetheless an accurate summary of the data. Just because it's presented as a cartoon doesn't mean it's wrong.

> It doesn't go far enough. Major ice age cycle period is more than 100 thousand years. Randall's graph goes only to 20 thousand years back.

So what? Human civilization (which is what I care about) only goes back 5-10 thousand years. Munroe's graph covers the period of time during which human civilization arose. The fact that there may have been more dramatic climate change further in the past tells us nothing about how resilient civilization will be in the face of such changes. To the contrary, the fact that civilization did not arise until the climate stabilized is a strong indication that it is not very robust in the face of changing climate (which is to be expected, because the hallmark of civilization is building geographically fixed infrastructure like farms and cities).

> Randall's graph has a disclaimer: "Limits of this data: Short warming or cooling spikes might be “smoothed out” by these reconstructions but only if they’re small or brief enough."

Again, so what? What is there in the data that the graph omits that you think is relevant?

ash said...

Berkley Earth link has data only for the last 250 years. Randall's graph goes much further. I don't understand why you've posted this link.

I didn't claim that that graph omits any data. It's well done and transparent ("Limits of this data" quote). Randall even switches from dotted line to solid line when he goes from proxy to instrumental data. And that is the main problem with the graph. Proxy data resolution is on the 1000-years scale. Most of the recent temperate change would be smoothed out if we apply the same processing to the recent years (via).

Ron said...

> I don't understand why you've posted this link.

Sorry, I thought the BE dataset included the proxy data. My mistake.

> I didn't claim that that graph omits any data. It's well done and transparent

OK, then this is a moot point.

> Proxy data resolution is on the 1000-years scale.

That's not quite right. The resolution is better than that, but the uncertainty makes it so that *variability* can only be accurately reconstructed at 1000-2000 year time scales. But so what? Munroe's graph covers 20,000 years, so we can say with very high confidence that if there were large temperature excursions over that time period we would see them. Actually, there *were* large temperature excursions, and we *do* see them. But they were slow, and had mostly settled down by 9000 BCE when human civilization began to arise.

It is true that the graph would look different if you discarded data from the modern data set. It's true that you can't directly compare direct data with proxy data. But so what? It's tautological that if you discard data or add levels of indirection to your measurements that your results will change. But the conclusion does not change. Anchukaitis himself says so:

"Temperatures HAVE increase[d] rapidly over the industrial era, however, which we know from instrumental observations"

"Does any of this mean the planet isn't warming rapidly because of anthropogenic GHGs? No, it definitely is."

And from the NPR article you linked to:

"Still, at the end of the day, the conclusion about climate change is the same, Anchukaitis says: 'We are taking the planet into a fundamentally different state.'"

We have very good bounds on how fast the climate has changed in the past, and an even better bounds on atmospheric carbon concentrations. See e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

So despite the fact that we can't directly compare modern data with historical data (simply because the modern data is better) we *can* know with very high confidence that we are moving into climatologically uncharted territory.

Peter Donis said...

> I really do believe that climate change is an existential threat to technological civilization

We've had this argument before and I don't want to rehash it, but I would point out that in one previous discussion in a comment thread of yours on this point, you raised a concern that, IMO, is a much better basis for discussion with those who (like me) are skeptical of the claim as you state it above: even if climate change, by itself, is not an existential threat, because we could adapt to it, the process of adaptation itself could cause enough political upheaval to cause serious problems. That argument doesn't depend on the alarmist view of climate change being correct, only on the fact that any change causes political upheaval, and the greater the change the greater the upheaval--which is a much easier case to make to a skeptic.

Peter Donis said...

> an excellent analysis by George Lakoff

Unfortunately, Lakoff's article linked to a quote from his book, Moral Politics, which killed his argument for me, because I have read that book and my immediate reaction was that he has things backwards. The only two models of government he considers are the Strict Father (conservative) and the Nurturant Parent (liberal). He claims that the US was originally based on the Nurturant Parent model (that's the quote his article links to). This would have come as a huge surprise to the Founders, because their whole point was that *the government is not the parent*. Lakoff has the whole relationship between citizen and government backwards, at least as far as the US is concerned.

Luke said...

I'm curious; to what extent is that Lakoff article scientific? I'm curious about what in it has passed peer review, what the various responses to it have been, what it predicts, and whether those predictions have been corroborated or falsified.

I am also curious about whether the "liberals" that article references can be shown to teach their constituents how politics really works. That is, are they "nurturing" their constituents to fully participate in political life (not just cast votes)? Because if in fact democracy is merely a giant façade for the exercise of power by the few over the many, then "Nurturant Parent" would appear to be a propagandistic lie. In fact, the real purpose of the State would be to enforce crypto-"Strict Father" conditions.

Ron said...

> to what extent is that Lakoff article scientific?

I don't know because I don't have a copy of the book from which is it excerpted so I can't look at the references. But based on what I know I'd call it, at the very least, a plausible hypothesis worthy of discussion and further investigation.

Luke said...

Well, I'd certainly love to see whether the following is really being put into action—

>> Here are two statements you will almost certainly agree with if you’re a progressive:
>>
>> 1. In Lincoln’s words, the American government should be a government of, by and for the people.
>> (The Answers to Two Big Questions About Trump and the GOP That Keep Befuddling Progressives)

—or whether some nice things are being provided for those in need, while keeping the bulk of political power firmly in the hands of the few.

Web Guy said...

You've got the religion angle all wrong. From a theocratic perspective, both Clinton and Trump are exceedingly non-kosher. This was so obvious to the Mormons that they ran their own guy--knowing that he did not have a snowball's chance in hell--just to keep their hands clean!

If fundamentalism is at the foundation of your theory, that is probably why it is breaking. Don't beat yourself up about it though. You're a science guy. Religion is one of the usual suspects when you're a science guy.

As someone who is in the middle of Trump country, I'm going to throw these out there to see if it helps us reach a better theory. I personally know four categories of voter who are all-in Trump. Here are their motivations, none of which are theological:

Old people do not like change and are more fearful as a group. It sounds like a stereotype, but there is a lot of science behind it. Even if you were formerly a flower child, odds are that trannies, muslims, and tatooed hipsters are going to push all the wrong buttons when you're 65. Words cannot describe how tired I am of hearing dried-up assholes bitch about millenials, muslims, and "job stealing Mexicans". Clinton was endorsed by a "gay muslim communist", while Trump is more like them. Who are they going to vote for? Bernie would have done better with them on curmudgeon points alone.

People with money generally have a warped perspective on the ease of earning money, and strongly understate the effects of capital and relationships on success. Self-made or not, they are all self-made in their own minds. "Why won't those poors just stop whining and get a job?!"

They *really* hated Bernie Sanders, and saw his supporters as a bunch of latter-day communists out to steal their "hard-earned" cash, but I think they at least appreciated the fact he was out in the open about it. Hillary was just a variation on the theme to them, and a "crook". Flaming communists we can handle. Crypto-communists... not so much.

Full-disclosure: I think if you take any money from Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an elected office, regulatory agency, children, or decent human beings. I believe the Amish call this "shunning," but I'm not sure.

Alt-right young college-educated males of the ethnicites that get points deducted instead of points added. The Milo watchers. The Damore lovers. The Peterson followers. Pure reaction to the diversity crew. Many were teenage gamers when Sarkeesian crashed their party. They *really* do not like the SJWs. I would worry the most about this demographic going forward. Why? A) their reaction is literally being baked-into their brains (due to their youth), and B) is so strong that they are re-opening all of the old Francis Galton stuff that the Holocaust (temporarily) put a lid on.

MOST IMPORTANT GROUP CONTINUED IN NEXT COMMENT...

Web Guy said...

Last, but most importantly, the red-state proletariat wants the world to conform to the clear-cut boundaries and value-systems they have been indoctrinated with by movies, television, grade school, advertisements, and pop-music (none of which are remotely religious). Needless to say, this makes life hard. This is the demographic DJT plays to the hardest with his public shenanigans.

If you are a liberal, this is the group you need to build a bridge to, and you need to do it fast.

A few vignettes:

In the land of the open road, the personal odds are rather high for vehicular death and disfigurement, but do they fear cars? Hell no! They fear Muslims and dirty bombs because of all the horseshit on TV like "24", "NCIS", and "Blacklist". But liberal showbiz people live in an unreality where you *can* have your cake and eat it too, so there will continue to be horseshit-a-plenty for the rest of us.

Or what about gays and transgenders? WTF?! Everyone knows love is supposed to be about a boy, a girl, and a truck. Women are liberated now, so it *could* be her truck. On the bright side Willie made a gay song a few years back, and porn has saturated the entire western world, so next gen will probably be cool with alternative sexualities. I've got a country-western tranny-love song locked-and-loaded, so watch out Blake Shelton!

They are constantly lectured by the media about global warming while their entire livelyhoods are intertwined with gasoline and diesel powered engines. The media elite is really bad about this. It's like, "You're a trucker, but we have global warming, so you need to go along with this carbon credits thing we're proposing--even though we don't understand it ourselves--and add even more risk and uncertainty to your already tenuous existence. Hey, it's not my fault you aren't pretty and didn't go to Columbia so you can make several mil a year reading a teleprompter!"

I hope this helps. When I share this stuff with most liberal friends, they just get pissed at me, but you seem like a smart guy who can run with it.

Ron said...

@Web Guy:

> From a theocratic perspective, both Clinton and Trump are exceedingly non-kosher.

That is obviously true from the point of view of any rational person. But the fact remains that self-identified evangelical Christians overwhelmingly supported Trump, and still overwhelmingly support him even today.

But I think the rest of your analysis is dead-nuts on target.

Web Guy said...

That is probably social desirability bias mixed with muddled terminology on behalf of the respondents.

If you are only vaguely familiar with Christianity, and you don't really adhere to *any* of its (greatly reduced) requirements in a coherent way, are you really a Christian?

I think this is a case of last generation's secular indoctrination outliving its usefulness. The left confuses this with Christian fundamentalism and sets their sights on the wrong target. I'll concede that we're still in the realm of religion, but it's not the one with Moses and Jesus.

Ron said...

> If you are only vaguely familiar with Christianity, and you don't really adhere to *any* of its (greatly reduced) requirements in a coherent way, are you really a Christian?

I don't like to quibble over terminology. If someone tells me they're a Christian, I take them at their word. That's why I usually make it a point to qualify with "self-identified". In fact, I do this so often that I will sometimes just abbreviate it to SI-Christians.

If you want to argue that there is a lot of hypocrisy among SI-Christians, I will not dispute you.

Web Guy said...

What I'm getting at, which I may not have expressed very well--or at all--is that you can pull just as many left-wing arguments from the bible as right-wing ones. People who can quote chapter and verse, of which there are many, are very much in play.

When our side lumps these diverse perspectives into the same expression and dismisses them, we become philosophically inbred and failure-prone.

Ron said...

> you can pull just as many left-wing arguments from the bible as right-wing ones

Yes, of course. What did I say that made you think I would disagree with that?

I guess I'm confused now about what you meant when you wrote, "You've got the religion angle all wrong."

Web Guy said...

In the middle of the post you attribute a lot of the right wing perspective to God and religion. My contention is that as religious as the verbiage may seem, the underlying thoughts and feelings are anything but.

Ron said...

> In the middle of the post you attribute a lot of the right wing perspective to God and religion.

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I was drawing an analogy between how Trump supporters are being *misunderstood* by the left, and how religious people are often misunderstood by the secular community, particularly hard-core atheists. I don't think I ever said that religion per se plays a large role in Trump's support. It is true, as I said, that evangelicals overwhelmingly support Trump, but I think that has a lot more to do with misogyny and homophobia than it does with Jesus.

Web Guy said...

My reading comprehension is A-OK here. Just re-read your last paragraph. You're casting a lot of their outlook in a religious light. Moral disaster, His judgement, rapture...

That might have been the case in another place and another time, but from where I'm sitting, in 2017, those things are largely non-issues to the people who put DJT in office.

Luke said...

@Ron:

> It is true, as I said, that evangelicals overwhelmingly support Trump, but I think that has a lot more to do with misogyny and homophobia than it does with Jesus.

Do you have scientific support for that? What I'm primarily thinking is a source other than the news media, which I think we both know cares more about maximizing profits than representatively sampling. For example, you could consult Arlie Russell Hochschild, a UC Berkeley sociologist who wrote Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. One of her results is exactly what you portrayed strongly when you role-played a fundamentalist over dinner with me: they want to be able to hold down respectable jobs which allows them to feel like they're doing something productive while bringing home the bacon.

Ron said...

> > It is true, as I said, that evangelicals overwhelmingly support Trump, but I think that has a lot more to do with misogyny and homophobia than it does with Jesus.

> Do you have scientific support for that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/my-pain-is-everyday-after-weinsteins-fall-trump-accusers-wonder-why-not-him/2017/10/21/bce67720-b585-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html

http://blog.rongarret.info/2017/07/the-definition-of-dishonorable.html

Luke said...

Are you saying that if evangelicals had not been misogynistic, they would have condemned Trump, end of story?

Your second link applies to transphobia, not homophobia. I'm not aware of Trump promoting either on his campaign trail, nor am I aware of either being a major reason people continue to support him. That noise was generated on Twitter seems hardly scientific.

But perhaps I misunderstood; you merely suggested that Jesus plays less of a reason that misogyny and homophobia; it could easily be that Jesus is 1% of the reason and misogyny and homophobia each 2% of the reason. I'm not sure if you meant your original comment to allow for that.

Ron said...

> Your second link applies to transphobia, not homophobia

These two are not unrelated, and IMHO transphobia is every bit as reprehensible as homophobia. But there's no shortage of data points here:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/06/sessions-issues-blatant-license-discriminate-religious-freedom-memo

> it could easily be that Jesus is 1% of the reason and misogyny and homophobia each 2% of the reason. I'm not sure if you meant your original comment to allow for that.

Yes, but I think the gap is much wider than that (though it's a little unclear exactly how you'd go about measuring such things). But it seems pretty clear to me that Donald Trump is not exactly a shining example of how to be a good Christian. Central to Christian doctrine is humility, love for your fellow man, and admitting that you're a sinner. Donald Trump is the absolute antithesis of that ideal.

Web Guy said...

Most religious people are either going to vote Republican or stay home, just like most black people are either going to vote Democratic or stay home. They're safe votes. We typically don't blame either group for putting a candidate over-the-top. Safe votes get neglected. That's why the pop culture is Godless, and a bunch of black guys have been killed, beat-up, or put in jail for minor offenses.

The *real* reason, as far as I'm concerned, DJT is in office is the completely justified anger and distress of all the townies in flyover country over being screwed by investment bank predations, pharmaceutical companies (opioid crisis), globalization/offshoring, endless war, etc.

Many Democrats will say, "We're against those things!", but that't not really true. Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall in 99. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have practically been a fourth unelected branch of government through two Democratic administrations and one Republican one. Obamacare threw money at healthcare and pharma when we really needed something to bring it back into reality. W did the same thing with the medicare prescription drug benefit and the crackdown on import pharmacies. Both parties sing the Hallelujah chorus on exporting all of the low-skill jobs to Chinese slave shops. Both parties have been 100% cool with killing foreigners for no apparent reason.

If you're Joe six-pack in the rust-belt, this stuff is grinding your nuts into paste: Lost your house in the subprime crisis, can't find a job, your diabetes meds are $400 a month, one kid got killed in Afghanistan, the other is on oxycontin, etc, etc... Silicon valley is also screwing them over, but only indirectly, so it's not in their crosshairs yet. (Boss man is paying $35k / mo to Google to keep the business going instead of $5k / mo to AT&T like in the old days, and shit flows downhill, so...)

DJT swooped in and dusted off all of the old Pat Buchanan America-first stuff, these people bought it hook-line-and-sinker, and they voted for him. I think that was a mistake, but I see why they did it.

This is why I believe religion, real or "so-called", was a non-issue as far as the election went.

Luke said...

@Ron:

Your latest link is a lot more compelling; thanks. But you didn't answer my opening question:

> Luke: Are you saying that if evangelicals had not been misogynistic, they would have condemned Trump, end of story?

My point was that Evangelicals were not choosing between Trump and a saint—this wasn't like the mob deciding whether to free Barabbas or Jesus. As far as I can tell, many were absolutely disgusted at the choices on offer. Your words, on the other hand, make it seem like they're happy to have Trump, as if he were the President they imagined before Trump made any noises about running. That seems unwarranted.

> But it seems pretty clear to me that Donald Trump is not exactly a shining example of how to be a good Christian.

I wager that a majority of Evangelicals would agree with you. Do you think Hillary is a better example of how to be a good Christian?

@Web Guy:

Reaction to globalism is certainly a big part in the support for Trump, but I'd be wary of doing too much reduction to pure economics. People like to feel righteous, not just well-fed. Whether the glue binding them together has much in common with what has historically been understood as 'Christianity' is definitely worthy of debate. But I claim the glue will have aspects often associated with the word 'religion'—regardless of whether deity is involved.

Ron said...

@Luke:

> Are you saying that if evangelicals had not been misogynistic, they would have condemned Trump, end of story?

Hypotheticals are impossible to answer with certainty. But yes, it is hard for me to imagine how a non-misogynist could support a candidate who brags about sexually assaulting women.

> Your words, on the other hand, make it seem like they're happy to have Trump, as if he were the President they imagined before Trump made any noises about running.

Perhaps not. But I think Mike Pence probably fits that description.

> Do you think Hillary is a better example of how to be a good Christian?

Better than Trump? Yes, absolutely. In fact, I don't think you need to set the bar anywhere near that low for Hillary to do well on that score. Hillary dedicated pretty much her entire life to public service, and I believe she did it out of a sincere desire to help others. She was also willing to admit when she made a mistake. Her behavior is about as close to what Jesus asked of us as you're likely to find in American politics.

Luke said...

@Ron:

> Hypotheticals are impossible to answer with certainty. But yes, it is hard for me to imagine how a non-misogynist could support a candidate who brags about sexually assaulting women.

Are you saying that one should be a single-issue voter on this issue? That is, Hillary couldn't be anywhere near as terrible (e.g. her connections with Wall Street, her attempts to downplay claims that Bill had sexually assaulted, failure to reach out to what used to be a core Democratic constituency)?

It might be helpful to note that people in power have often been terrible in this domain—JFK springs to mind. To support Trump could be viewed as endorsement of that terrible, or it could be to acknowledge that reality is woefully imperfect and focus elsewhere.

> Hillary dedicated pretty much her entire life to public service, and I believe she did it out of a sincere desire to help others.

Her speeches on Wall Street do nothing to qualify this? Hillary made out remarkably well for being dedicated to just helping people.

> She was also willing to admit when she made a mistake.

So if we look at the email server thing, it took her something like 18 months to really apologize, and that was because Republicans pounded her on it constantly. Do you think that's the exception—that she usually apologizes more quickly? There is even question about whether that apology was remorse at having screwed up or remorse at having been caught, as Politico's Jack Shafer argues in his 2017-09-14 Hillary Clinton Is Sorry, Not Sorry. (He starts the article with "I had vowed never to discuss Hillary Clinton’s emails again."; I share the sentiment. But you said she's willing to admit mistakes.)

Web Guy said...

@Luke

> Reaction to globalism is certainly a big part in the support for Trump, but I'd be wary of doing too much reduction to pure economics. People like to feel righteous, not just well-fed.

You are entirely right that the top two layers of Maslow's hierarchy eventually demand their due. Head to almost any of the rural areas (or even some of the urban ones!) in the interior, and you will find more people struggling with the bottom two.

Ron said...

@Luke:

> Are you saying that one should be a single-issue voter on this issue?

I think there should be certain minimum qualifications for anyone seeking public office in the USA, and not advocating (let alone engaging in) sexual assault on women should be one of them.

And BTW, I recognize that Hillary is not entirely innocent in this regard. But defending your husband against unproven charges does seem to me to be different from a full-throated endorsement of sexual assault on women in general (and a celebration of the fact that being rich lets you do it with impunity!)

As for JFK, AFAIK he never assaulted anyone. Having a consentual affair is a different matter altogether IMHO.

> Her speeches on Wall Street do nothing to qualify this?

Not in and of themselves, no. If she'd been elected and used the power of her office to, say, enact legislation favorable to Wall Street then that would have been a different matter. Sadly, we'll never know.

> Do you think that's the exception—that she usually apologizes more quickly?

Does God impose a deadline on repentance?

> There is even question about whether that apology was remorse at having screwed up or remorse at having been caught

How do you propose to distinguish which is the case? Only Hillary and God know what is in her heart of hearts. All I know is that she at least *said* that she thinks she screwed up. Trump never takes responsibility for anything, never repents for anything. And he doesn't even try to hide this aspect of himself. He exhibits this part of himself proudly. It's part of his schtick. It's not a bug, it's a feature! Repentance is for LOSERS!

Which reminds me, when are you going to have your Bible study session on the prosperity gospel?

Luke said...

@Ron:

> I think there should be certain minimum qualifications for anyone seeking public office in the USA, and not advocating (let alone engaging in) sexual assault on women should be one of them.

I really, really want that to be the case. I'm just not convinced that in our current world of disgusting (e.g. Democrats happily taking money from someone they know has a penchant for sexual assault), it is a bar which can be set. I mean, wouldn't it have excluded Bill Clinton as well? As to JFK, I'd first want to process through Brit Marling's "consent is a function of power. You have to have a modicum of power to give it." (Atlantic: Harvey Weinstein and the Economics of Consent)

What I think is going on is that at the federal level (power corrupts …), both Republicans and Democrats are largely seeking pure power. I think that is what will happen as long as democracy is kept a façade. Each party will feed half-truths to its constituency to give it the illusion of control, while the masses in fact have little to no control. All sorts of nasty will be allowed by those in power, as long as it remains the private position. I don't see how such deception is compatible with anything more than skin-deep morality.

> > > Hillary dedicated pretty much her entire life to public service, and I believe she did it out of a sincere desire to help others.

> > Her speeches on Wall Street do nothing to qualify this?

> Not in and of themselves, no.

Hmmm, I forgot what you wrote in I no longer believe in democracy when I asked that question; we may disagree so much on what constitutes the public's interest that on your premises, I would have to agree that Hillary has dedicated "her entire life to public service". I think we simply disagree on how empowered the average citizen ought to be.

> Does God impose a deadline on repentance?

Ostensibly death, but the point here is that it took an incredible amount of concentrated news to get Clinton to apologize. Trump's talent here is to provide so much fodder to outrage culture that it cannot focus long and hard on any particular issue. Where Trump was pressed hard—the Access Hollywood video—he apologized rather quickly. Trump's apology was dismissed by some as insincere, but you've barred us from investigating that question.

> [link to Trump believes in God, but hasn't sought forgiveness]

Yeah I don't see how Trump could possibly be a Christian. Nor Hillary.

> Which reminds me, when are you going to have your Bible study session on the prosperity gospel?

Hmm I totally forgot about that; I'll shoot you an email.

Ron said...

> wouldn't it have excluded Bill Clinton as well?

Yes.

> I forgot what you wrote in "I no longer believe in democracy" when I asked that question;

Huh? What are you talking about? You posted one comment in that thread, and it contained no questions.

> it took an incredible amount of concentrated news to get Clinton to apologize.

That's probably because she didn't break any laws, so it took her a while to realize that she'd actually made a mistake. That sort of thing could happen to anyone. Better late than never.

> you've barred us from investigating that question

I have done no such thing. I've merely pointed out that such inquiries are pointless because they are impossible to resolve. But by all means, feel free to investigate Trump's sincerity (or lack thereof) to your heart's content.

> Nor Hillary

Really? Why not? Have you read what she has to say about her faith?

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/25/hillary-clinton-gets-personal-on-christ-and-her-faith/

Luke said...

> > wouldn't it have excluded Bill Clinton as well?

> Yes.

In that case, I wonder whether you're expecting humanity to morally improve faster than is at all plausible. If that's what's happening, then each side's moral invocations contain so much falsehood/​fantasy that skepticism is warranted. To claim to hate the sexual assault of women while accepting money from someone known to sexually assault women is to support the sexual assault of women—as long as it is kept suitably under wraps.

> Huh? What are you talking about? You posted one comment in that thread, and it contained no questions.

I was referring to my question in this thread: "Her speeches on Wall Street do nothing to qualify this?" I suspect we have a fundamental disagreement on what "public service" is, given our fundamental disagreement on democracy being a façade vs. approachable ideal. Dutifully maintaining the façade is very different from approaching the ideal.

> I have done no such thing. I've merely pointed out that such inquiries are pointless because they are impossible to resolve.

Sorry, you've barred any useful investigation. I'm ok with that; I was just pointing out that you have to be consistent. :-p

> Really? Why not? Have you read what she has to say about her faith?
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/25/hillary-clinton-gets-personal-on-christ-and-her-faith/

I think I'm rather more cynical than you when it comes to what people say. If actions do not sufficiently well-match words or if there are enough contrary actions, I suspect the words are merely the public position. In this particular case, I think one crucial aspect of loving God (which Clinton says she does in that link) is to tell the truth, even when it is uncomfortable, even when it will turn people away. All too often, nobody wants to hear the truth—neither those in power nor the masses. Hence Jesus being put to death by those in power and the masses.

Overall, Hillary's behavior better matches someone in pursuit of power than in pursuit of the empowerment of the average citizen. A quarter of the citizens are "deplorables", according to her. Blue collar workers, a longtime constituency of Democrats, were irrelevant to her. But I think what is most damning is her public and private position. It's just ok to lie to Americans. Jesus would find that completely and utterly unacceptable. I realize that this applies to plenty of Presidents and politicians, by the way.

Ron said...

> I wonder whether you're expecting humanity to morally improve faster than is at all plausible.

A boy can dream.

> I was referring to...

Oh, I see.

> Sorry, you've barred any useful investigation.

No no no! *I* haven't barred it. The *laws of physics* have barred it. I've merely pointed out this fact.

> I think one crucial aspect of loving God (which Clinton says she does in that link) is to tell the truth

That's generally a show-stopper for anyone pursuing a political career.

But why do you think telling the truth is so important? God never asked us to tell the truth, He merely asked us not to bear false witness against our neighbor. That a far less stringent demand than always telling the truth.

Luke said...

> No no no! *I* haven't barred it. The *laws of physics* have barred it. I've merely pointed out this fact.

Humans make judgments about sincerity all the time. They're not always right, but 100% certainty cannot be found in many areas required for day-to-day living. One way to test sincerity is to see whether the person admits error other than just because [s]he was caught and the screws are being tightened. Another is to see whether the person tries to see why [s]he made the bad choice, so as to not make that whole class of error again. However, this business is messy, so I wasn't surprised that you didn't want to get into it. Especially with the fricken email server.

> > I think one crucial aspect of loving God (which Clinton says she does in that link) is to tell the truth

> That's generally a show-stopper for anyone pursuing a political career.

It certainly seems so in this climate. But would Jesus bend to Realpolitik? Was Jesus ok with people who deceived themselves? I think the answer is obviously "no" in both cases. "… and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

> But why do you think telling the truth is so important? God never asked us to tell the truth, He merely asked us not to bear false witness against our neighbor. That a far less stringent demand than always telling the truth.

Here are three examples I found by searching for "truth":

>> Oh LORD, do not your eyes look for truth? (Jer 5:3a)

>> They bend their tongue like a bow;
>>     falsehood and not truth has grown strong in the land;
>> for they proceed from evil to evil,
>>     and they do not know me, declares the LORD.
>> Let everyone beware of his neighbor,
>>     and put no trust in any brother,
>> for every brother is a deceiver,
>>     and every neighbor goes about as a slanderer.
>> Everyone deceives his neighbor,
>>     and no one speaks the truth;
>> they have taught their tongue to speak lies;
>>     they weary themselves committing iniquity.
>> Heaping oppression upon oppression, and deceit upon deceit,
>>     they refuse to know me, declares the LORD.
>> (Jer 9:3–6)

>> These are the things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace; (Zech 8:16)

How is justice possible without truth? How can people be empowered without truth? I have no idea how one could understand the Bible without holding that understanding and communicating the truth is really, really important.

Ron said...

> would Jesus bend to Realpolitik?

Being an all-powerful deity gives you options that are not available to mere mortals.

> How is justice possible without truth?

Concealing parts of the truth is absolutely central to justice because humans often draw conclusions based on emotions and logical fallacies rather than sound reasoning. This is why we have e.g. rule 403.

Luke said...

> Being an all-powerful deity gives you options that are not available to mere mortals.

Did Jesus exercise any of those options? If not, I don't see the relevance.

> Concealing parts of the truth is absolutely central to justice because humans often draw conclusions based on emotions and logical fallacies rather than sound reasoning. This is why we have e.g. rule 403.

And how widely do we apply that? I mean, the more emotional and less rational the population is said to be, the more they can be justifiably deceived. At some point, truth is just for the ruling elite; the rest can eat cake. Once the rulers are supposed to be particularly more noble than the ruled (or maybe even as noble—power corrupts!), you go places I'm not sure you'd like.

Ron said...

> Did Jesus exercise any of those options?

Well, if you're a Calvinist, then yes. He exercises it all the time. Nothing happens that is not God's will.

Even if you're not a Calvinist, He performed miracles. That *by definition* is taking advantage of options not available to mortals.

> And how widely do we apply that?

Pretty widely. But my guess is that what you meant to ask is: how widely *should* we apply it. That is a very difficult question to answer. Even a specific case like Rule 403 gets complicated because I think our adversarial "justice" system is fundamentally broken. It's based on the assumption that truth will somehow magically emerge from the adversarial process. This assumption is obviously wrong but since the whole system is based on this wrong assumption everyone has to carry on pretending that it's not wrong.

Luke said...

> Even if you're not a Calvinist, He performed miracles. That *by definition* is taking advantage of options not available to mortals.

What miracles did Jesus do which bear on Realpolitik in any way?

> Even a specific case like Rule 403 gets complicated because I think our adversarial "justice" system is fundamentally broken.

I'm curious: do you have in mind something better than the bare adversarial aspect?

> Even a specific case like Rule 403 gets complicated because I think our adversarial "justice" system is fundamentally broken. It's based on the assumption that truth will somehow magically emerge from the adversarial process.

Surely the answer here is "more truth", not "more Rule 403". And yet we're at this point in the discussion because I said truth is really important to justice and you replied with Rule 403. I'm not convinced that Rule 403 is all that relevant to our conversation.

Ron said...

> What miracles did Jesus do which bear on Realpolitik in any way?

I find it very odd that you should be focusing on "realpolitik", which means "politics conducted according to practical constraints rather than ideology." An omnipotent deity has no practical constraints. Asking whether Jesus's miracles had any bearing on realpolitik is kind of like asking if Donald Trump behaves like an asshole because he is having trouble making his grocery budget.

> do you have in mind something better than the bare adversarial aspect?

Yes: I would change the quality metric for prosecutors, which is currently to maximize the number of convictions by any means necessary without regard to actual guilt. I would put prosecutors in prison for withholding exculpatory evidence. I would make it illegal for prosecutors to lie to defendants (which is currently not only legal but considered a normal part of the job). I would make it mandatory to bring lesser charges before a jury. Juries can be manipulated into convicting on greater charges simply because the only alternative they are given is to let the defendant walk free. (I have a bee in my bonnet about this because I am personally acquainted with someone who was convicted of murder for being involved in a fatal car crash. Murder requires intent, and there was clearly no intent. But the jury was given the option only of convicting on murder or letting him walk free, and there were dead children so now he's in prison for life simply because he fell asleep at the wheel at the wrong time.)

> Surely the answer here is "more truth", not "more Rule 403".

Unfortunately, the word "truth" means different things to different people. One man's truth is another man's conspiracy theory, or another man's superstition, or another man's sincerely held belief. Some people think God exists, some don't. Some people think global warming is happening, some don't. Some people think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, some don't. Some people think the earth is 6000 years old. Some people think it's flat. Some people think Donald Trump is doing a good job as president. Some people think the Confederacy was honorable. Some think the same about Nazi Germany.

Simply reciting the slogan "more truth" is not going to solve the problem.

Luke said...

> I find it very odd that you should be focusing on "realpolitik", which means "politics conducted according to practical constraints rather than ideology." An omnipotent deity has no practical constraints. Asking whether Jesus's miracles had any bearing on realpolitik is kind of like asking if Donald Trump behaves like an asshole because he is having trouble making his grocery budget.

You aren't showing how Jesus' omnipotence shows up and matters to the discussion. You say he had "options that are not available to mere mortals"; what were those options and how did he exercise them? Again, options releveant to Realpolitik, not healing those with zero political power.

> Yes: I would change the quality metric for prosecutors …

Is there anything in this which goes against the adversarial aspect? I recognize that the US justice system is a mess and … dun dun dun … I think it has to do with a lack of truth and a lack of caring. I get angry when people brag about avoiding jury duty. There are a lot of false narratives which buttress the status quo. Most people don't like dealing with the ick that so often sticks to those with little income and little to lose. A little falsehood there and a half-truth there make for very good insulation.

> Unfortunately, the word "truth" means different things to different people. …
>
> Simply reciting the slogan "more truth" is not going to solve the problem.

Yeah, 'cause I just utter slogans and move on. :-p So, what does science say about our Gordian knot? One result I'm aware of comes from Jonathan Haidt:

>> And when we add that work to the mountain of research on motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and the fact that nobody's been able to teach critical thinking. … You know, if you take a statistics class, you'll change your thinking a little bit. But if you try to train people to look for evidence on the other side, it can't be done. It shouldn't be hard, but nobody can do it, and they've been working on this for decades now. At a certain point, you have to just say, 'Might you just be searching for Atlantis, and Atlantis doesn't exist?' (The Rationalist Delusion in Moral Psychology, 16:47)

I myself am not ready to give up searching for Atlantis, but I would like to learn from the failures to which Haidt alludes. There is also Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government, which shows that those who are better at 'numeracy' (≈ smarter) are more likely to rationalize away evidence which disagrees with their ideology. Yikes—although perhaps wise people have known this for a long time.

Ok, that's enough to show I'm not merely reciting slogans. I believe that effects have causes and that the current attitude toward truth can be linked to the past; if we don't do this and do it by smashing our faces into reality instead of believing what makes us feel good, we'll be like doctors treating the symptoms of a disease while not understanding the cause.

Ron said...

> You aren't showing how Jesus' omnipotence shows up and matters to the discussion.

I'm not even sure I know what this discussion is about any more. You're the one who introduced realpolitik, when you wrote:

> would Jesus bend to Realpolitik?

In context it sounds like you meant: would Jesus tell a lie in order to get elected? But that's an absurd question. Jesus wouldn't *need* to tell a lie to get elected. He wouldn't need to get elected. He's an omnipotent deity. (Actually, he's *the* omnipotent deity. There can only be one.) Whatever He wants to happen just happens.

If we mere mortals want to effect change we can't just snap our fingers and make it happen the way God can. We have to operate under some pretty severe constraints, some of which are very ably pointed out by Jonathan Haidt in the video that you cited.

> I myself am not ready to give up searching for Atlantis

I hope you're being metaphorical here. If you are, then my response is: I believe I've *found* Atlantis, but for some reason no one believes me.

Luke said...

> Whatever [Jesus] wants to happen just happens.

Really? So when he lamented over Jerusalem or asked for the cup to pass from him, he got what he wanted?

> If we mere mortals want to effect change we can't just snap our fingers and make it happen the way God can. We have to operate under some pretty severe constraints, some of which are very ably pointed out by Jonathan Haidt in the video that you cited.

But that's what the Bible isn't: continually snapping of the fingers. It does illustrate that telling the truth often has painful consequences. (Jesus lamented over those who continually murdered the truth-tellers.) Try to reduce the suffering too much and you'll have to deceive, suppress, and maybe even murder. The Bible also makes this out to be a bad survival strategy for nations.

Now, I'm ok moving in the right direction with slow but measurable progress; I need no radical revolution. But that means a forseeable end to … State paternalism. It means we strive for citizens, not children. But it's not clear you think that's an attainable goal. If you don't, then a considerable level of deception might be necessary. This reminds me of a relative who sees the government as sufficiently corrupt that he didn't care too much if Trump enriched himself by a few billion dollars while President. Permanently low expectations can excuse much.

> I hope you're being metaphorical here. If you are, then my response is: I believe I've *found* Atlantis, but for some reason no one believes me.

It's a good metaphor. What treasures have you found in Atlantis which bear on the present discussion? I have to believe Haidt would love to hear from you and I would love to be a fly on the wall.

Ron said...

> So when he lamented over Jerusalem or asked for the cup to pass from him, he got what he wanted?

If you believe that Jesus is God and God is omnipotent, then yes, obviously. An omnipotent being must by logical necessity always get what it wants.

(BTW, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and God/Jehovah are distinct. It seems to me, in light of verses like the ones you cite, that their position is a lot more tenable than the mainstream Christian one.)

> But that's what the Bible isn't: continually snapping of the fingers.

Yes, that's the problem of theodicy.

> It means we strive for citizens, not children.

Wouldn't that be nice? But one of the major obstacles to this IMHO is the persistence of religion, which seems to me, empirically, to converge towards demagoguery more than it converges towards truth. And if you think about it, it really cannot be otherwise. It is easy for demagoguery to don the mantle of faith, so once you abandon evidence, experiment and reason, there's not much left with which to oppose demagoguery.

> What treasures have you found in Atlantis which bear on the present discussion?

Evidence, experiment, and reason. And idea-ism.

> I have to believe Haidt would love to hear from you and I would love to be a fly on the wall.

I doubt that very much. But if he's interested, I'm easy to find.

Luke said...

> If you believe that Jesus is God and God is omnipotent, then yes, obviously. An omnipotent being must by logical necessity always get what it wants.

Well, it's not clear that Jesus pulled on any special divine power to get what he wanted in any situation relevant to Realpolitik. Which was my point in the first place. :-) Maybe if we feel the need to do non-Jesusy things in politics, it's a combination of (i) wanting the wrong things; and (ii) wanting to get to the end with less suffering than is actually required. You can see both of these things when you observe societies over the long term. One might say that right now, America is suffering from decades of deception, suffering much more than had it chosen suffering over deception in the first place.

> (BTW, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and God/Jehovah are distinct. It seems to me, in light of verses like the ones you cite, that their position is a lot more tenable than the mainstream Christian one.)

Alternatively, the kind of power that is excellent is something to which we have access. It's just obnoxious because you have to serve other people instead of dominate them and deal with suffering for others' mistakes as well as yours, instead of scapegoat and pretend that radical individualism has any empirical validity. Oh, and citizens have to not be lazy and incompetent and demand the State be a permanent father so they can play until death.

What's scary if Jesus showed us how power was always meant to work, but we wanted to take shortcuts and be lazy/​selfish. It's much easier to appeal to pragmatic restraints and practice a very different kind of power, while telling ourselves that we really are working toward the good kind. Trees need judging by their fruits, and excuses that the badness found comes entirely from external evil sources has to be doubted at some point.

> > I have to believe Haidt would love to hear from you and I would love to be a fly on the wall.

> I doubt that very much. But if he's interested, I'm easy to find.

Well why don't you first share it here? Then if I can manage to get in contact with him, I can present it (or an abbreviated version), at which point he can decide whether to follow up or not. If I just say "I know a guy", my guess is that I'll just remind him of this.

Luke said...

> > It means we strive for citizens, not children.

> Wouldn't that be nice? But one of the major obstacles to this IMHO is the persistence of religion, which seems to me, empirically, to converge towards demagoguery more than it converges towards truth. And if you think about it, it really cannot be otherwise. It is easy for demagoguery to don the mantle of faith, so once you abandon evidence, experiment and reason, there's not much left with which to oppose demagoguery.

How do you scientifically define 'religion' such that this is shown to be correct via "evidence, experiment, and reason"? In particular, I'm interested in two things:

     (A) whether some religion or all religion is indicted
     (B) whether adoration of Communism can qualify as 'religion'

I think I've said this before but I will repeat myself: if 'religion' is as damaging as is believed, then surely there is empirical evidence for one or both of the following:

     (1) When a scientist becomes an atheist,
             [s]he does better science.
     (2) When a scientist becomes religious,
             [s]he does worse science.

Suppose that something like 'cognitive dissonance' 100% obscures the above from scientific investigation is like me saying that God is causally doing things in the world but we cannot detect it scientifically. If the latter gets thrown out, so does the former.

So, where's the flood of peer-reviewed research on how terribad religion is? Because it seems to me, from the paucity of such research presented in my 15+ years talking to atheists on the internet (and by paucity I'm not sure I can recall a single peer-reviewed article), that the idea that religion is essentially or even on average worse seems like a religion.

Luke said...

Sorry, I missed this bit:

> > What treasures have you found in Atlantis which bear on the present discussion?

> Evidence, experiment, and reason. And idea-ism.

That seems rather short to present as the Atlantis Haidt thinks cannot be found. And lots of people think they know of ways to get people to be more rational; Haidt was saying that they don't work. How do you know that your idea works? Works for more than just you, at least.

Ron said...

> Well, it's not clear that Jesus pulled on any special divine power to get what he wanted in any situation relevant to Realpolitik.

He performed miracles in order to get attention and prove to doubters that he was something other than merely human. That sure seems to me like pulling special divine power to get (at least part of) what he wanted. But I have no idea what Jesus really wanted. As you should well know by now, it seems more plausible to me that the Bible was written by Loki than by Jesus (and even more plausible that it was not written by a deity at all, but rather by pre-scientific humans).

BTW, Jesus lied too: Mat 23:34. Mark 16:18. John 14:12. And yes, those seem to me very relevant to realpolitik: in the first example he's saying, "You won't have to wait very long for all of the wonderful promises I've made to you to come true" and in the last two he's saying, "Follow me and I will give you some of my bad-ass magical powers." All of those sound to me like they came straight out of Demagoguery 101.

> Well why don't you first share it here?

Good grief, what do you think I've been doing for the last fourteen years?

Start here:

http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/04/drawing-line-making-case-for-idea-ism.html

or here:

http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-ontology.html

or here:

http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/03/why-some-assumptions-are-better-than.html

or here:

http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/01/why-i-believe-in-michelson-morley.html

or here:

http://blog.rongarret.info/search?q=chat+with+an+imaginary+friend

or here:

http://blog.rongarret.info/2017/03/causality-and-quantum-mechanics.html

Ron said...

> How do you scientifically define 'religion' such that this is shown to be correct via "evidence, experiment, and reason"?

A fair question. I would say that religion is anything that takes something other than experiment as the ultimate arbiter of factual truth. The reason I hedge with "factual" is that some things that matter, like the question of what is "good", are not matters of fact but rather matters of choice of a quality metric.

> (A) whether some religion or all religion is indicted

Some are certainly worse than others. Scientology is much (much!) worse than quakerism.

> (B) whether adoration of Communism can qualify as 'religion'

I think that depends on the details. Choosing equality-of-outcome as your quality metric is not a religion. Believing in the absence of evidence that history will inevitably bring this about is.

> surely there is empirical evidence for one or both of the following

Scientists are overwhelmingly atheists, but it's hard to say which way the causality runs.

> where's the flood of peer-reviewed research on how terribad religion is?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935383.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935383-e-005

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html

https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/religions-link-to-teen-pregnancy/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-speckhardt/religious-sex-abuse-epidemic_b_1008805.html

I could go on and on. Studies consistently show a negative correlation between relgiosity and societal well being on many different metrics.

To be fair, it's not all bad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion#Religion_and_mental_health

As I have said before, religion can be an effective palliative.

> How do you know that your idea works?

That depends on what you mean by "works". I know it works for me. Whether it works for anyone else I have no idea. I haven't put a whole lot of effort into marketing.

Ron said...

> where's the flood of peer-reviewed research on how terribad religion is?

Here are two more data points from this week's news:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/11/03/mom-who-murdered-son-on-halloween-prayed-about-it-first/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/11/02/pat-robertson-god-let-a-15-year-old-die-to-stop-him-from-becoming-an-atheist/

Luke said...

> He performed miracles in order to get attention and prove to doubters that he was something other than merely human.

And how did this benefit him, politically? (It's not even clear how many people were convinced—see the mob's behavior during his trial.) How, for example, did he leverage his connection with the centurion?

> But I have no idea what Jesus really wanted.

No idea whatsoever? Is this because you think the text is [thoroughly!] unclear, that the text is [≥ somewhat] clear but untrustworthy?

> BTW, Jesus lied too: Mat 23:34. Mark 16:18. John 14:12.

I've never heard the Mt 23:34 one be described as a lie; are you saying that the Jews did not kill/​crucify or flog/​drive out of town anyone pro-Christianity after Jesus' death? Or that if so, Jesus didn't send them? Or if so, they don't qualify as "prophets and wise men and scribes"? I don't know how you know the truth-value of Mk 16:18; care to share? Paul is recorded to have done quite a few miracles, including raising people from the dead, so what's up with John 14:12 being known to be false? Or … are you really saying that Christians these days, or at least some identifiable group, should be manifesting these powers?

> "Follow me and I will give you some of my bad-ass magical powers."

Powers to, uh, heal people. And some immunity against those who don't want this. I'm having a hard time seeing this as demagoguery. We're talking about empowering the poor and oppressed and maybe speaking truth to power. That is what the disciples had seen Jesus do, unless we want to call the NT a massive distortion. I don't know a single demagogue who has done those things. They might pretend.

> Good grief, what do you think I've been doing for the last fourteen years?

You've been writing out your thoughts and discussing with people for the last fourteen years. But that's not what the Haidt quote is talking about. It deals with whether you can convince other people to be more rational.

Luke said...

> I would say that religion is anything that takes something other than experiment as the ultimate arbiter of factual truth.

It seems to me that plenty of Christianity survives this standard quite easily, including the idea that Jesus really lived, really died, really rose again, and that what he did provides salvation for those who trust in him. Indeed, I think that theology is in desperate need of experimental testing; the many plausible interpretations of scripture need winnowing by "experiment". And there's plenty to build on top of scripture; I doubt it was ever meant to be more than a foundation. What I find interesting is those who want to deny elements of the foundation—e.g. by asserting that humans are fundamentally good or curious.

> Choosing equality-of-outcome as your quality metric is not a religion.

What do you think would happen if equality-of-outcome were forced on scientists and engineers?

> Scientists are overwhelmingly atheists, but it's hard to say which way the causality runs.

Who knows if the causality even has anything to do with rationality and evidence-based thinking. There could be irrational bigotry against religion among scientists. I can show you a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson which would get people howling if you swapped religiosity with blackness and the idea of becoming atheist with the idea of taking a pill that turns black skin white. What's really interesting is that usually when I present the talk, people see nothing wrong with it—probably because of a deep-seated belief that religion necessarily produces irrationality.

> > where's the flood of peer-reviewed research on how terribad religion is?

> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

Zuckerman 2009 demonstrates correlation, not causation.

> http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935383.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935383-e-005

Umm, the abstract states "upon close examination of the extant literature, we find that the relationship between religion and crime is quite robust, consistently inverse". That's good, not bad, for religion.

Your third article is just Zuckerman 2009 again.

> https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/religions-link-to-teen-pregnancy/

It definitely looks problematic, but a read of the intro to Teen Pregnancy and Parenting: Rethinking the Myths and Misperceptions (Routledge) makes me pause (for example, Leon Dash did a Pultizer-prize-winning series on teen pregnancy and found that among blacks in the urban ghetto, teen pregnancy was encouraged and desirable). But I've heard enough about abstinence-only education to suspect there is something to Strayhorn & Strayhorn 2009

> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-speckhardt/religious-sex-abuse-epidemic_b_1008805.html

Not peer-reviewed and not compared to non-religious societal rates of sex abuse. So while it's obviously a serious problem, do the powerful outside of religion act better? The answer today might be different than the answer before Weinstein and Spacey.

> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/11/03/mom-who-murdered-son-on-halloween-prayed-about-it-first/
>
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/11/02/pat-robertson-god-let-a-15-year-old-die-to-stop-him-from-becoming-an-atheist/

Anecdotal.

Luke said...

> > How do you know that your idea works?

> That depends on what you mean by "works". I know it works for me. Whether it works for anyone else I have no idea. I haven't put a whole lot of effort into marketing.

Then how can you have an evidence-based belief that you have found Atlantis?

I'm also curious what experiments you have done with yourself, to know which factors are actually causal in you getting more rational over time. (If you're not getting more rational over time, I don't know how you know that the reason you're rational is what you think—unless you can point to other people.)

Ron said...

> And how did this benefit him, politically?

It gained him a pretty substantial following in the fullness of time. A third of the world's population now self-identifies as Christian. No politician has ever achieved a following like that.

> > But I have no idea what Jesus really wanted.

> No idea whatsoever?

That's right. I am told that he wanted people to believe in him so they could be saved. And maybe he wanted people to emulate him in some way, though he was rather cryptic about exactly what he expected of us in that regard (and I am also given to understand that, whatever his expectations of us, we are doomed to fail despite our best efforts because original sin).

But the real problem for me is that there is this fundamental tension between the conception of Jesus as a human being with human failing and frailties, asking someone to take the cup away from him and wondering why his father has forsaken him, and Jesus as God, living a perfect life. If Jesus was almighty God and lived a perfect life then it necessarily follows that whatever he did advanced his agenda, whatever it was, to the fullest possible extent, and in that case, truly I have no freakin' clue what that agenda could have been because for any plausible hypothesis I can think of, I can also think of a dozen ways he could have been more effective. So yeah, I am genuinely stumped by this question.

> I've never heard the Mt 23:34 one be described as a lie; are you saying that the Jews did not kill/​crucify or flog/​drive out of town anyone pro-Christianity after Jesus' death?

Sorry, typo. I meant 24:34 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (c.f. Mat 24:31)

> We're talking about empowering the poor and oppressed and maybe speaking truth to power.

Maybe that's what *you* are talking about, but that's not what Jesus was talking about. He was promising them very specific super-powers: healing the sick (which was a much bigger deal in year 0 than it is today), immunity to poisons (ibid). Those promises were just as enticing and just as empty as Donald Trump promising to bring back coal mining jobs.

> whether you can convince other people to be more rational

Ah, well, I think the jury is still out on that. Modern science has really only been around for 400 years or so, and it is only in the last 100 years that we've really nailed down the fundamentals. We're up against entrenched memes that have been around for tens of thousands of years. The idea-ism hypothesis was only advanced two or three years ago. So it is very early days yet. But I see many hopeful signs: There is an overwhelming trend towards secularization in advanced economies. The U.S. is an outlier in this regard, but even here the cohort of people who self-identify as non-relgious is growing. 400 years ago the whole concept of not believing in God was inconceivable. The fact that atheism is even a thing represents substantial progress. I'd say science is doing at least as well as Christianity was 400 years after its founding.

Ron said...

Oh, also...

> Umm, the abstract states "upon close examination of the extant literature, we find that the relationship between religion and crime is quite robust, consistently inverse". That's good, not bad, for religion.

You're right. I misread the abstract. I thought it meant the opposite of what it actually means.

Here's the full paper BTW:

http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/ReligionCrime-and-Criminal-Justice.pdf

It made me realize that I ignored one of my own admonitions: it's not *religion* that's bad, it's *extremism*. I'm still trying to come up with some appropriate penance for myself.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried to reconcile Johnson and Shroeder with Zuckerman's results.

Luke said...

> It gained him a pretty substantial following in the fullness of time. A third of the world's population now self-identifies as Christian. No politician has ever achieved a following like that.

Erm, this is making a very weird comparison to Hillary's private vs. public version.

> … for any plausible hypothesis I can think of, I can also think of a dozen ways he could have been more effective.

So if Jesus wanted humans to mature more—both in the realm of the good as well as science & technology—what could he have done that you know would be better? This has to work on a 1st century AD citizen of Rome and non-citizen under Roman rule. Unless you want to uproot so much that God would never have let a situation like 1st century Rome come to be in the first place.

> Sorry, typo. I meant 24:34 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (c.f. Mat 24:31)

Ah. I'll have to get back to you on that; I've not explored it with any diligence. For example, some interpretations have it referring to the fall of Jerusalem. But I've not seen a convincing case for that, and I have heard that early Christians thought Jesus was coming very soon.

> > We're talking about empowering the poor and oppressed and maybe speaking truth to power.

> Maybe that's what *you* are talking about, but that's not what Jesus was talking about. He was promising them very specific super-powers: healing the sick (which was a much bigger deal in year 0 than it is today), immunity to poisons (ibid). Those promises were just as enticing and just as empty as Donald Trump promising to bring back coal mining jobs.

What did Jesus do to further empower the already-powerful? Do you really deny that he spoke truth to power? As to his promises, I don't see how you know whether he delivered or not. BTW, the NT has his miracle-powers not immediately making him super-human in the eyes of many people. I'm also not aware of any early Christian sources which have them making a big deal about those superpowers, so it seems that you might be playing them up improperly.

> > whether you can convince other people to be more rational

> Ah, well, I think the jury is still out on that.

Ok, but you realize that's what Haidt's Atlantis is, right?

> There is an overwhelming trend towards secularization in advanced economies.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'secular', given your rather peculiar definition of 'religion'. There's also the fact that a major believer in secularization theory, sociologist Peter Berger, abandoned it due to the evidence.

Luke said...

> You're right. I misread the abstract. I thought it meant the opposite of what it actually means.

Me too, as I thought it supported your case. Then I found the paper and started reading it and things really didn't make sense. I was a little surprised, as I've heard elsewhere that faith-based activities to reduce recidivism rates don't actually work—they just preferentially select those from the prison population which would have been less likely to re-offend (or at least re-offend and get caught) in the first place.

> it's not *religion* that's bad, it's *extremism*.

What's "extremism"? For example, were any of the abolitionists "extremists"? Was the US "extremist" during Vietnam? How about the Iraq war? Would I qualify as "extremist" if I were to advocating telling US citizens more of the truth than you think appropriate? I'm a bit worried that that word cannot be defined scientifically, but only ideologically.

> I'm still trying to come up with some appropriate penance for myself.

Let me know when you figure something out. :-p

> I wonder if anyone has ever tried to reconcile Johnson and Shroeder with Zuckerman's results.

Maybe the more things and security you have, the less you think you need God. (I wonder where I've seen that pattern before.) What's sad is that Christians don't seem to have any ideas for what to do, as Christians, after one takes care of basic physical needs. I've lamented from time to time that Christians need a "theology of prosperity", but I've generally been rebuffed.

By the way, have you thought much about Europe's below-replacement birth rates? For example, do you think that the bulk of the replacement immigrants will come to see Western secularism as the best way to live together, such that political continuity is roughly maintained? It would be a little weird to consider Europe "better, but going extinct".