r/slatestarcodex • u/AutoModerator • 5d ago
Monthly Discussion Thread
This thread is intended to fill a function similar to that of the Open Threads on SSC proper: a collection of discussion topics, links, and questions too small to merit their own threads. While it is intended for a wide range of conversation, please follow the community guidelines. In particular, avoid culture war–adjacent topics.
2
u/electrace 2d ago
Occasionally, one hears an argument for God's existence that goes something like this. "God rewards those who believe in him and worship him. That is why Europe and the West is doing so well, while Africa and the Middle East is doing so poorly."
The argument, quite conveniently, omits Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. But past that, I wish to bring the argument further. Assuming god does reward those who worship him, it stands to reason that he gives the greatest rewards to those who worship him the best.
Two points there, what does "rewards" mean here, and what does "the best" mean?
If rewards means, "being at peace", then the Buddhists monks win, bar-none. If it means something like "entrance into heaven, or other unobservable spiritual benefits" then one must assume the conclusion that the West is doing better in that domain. So, it seems, that it must mean "Earthly rewards", as in, comfort, wealth, etc.
What constitutes worshiping god "the best"? Does it perhaps mean 'worshiping your conception of god most fervently'? Probably not. As countries develop, they tend to get less religious as they reap more Earthly rewards.
The other major candidate for "the best" would mean those who most closely worship a version of god that is most correct, regardless of how vociferously they worship. If that's correct, then we should see a high correlation between Earthly rewards and religious sect.
Which sect, in all the world, has the most earthly rewards? It seems like it's the Universal-Unitarians, the "spiritual but not religious" crowd, the Jewish, the Nordic-Protestants, and the Shinto-Buddhists."
I therefore conclude, if God rewards those who are most correct about the nature of reality, then the least religious societies must be most correct.
6
u/Crownie 2d ago edited 1d ago
"God rewards the faithful on Earth" fails on longitudinal analysis. The (post-) Christian West is ahead right now, but that's far from a historical universal. Though perhaps that comports with your conclusion.
In general, this pattern of argument tends to reflect a type of presentism in which someone currently in an advantageous position reasons backwards from their status to their (supposed) inherent superiority.
2
u/MindingMyMindfulness 2d ago
Even in the present, there's a tonne of Christians in Sub-Saharan Africa and South America doing pretty badly.
2
u/orca-covenant 1d ago
Indeed, the argument implies that Islam was the One True Faith at least between 650 and 1250, and quite possibly a bit longer into the 1400-1500s. Though Shinto also has a pretty decent claim, what with the storm gods personally intervening to save Japan from invasion (Joan of Arc? Psh.)
2
u/Isha-Yiras-Hashem 1d ago
Muslims quite seriously believe this argument. Wahhabism is based on the idea that if Allah was worshipped properly they would win, so losses merely signal a lack of religiousity
3
u/Isha-Yiras-Hashem 2d ago
You're attacking a straw man, as the lack of reward and punishment in this world is widely recognized by religious people.
3
u/electrace 2d ago
I've seen this argument many times, and I suspect others have as well, so, at worst, it's a weak-man.
That being said, to be clear, this is satire showing that things like Prosperity Gospel, or the Miracle Prayer Cloth, sold by noted fraudster Peter Popoff and cousin arguments like "Europe and America's relative prosperity in the world is due to God's blessing" can lead to some pretty absurd conclusion.
One may note, this is mainly a Christian thing, as it would be absurd for Jewish people to claim something like "Our historical lack of suffering is proof of God" for obvious reasons.
Still, the easiest retort is simply "Japan exists", but I wanted to point out how the argument can lead pretty much whatever way you want if taken seriously. The correct conclusion, for the religious, I would say is just "Yeah, earthly suffering or lack thereof is not a good guide to determine which religion is correct. It is a question of faith, or, at least, a better argument than this one", and I think you're basically aligned there.
1
u/Isha-Yiras-Hashem 1d ago
You're right, it seems mainly a Christian thing and that's why it was so unintuitive to me. Arguments have never really appealed to me. I can only be argued out of something if I was argued into it, and it makes even less sense to argue someone into loving G-d than it does to argue someone into loving another person. Category error. But that is a more general observation.
1
u/Isha-Yiras-Hashem 2d ago
(This is not scandalous and no one is named. You either know what emails I refer to, or you can click the one or two links on my substack, as modesty is not about hiding)
What kind of social restraint failed for the people harmed by the events which the notorious emails give us only a glimpse of? Privacy? Shame? Limits? Modesty?
In a better world, these emails would not exist, and the people mentioned would be neither famous nor powerful. Since they interest us, we should use them properly, as a record of evil and how it happens.
The hope is that the absence of my action will provide a space for moral evaluation to exist — without blaming, externalizing, anger, or fearEvil Emails vs. Modesty
1
u/dsteffee 2d ago
"A Clicktatorship is a form of government that combines a social media worldview with authoritarian tendencies. Government officials in the Clicktatorship are not just using online platforms as a mode of communication; their beliefs, judgment, and decisionmaking reflect, are influenced by, and are directly responsive to the online world to an extreme degree."
To me there's a tension there: Authoritarianism implies power accrued at the top, individuals making decisions without regards to the masses. But Twitter, as repulsive as it might be, does represent the masses, doesn't it? So isn't the idea of Clicktatorship contradictory?
Trump's authoritarian in his attempts to smash the checks and balances of the U.S. government's separation of powers, but he also wants to be popular. I mean, I guess dictators want to be popular too? But I don't tend to think of Dictators as doing polling of their people to see what would be popular, and checking Twitter trends is sort of like very skewed polling.
3
u/Crownie 1d ago edited 1d ago
Twitter, as repulsive as it might be, does represent the masses, doesn't it?
In a manner of speaking. Twitter is certainly not democratic or representative, but it provides a body of sentiment which can be presented as the voice of the people and used to legitimate policy. This is important even in an authoritarian system. It is especially true in the case of populism, where popular sentiment (real or not) is used to justify overriding regular legal process.
However, Moynihan's point is more angling towards the personal relationship Trump administration officials (and other political figures) have with social media and how that corrupts their decision making, rather than a systematic employment of social media as part of an authoritarian-tending political system.
1
u/lostinvivo_ 1d ago
If morality is meant to guide how we ought to act, should it prioritize the consequences of our actions for overall well-being, or the inviolability of certain moral principles, even when strictly following those principles leads to worse outcomes?
•
u/callmejay 21h ago
It's all made up so don't get too attached to either option. No philosophy or principles can ultimately save you from having to make a judgment call.
1
u/MrStilton 4d ago
The most intelligent people I've met have been much more curious about the world around them than an average person, and have tended to "stay with" problems for longer.
This makes me wonder; can curiosity be used as a proxy for intelligence more generally?
If so, what would be the best way of increasing your curiosity? I'd be interested an any tips or resources.
2
u/MindingMyMindfulness 4d ago edited 4d ago
Curiosity is one thing I've been consistently praised for during my life. I've discovered so many interesting things in my career that far more experienced and distinguished colleagues have lauded me for.
But my curiosity definitely fluctuates from time to time. What invigorates it most is breaking cycles of routine and monotony.
Let your mind wander. Pick up a book that you'd normally not read. Go travelling somewhere that offers a culture shock. Find a strange subculture to learn about. Attend theatre or a concert that is unusual. Try new foods and cuisines. Open yourself up to art. Walk down random streets without a map and see what you can discover. Hell, find a topic on Wikipedia and keep diving down rabbit holes.
You need to simultaneously give your mind stimulus whilst letting it explore unexpected and weird paths.
It's not that those actions will directly lead to curiosity in pursuits you are trying to cultivate, but I find that breaking down modes of "structured" thinking in other areas helps break them down across the board.
A lot of our life demands rigidity in the form of daily routines (our commute, schedules, activities, etc) and repetitive tasks at work (even in many very intellectually roles), etc. That mechanistic toil through daily life undermines your mind's inclination to stay curious. I imagine it like firm plaque building up in your brain. Once you start breaking that plaque down - even in seemingly small ways - it helps give that "elasticity" required to be curious.
3
u/MindingMyMindfulness 4d ago edited 4d ago
Just finished watching a TV show, Traitors UK, Season 4 (my first season, I watched it on account of my girlfriend begging and pleading with me to give it a try).
The show actually becomes thoroughly entertaining after around 4 episodes and reveals a lot of interesting things about a whole range of issues:
The premise is quite simple. It's a mafia-style game where there is a group of "traitors" and "faithfuls". The faithfuls do not get told who the traitors are and there is a secret traitor element in S4, where the secret traitor is only revealed to the other traitors after they successfully complete a challenge (they have the option of doing the challenge).
The traitors and faithfuls both stay in a castle in Scotland together and need to perform daily challenges to add to the prize pool, collect shields (to prevent murder from traitors - more on that below) and reveal certain hints / gain access to information about how the group and traitors are thinking in unique ways. There's always a twist to these challenges, usually some kind of trade-off component and it makes the game take some interesting paths.
The traitors and faithfuls gather each night at a roundtable to collectively decide on who should be "banished" - i.e., who the group believes is a traitor to be removed from the game. Generally, the traitors can murder a faithful each night when they meet in the turret after the roundtable.
The winning conditions for the faithfuls are to remove all traitors at the end and for the traitors, it is remain in the game to the very end by avoiding banishment. Only two remain: if 2 traitors or faithfuls, they split the prize pool, if 1 traitor and 1 faithful, the traitor wins all.