Birds aren't real

[Gordon]

Fascinating article about a satirical claim that morphed into a conspiracy theory in America, with references to politics and religion.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/14/the-lunacy-is-getting-more-intense-how-birds-arent-real-took-on-the-conspiracy-theorists

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fascinating article about a satirical claim that morphed into a conspiracy theory in America, with references to politics and religion.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/14/the-lunacy-is-getting-more-intense-how-birds-arent-real-took-on-the-conspiracy-theorists

Once again equation of evil with religion and religion with white American Christian nationalists.

[Aruntraveller]

Once again equation of evil with religion and religion with white American Christian nationalists.

Not really, sounds  more layered and nuanced to me:

even though everything is [an] echo chamber,” he says, “the ideas in these home-schooled communities are bad echoes. I’m sure that there are beautiful Christian communities that are doing good things somewhere. I’m not trying to bash spirituality. But from my experience, the deep fundamentalist communities that I was in have caused way more harm. And I’ve seen pure evil coming from them.”

My bold.

He is talking about those specific communities, which you yourself have criticised in the past.

Overreaction, perhaps?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really, sounds  more layered and nuanced to me:

My bold.

He is talking about those specific communities, which you yourself have criticised in the past.

Er, No....here is where the article goes beyond specific communities.

He also draws a tentative line between faith and conspiracy theory: “The Christian worldview is really just about how you’re determining truth. Where are you getting truth from? What is your relationship with truth? For the Christian, your foundational relationship with the truth is determined by faith, its definition is that you can’t argue with it or interrogate it.”

[Outrider]

Er, No....here is where the article goes beyond specific communities.

And I don't see that he's wrong in that, as a faith position on the nature of reality it's a claim that's immune to rational discourse. That does not intrinsically make it either good or evil, but inherently difficult to challenge.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I don't see that he's wrong in that, as a faith position on the nature of reality it's a claim that's immune to rational discourse. That does not intrinsically make it either good or evil, but inherently difficult to challenge.

O.

There is double jeopardy from his position.
Firstly he only believes he's right about faith.
2.He's actually wrong about faith
Since we can talk rationally about the merits of any belief.

[Aruntraveller]

Er, No....here is where the article goes beyond specific communities.

I'm not seeing the equation you claimed.

[Outrider]

There is double jeopardy from his position.

That you think there are two errors in his thinking does not make this a 'double jeapordy' situation.

Firstly he only believes he's right about faith.

Doesn't everybody? If you didn't think you were right you'd believe something different and think that was right.

2.He's actually wrong about faith

He's actually not.

Since we can talk rationally about the merits of any belief.

Not if it's a religious belief, predicated on the idea of a being that hide its existence through magic. You can't rationalise with or against an argument predicated on the suspension of the laws of reality.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That you think there are two errors in his thinking does not make this a 'double jeapordy' situation.

Doesn't everybody? If you didn't think you were right you'd believe something different and think that was right.

He's actually not.

Not if it's a religious belief, predicated on the idea of a being that hide its existence through magic. You can't rationalise with or against an argument predicated on the suspension of the laws of reality.

O.

But that last paragraph is a belief since there are no laws of reality which back up what you say. Also you are quite willing to suspend or create a new reality when it comes to sufficient reason.

[Outrider]

But that last paragraph is a belief since there are no laws of reality which back up what you say.

You don't think gravitation is a law? Radioactive decay? The speed of light in a vacuum?

Also you are quite willing to suspend or create a new reality when it comes to sufficient reason.

And which variable definition misuse of a term are we dropping to, here? The 'sufficient reason' for accepting the findings of scientific enquiry is the consistency with which they are shown to actually work.

O.