An Atheist Apologizes to Christians - Call In Show - March 4th, 2015

[m.j.]

DISAPPOINTMENT, SUPER SUPER SUPER DISAPPOINTMENT

 

Atheists don't owe any apologies to Christians.

I heard the show today and now I know why this show will not last.

I remember Molyneux's goal was to make this the best show that would last for centuries.

Well, it will not if it continues like this.

 

Stefan, remember your book "How not to achieve freedom" where you were talking about how ineffective or suicidal would be to infiltrate the Mafia to persuade them to become good? Well, you are now suggesting to your listener to do exactly that.

 

It is ALWAYS bad to diagnose the right problems with the bad or random methods. There were many cases in the history of science that the pseudo-scientists made the right conclusions for the totally bad reasons. I do not remember now the name of one astronomer, but he was a very talented one and in the era where it was not known the Solar system's position in our galaxy, this guy concluded that our Sun must be on the periphery of the Milky Way because we are so corrupted people that we can't be close to the center that was considered as virtuous. Can you imagine how the rest of this theory would have evolved had the other astronomers accepted this geniunly stupid idea?

 

Stefan, you are clearly a victim of ethics from pragmatism right now. I can live with the fact that free society will take even centuries to become true, or even never, but the last thing to do to achieve it is to give a hand to the non rational people.

 

Forget about the pragmatism, yes, nobody disagrees that some things Christians got right, but this was purely accidental or due to other pragmatic reasons Christian rulers had. Their goal was and stays to govern the people based on false evidence and by manipulating the basic human needs.

 

Forget about the pragmatism, go back to the Software Industry, make the FDR a hobby again like it was in the beginning, if you can't survive with the donations. I do not know what is motivating you to make this HUGE TURN in your thinking, but please stay on the track. I know it is hard to live knowing that your actions most probably will not change the world during your life, but so what. Humanity took 2000 years to get free from the christianity and we are still not completely free. Certain battles of ideas are very long. Shortcuts are NEVER working.

 

You are now engaging in a dangerous shortcut.

 

I feel for you, I feel for the Mormon guy, I know how is it to be in this situation, it is VERY hard to be ostracized by the community once you understand its fallacy, but this is the burden of the virtue. I really understand why this person lost the appetite and can't sleep. Of course. He woke up from the terrible nightmare. He is feeling like he was diagnosed a cancer, of course, wrong ideas have terrible impact on us, but many persons simply die out of cancer, that is a reality. The Mormon guy can't influence anything in his community, it is a suicide mission. By advising him to go back there is to ask him to be a hypocrite all his life. If his wife will not follow him in leaving religion, so be it. His family should dissolve. The bigger problem obviously is with his child, that is the pure victim of his own. I think he must leave it to the wife, he has to pay the consequence of the wrong choices. He contributed to poison his child's mind and his wife is not willing to leave the religion, so he should leave and they should remain together.

 

Curing the cancer, Stefan, you know it personally, is a very painful process, there are no shortcuts there. So it is with the wrong ideas. You were good so far, but if you continue encouraging people to come back to their religious community once they know their core beliefs are false, is like pushing the people to Mafias's godfathers to fight the system internally.

[Wuzzums]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9gC1GiSDDA

 

I'm sorry but I couldn't resist.

 

I'm curious however to know your reasoning behind your statement that it's better for a rational philosophical parent to abandon their child to a bunch of people that worship superstition rather than stay close and set an example to the contrary.

[m.j.]

I think i explained. He has a choice between being a hypocrite, which means behaving and thinking differently or trying to explain to everybody in his community the reasons why is he not a religious person any more. First of all his inner family will not accept it. He explained that his wife accepted the Mormon religion simply because she was born into it, which means she prefers the conformity to the community instead of really accepting the ideas. Her motivations are not based on knowledge, so no convincing will help. She will reject the new ideas even if she understood them. She will not change her mind as long as she will stay in that community. Others in the community will have similar reasons. Churches are very good in creating communities, that's why it is so hard to break them. That's why he has to leave. And he has to pay the price by leaving the daughter to his wife, because he has introduced his daughter to the same bad ideas, because the child will be torn between 2 opposite set of ideas. 

 

And the world is big, there are not only christians and leftist, there are also other types of persons. He will not remain alone and isolated. Will it be very very hard? Yes it will. But, adults, that have the free will are paying for their mistakes. Costs & Benefits. Sometimes the costs are high.

[Wuzzums]

I think i explained. He has a choice between being a hypocrite, which means behaving and thinking differently or trying to explain to everybody in his community the reasons why is he not a religious person any more. First of all his inner family will not accept it. He explained that his wife accepted the Mormon religion simply because she was born into it, which means she prefers the conformity to the community instead of really accepting the ideas. Her motivations are not based on knowledge, so no convincing will help. She will reject the new ideas even if she understood them. She will not change her mind as long as she will stay in that community. Others in the community will have similar reasons. Churches are very good in creating communities, that's why it is so hard to break them. That's why he has to leave. And he has to pay the price by leaving the daughter to his wife, because he has introduced his daughter to the same bad ideas, because the child will be torn between 2 opposite set of ideas. 

 

And the world is big, there are not only christians and leftist, there are also other types of persons. He will not remain alone and isolated. Will it be very very hard? Yes it will. But, adults, that have the free will are paying for their mistakes. Costs & Benefits. Sometimes the costs are high.

 

My question had to do with the child, not him. You explained fully what his consequences will be, I'm more interested to know how you came to the conclusion that the child is better off with him leaving. So far from the child's perspective there are two outcomes as you explained: living in a mormon community with a father that has to constantly lie, or living in a mormon community without a father. Why is the latter option preferable when both of us know that there's no worst risk factor for negative outcomes than living in a one parent household?

[WasatchMan]

I agree with a lot of your sentiment here.  I found the call a non-philosophical argument for the ends justifying the means and being able to have your cake and eat it to.  In my opinion the conversation centered around comparing the ugliest caricature of secularism to the noblest caricature of religion.  Religion has and is STILL doing tons of harm, and cherry picking out good stuff (that should just be contributed to the good people of the world) is extremely disingenuous.

 

As someone who lives in Utah surrounded by this Mormon religious death cult while trying to live my values and be rational while the majority of people appeal to superstition and conformity has been extremely hard.  Dating is hard. Finding friends is hard. Finding a community is near impossible.  But I believe it is worth it.  To hear someone who gave me hope, who I thought was a beacon of reason, appeal to religion for its supposed values broke my heart. It is not easy being an atheist in this world but if you want to be a deterministic, non-thinking, happy monkey, you and your brood may benefit from religion.  I for one do not want this and am struggling to stay out of it.

 

The state and the church are two sides of the same coin. The only reason why all that is left is religious "values" in the west is because the state has beat it back from every hold of power they have historically held.  If religion had its ways it would be back in the seat of power and a lot worse than the current secular governments (at least if you look at the data...).  To use one of Stef's approaches in this conversation ask yourself "would you rather have your daughter live under Sharia law or live in a secular western government?"

 

I for one can only hope Stef remembers he once said this “Truth has nothing to do with the conclusion, and everything to do with the methodology.” and returns to philosophy after this short tangent into sophistry.

[WasatchMan]

Would anybody like to call in and discuss this on the show?

I would give m.j. the first chance if he wants.  Seems like he has his thoughts put together better than myself on this.

 

 

I don't understand how talking about the positives that exist within some religious communities is a tangent into sophistry, but I'm certainly happy to schedule you for the show so you can make the case...

I agree it is not.  The sophistry is coming from the argument for the ends justifying the means.

 

Also, the state and the church are not two sides of the same coin.  The state always involves the initiation of force - by sheer definition. I don't believe that is always the case with Religion - and it's certainly not the case by sheer definition. There is no God (see Against the Gods? for the arguments) and the teaching of conclusions to children over methodology is not a positive in any way shape and form. The teaching of  conclusions over methodology however is hardly limited to the religious. If hellfire, brimstone and fear is used to bully children into a belief in God -  that's obviously terrible and immoral.

 

I meant it in the sense that they both want control over people.  The church aspires to be the state, and has been for a lot of history.  The triumph of secularism, and the first action of the "freedom club" was to kick religion out of power.  But fair enough, I probably used the wrong first sentence, the rest of the paragraph didn't require it.

 

That being said, it's objective fact that many of the "traditional" values promoted within certain christian communities lead to greater family stability and more healthy environments for children. As empiricists -  this data is not irrelevant to the overall discussion. If the discussion of this creates a really strong emotional reaction within you, I think that's really important to understand.

This is what I mean by the argument for the ends justifying the means.  Also, is it an empirically good traditional value that a guy is terrified to the point he can't eat because a change in his views will mean losing a 16 year marriage and his children and community? You would think that if all these good values were promoted by the church your spouse of 16 years would not abandon you for your beliefs.

[WasatchMan]

What "ends" are being justified by what "means?"

 

The entire premise of needing to apologize to religion for values obtained through faulty methodology is saying the ends justify the means.  Stef apologized to religion because through superstition and fear they have been able to keep families together.  You don't apologize to or ascribe value or virtues to things that have bad methodology but happen to come up with the right answer some of the time.  That would be like me praising my broken watch because it is right twice a day.

 

Do you even know how Mormonism keeps family ties together?  They tell their flock that the only way they will get to spend eternity with the ones they love is following the Mormon church, and keep their family together in the Mormon church. If you, or any of your loved ones step out of line, they will be lost to you forever.  While this may lead to better family cohesion, the method in which it is attained is wrong, and therefore no value is to be described to them for achieving this end.

[Ace]

So now indoctrinating kids into religion doesn't count as force anymore?  Religion is false and irrational, but it promotes good values around the family.  I can remember a lot of podcasts solidly rejecting that notion.

 

For this guy's particular situation, the question comes down to what is a better option - to keep going along with a belief system you know is false and lie to your wife and children in order to maintain familial stability - or be honest and face profound social consequences.  That's a very difficult question.

 

But..  the call seemed to descend pretty quickly thereafter into a description of how the outcomes from a religious upbringing are in many cases better than a secular one.

 

I seem to recall some pretty good arguments against utilitarianism in earlier podcasts.  I can't remember which one it was specifically but there was a podcast where Stef said - and it really stuck with me - The only way you'll ever be truly happy is by learning to love the truth.

 

Maybe that's the unfortunate reality here - there are children involved and they have to come first - so the caller's happiness is not of consequence in the calculation.  I don't know how anyone could ever be happy living a lie they are fully aware of.

[m.j.]

I don't understand how stating facts and apologizing for not being aware of certain facts - and taking responsibility for such - is the ends justifying the means or in any way utilitarian.

 

 

Nobody thinks that Stefan is encouraging people to convert to Christianity.

But, it is not rational to apologize to a community that is keeping the families stable by inducing the fear from god.

 

Let us see the following analogy: Let us assume someone did not know about the Nazis and what they did to the people in WWII. Then, he finds the data that they helped reduce the overpopulation of the world by N million. Yes, they did it, but would a sane person apologize to the Nazis saying that he is sorry for not knowing this empirical fact? Yes, they contributed to decrease the overpopulation of the Planet. We all know this was not their goal, but they achieved it and the data is there.

 

The goal of the Christian Churches was never to keep the families stable. Their goal was and is to maintain the control over the humans and they learnt that by controlling human's sexuality is a very powerful way to do so. 

 

The problem with Stefan's declaration was the overstatement. Like my example of the Nazis. Apology is the word that can't be used. The more accurate wording would be that Christians have involuntarily contributed to what statistics later revealed to be useful for the family stability. But, by using the word apology, there was a clear condescendence towards Christian communities.

 

If someone wants to defend this position on the show that will not be me. I am not a quick verbal duelist. I am leaving the honor to WasatchMan. 

[MMX2010]

I haven't listened to the call just yet, but I think I can explain the impasse between MMD/Stefan and WastachMan/MJ. 

 

Based on my experience with Stefan's other calls, I think he was attempting to do triage for the benefit of one specific child: the son/daughter of the caller.  But I think WastachMan/MJ are focusing primarily on children in the abstract, because they're worried about society in the abstract.  The major problem, though, is that neither children nor society exist in the abstract, so WastachMan and MJ are starting this debate behind in points. 

 

[kirk paolinelli]

I felt a strong reaction to this podcast. I sure it has to do with my relationship to religion growing up. I can’t really remember ever believing it was true. My whole childhood I was looking for someone to validate what I was empirically seeing. Was I crazy, or was everyone else crazy? Was a question that I constantly pondered. I actually prayed to be able to believe. It would have been so much easier. I wouldn’t have felt evil in the eyes of others. I wouldn’t have had to myself, my curious nature. I would have wanted so badly for even one of my parents to validate the truth. In fact, from my early teens until recently I would constantly get in arguments about religion. It wasn’t until after listening to FDR, and really talking with my parents, and after they acknowledged there wasn’t a god. I rarely am ever in arguments about religion. My drive seemingly disappeared. I never realized how much traumatizing all this was until I got into therapy. I had re-enforced my defenses so much I convinced that it didn’t affect me. All it took was the therapist to say was “ That must have been hard for you.” And I just broke down. I had never had someone show me one sliver of empathy when it came to religion beliefs. Not my parents, not my family, not Christians, not a church.

I just wanted to give some background, I’m sure my experiences have shaped my view.

Freedomain radio is about the philosophy of personal and political freedom. It is the pursuit of truth. It’s about universality. That is my understanding at least.

Here is where I would argue this podcast went astray.

 

The apology paraphrase.

“I apologize for not tempering my criticism of religious doctrines with praise for positive aspects religious doctrines.”

If Stef feels the need to apologize about his critique of religious doctrines, should I feel the same about criticizing my parents for my childhood. Because there were positive aspects to that as well . This seems to be inconsistent with what has been said to past callers. This would need to universalized, would it not?

Why apologize at all. When religions have had power they have been vile and vicious. They ostracize only now because stoning is not available.

The idea that Christians are willing to stand up for what they believe in.

A statement similar to this was made on the call. Where Stef is talking to a man who no longer believes in his religion, and the advice is to not stand up for what he knows to be true. Because the consequences of speaking his thoughts would be too tough. Why shouldn’t the advice be to go back to his family and his church and speak honestly and openly. As so many have been suggested to do in FDR call in shows. Start the conversation. If Christians are nice, will bring lasagna when you’re sick, why wouldn’t this be the course of action. Note that almost every caller I’ve heard even with abusive parents got treated well when they were sick, if it was brought up.

If Christians promote the family being together. Then why would his wife leave him if he left the church or was honest about his thoughts. Why would his friends at church turn their back to him. That is akin to the government promotes freedom so as long as you pay taxes.

paraphrase

“If there was giant rational community around with just 10% of the courage and generosity of Christians.”

I don’t believe Christians to be courageous. They will stand up for what they believe in a crowd. If this guy went back to his church and was honest and open about his feelings, he would be rejected. Not because no one in the church has had similar thoughts and/or are unable to reason out arguments. But because they are the cowards. They are afraid of being ostracized as well. They want confirmation, not conversation. Even his wife would leave him out to dry, or it’s assumed she would from the conversation. He mentions that the churches change doctrine. Yea they change with popular opinion. They have tempered their speech against homosexuality, because popular opinion has change. The bible still says the same thing. How is that courage.

 

If religion is a manifestation of the family, then no matter what good things it may have done, there is no need to apologize for accurate criticisms of it.

[2bits]

 

By these comments, you'd think that Stefan suggested helping convert people to Christianity so their children would be raised with the aforementioned "traditional values." He didn't.

 

Stefan preferred "religion" or "subsets of more gentle Christianity" but yes, he did. I appreciate you, Michael, but this is annoying. We listened to the same show, and Stefan spent an hour justifying the series of comments he made around 27:04:

 

"Where would you go?

Let's say that you could get your whole family out of the group.

And the question is well then what? Where do you go?

Where do you find the sustenance that religion provides?

The structure, the depth."

 

Stefan then says he had more conversations about philosophy in church than he ever did at school.

More conversations about values, principals, and ideas sitting in a pew than he did sitting in a coffee shop.

 

These were general comments not limited to the caller's least-bad options.

 

Stefan didn't say the sentence "Convert your children to religion so they don't grow up to be secular, state-loving, free-love divorcees" but there are quotes later in the show that sum to that position.

 

I'm sorry if this comes across as hostile, but I also feel some frustration. Maybe this was just a series of rambling thoughts that went in the wrong direction, or maybe a huge misunderstanding. I know Stefan values honest feedback.

[MysterionMuffles]

This will be quite the controversial call yet...

[2bits]

Nobody thinks that Stefan is encouraging people to convert to Christianity.

I don't think Stefan wants people to convert in the abstract. This call was just one data point (albeit very recent!), with many to the contrary.

 

However, extolling the perils of secularism and virtues of religion, while describing in great detail the benefits the caller's children would have by staying in the Mormon church (even if they could get out)... That's all but overt encouragement, and certainly discourages all deconversions.

[m.j.]

I appreciate the letter from kirk paolinelli. It deepens the comment I made. 

It is my week of metaphors. If Stefan continues with apologies of this kind, I predict the next one will come like this:

 

Empirical data: Statistics reveal that in traffic accidents it is 200 times more probable to be killed or injured for the passengers and persons driving their own private cars compared to the ones using public transportation.

 

Stefan: I apologize for not tempering my criticism of Statist doctrines with praise for positive aspects of keeping many innocent people in the jails for virtual crimes like not paying taxes or smoking the pot, so they are away from dangerous streets and at most, they are transported from jail to jail in the jail buses.

[villagewisdom]

What does your heart say?

[2bits]

[nm]

[Ace]

There was talk of acceptance of false dichotomies leading to despair early in the call.  I think this guy's situation was not a false dichotomy.  It's really simple - play along with things as they are, or speak the truth and your family will destruct.  The "third option" presented was just the first option combined with a list of positive effects of religion so the caller could feel better about taking that course.

 

But really is that going to work?  He's realized it's not true, so ultimately, what he will have to do is lie to his wife, children, and community.  His children will ask questions and he will not be able to be honest.  So does he maintain this until the kids are grown up and moved out and then turn to honesty?  I wanted you to grow up in a stable family, so I played along with something I didn't believe in for decades, but now I want to be honest.  Or does he have to keep it up for life?  It seemed pretty sugar coated to me, the caller felt like a weight was lifted, Stef said he's a lucky guy, ride off into sunset...  sadly, I think it's going to be very difficult for him.  How can you have any kind of true connection under such circumstances?

 

I'm not religious, I certainly don't have a sense of community that I would have if I were a member of a religious group.  So I'm missing something in my life, and from the description of it in this call, it sounds like something with some very positive effects.  So...  Am I doing something wrong?

 

Is an apology owed to Islam as well?  Islam is even better than Christianity at promoting family values - STD rates are among the lowest in the world in the middle east, single motherhood and divorce rates are incredibly low.  Chopping hands off leads to low theft levels...  And really, is there any group of people in the world more willing to stand up for their beliefs?

 

Maybe it's a ridiculous comparison sure and I don't want to be flippant.. But this is philosophy right, and standards should be universal. 

 

[Filip]

Stefan Molyneux: How (NOT) to Achieve Freedom

The temptation to join together with groups whose philosophy is oppositional, but whose goals are similar, is an idiotic pit that philo- sophical movements seem forever willing to pitch themselves into. In other sciences, we can easily see the foolishness of this approach. A scientific agricultural expert would scarcely benefit from “joining forces” with a Native American rain dancer, although both claim to have the goal of producing better crops. Would we counsel an oncologist to join up with a witch doctor, since both have the “goal” of healing people?

 

Such advice seems ridiculous, of course, but what if the witch doctors have all the money?

 

If you have a new idea, you can either attempt to merge it with existing ideas – thus compromising it, but gaining easy momentum – or you can attempt to carve out a new market for your idea. Those who are impatient for “results” will always choose the former; those who are dedicated to the truth at all costs will always choose the latter.

 

Libertarians were enormously impatient – and we can all surely understand this impatience – and so did not want to take the long, slow and hard road of carving out a new market for a rational philosophy, but rather took the easy “catapult off a cliff” by joining to- gether with the superstitious irrationalities – and deep purses – of Christianity. In so doing, they subverted the movement completely, turning it into just another special interest group.

 

Coming to the conclusion that matter is composed of atoms as a result of rigorous scientific experiments represents the acquisition of valid knowledge about reality. Blankly stating that matter is composed of atoms because God says so only represents bigoted superstition, and is worse than professing genuine ignorance, since the illusion of an answer almost inevitably prevents further exploration of the question.

 

When a new, fledgling movement is struggling to gain momentum the temptation to merge with an enormous, well-funded and well- established movement can be overwhelming. The desire to make a “big splash” and quickly add to one’s numbers and income seems like a perfectly sensible strategy at the time. In a similar manner, a man with a toothache may well think that heroin is the answer – and in a way, with regards to his immediate pain, it certainly is! Unfortunately, the heroin only masks his discomfort, while allowing the rot in his body to fester.

 

When a supposedly rational movement merges with its opposite based on a shallow similarity of goals, it undermines its own ratio- nality. When the oncologist joins forces with the witch doctor, no one imagines that the witch doctor has suddenly become a scientist – everyone understands that the oncologist has simply become irrational. When the oncologist who has joined up with the witch doctor lectures everyone about the necessity for rationality and empiricism, every sane human being in his audience feels the mad contradiction down to his very toes. Libertarianism did not make Christianity rational – Christianity simply made libertarianism irrelevant.

 

Libertarianism did not turn Christianity into an empirical science; Christianity turned libertarianism into an irrational superstition.

 

However, when the thesis is “small government is better” – and when millions of dollars are in play – why then, religious bigotry suddenly achieves the holy glow of sublime intellectualism! Suddenly, scholars like Murray Rothbard spend time rooting around the bowels of Christian madness, scrabbling to find superstitious support for free market ideas – as if those ideas are so pitiful and un- supportable that we need to canvas ghosts and goblins for supporting quotes! “My thesis is true because my invisible unicorn Pam has snorted twice in my head!”

 

This kind of pitiful, money-grubbing desperation is truly stomach-turning, and lies at the real foundation of why libertarianism has had so little effect, and why it stands idly by, communing with ghosts and counting its money, while the world slides towards slavery.

 

 

I have to agree with the previous posters - right conclusions based on completely erroneous methodologies are not worth an apology.

[MRW]

I think a specific issue at hand is whether or not the caller's child is suffering from a form of child abuse as a result of being in the church. If so, then the child will be suffering from abuse, however mild, if the family continues with the church. I greatly appreciate and empathize with the vulnerability of the caller on the show and I cried while listening, but I wonder how the caller can expect much comfort in the LDS community if he wants to be himself.

[jpahmad]

To the posters here.  Do you not see how Stefan is trying to save this man's family?  It would be much more catastrophic for the family core to break apart than to have this man continue to be a card carrying member of the church.

 

 I'm a little bit confused by everyone's lack of understanding the nuances of the situation.  At least be a little empathetic for this fellow who his having his heart ripped out by a crisis of conscious.  I think what Stefan did was absolutely the right thing to do.  He spoke the truth and delivered one of the most important pod-casts in FDR history.  Thank you Stefan.  

Stefan didn't say the sentence "Convert your children to religion so they don't grow up to be secular, state-loving, free-love divorcees" but there are quotes later in the show that sum to that position.

 

 

I did not get that impression at all and I am as staunch an atheist as they come.  Could you please find and quote the parts you are referring to?

[Ace]

To the posters here.  Do you not see how Stefan is trying to save this man's family?  It would be much more catastrophic for the family core to break apart than to have this man continue to be a card carrying member of the church.

 

 I'm a little bit confused by everyone's lack of understanding the nuances of the situation.  At least be a little empathetic for this fellow who his having his heart ripped out by a crisis of conscious.  I think what Stefan did was absolutely the right thing to do.  He spoke the truth and delivered one of the most important pod-casts in FDR history.  Thank you Stefan.

Well that's insulting to argue that by having criticisms we don't understand and aren't being empathetic.

[WasatchMan]

To the posters here.  Do you not see how Stefan is trying to save this man's family?  It would be much more catastrophic for the family core to break apart than to have this man continue to be a card carrying member of the church.

 

 I'm a little bit confused by everyone's lack of understanding the nuances of the situation.  At least be a little empathetic for this fellow who his having his heart ripped out by a crisis of conscious.  I think what Stefan did was absolutely the right thing to do.  He spoke the truth and delivered one of the most important pod-casts in FDR history.  Thank you Stefan.  

 

I did not get that impression at all and I am as staunch an atheist as they come.  Could you please find and quote the parts you are referring to?

 

People are mainly criticizing this call for apologizing to religion, and for ascribing virtue and value to religion, when there is no philosophical or rational reason to (since effects are not philosophy).  Stefan could have given pragmatic advice without doing this.

[jpahmad]

People are mainly criticizing this call for apologizing to religion, and for ascribing virtue and value to religion, when there is no philosophical or rational reason to (since effects are not philosophy).  Stefan could have given pragmatic advice without doing this.

 

I see you're point.  But I'm not as quick as you to assert that there is no value to religion.  It certainly has gotten people through a lot of hard times.  It has a visible utility.  Don't confuse value with virtue.

Well that's insulting to argue that by having criticisms we don't understand and aren't being empathetic.

 

I don't think you have an understanding of the guy's awful predicament.  I can tell just by the way you are trying to make his situation sound so black and white.  Like this:

 

There was talk of acceptance of false dichotomies leading to despair early in the call.  I think this guy's situation was not a false dichotomy.  It's really simple - play along with things as they are, or speak the truth and your family will destruct.  

 

To willingly take the second option is not humanly possible.  No man could cut off his beloved wife and children for the sake of a principle.  No one.  

[m.j.]

To willingly take the second option is not humanly possible.  No man could cut off his beloved wife and children for the sake of a principle.  No one.  

 

Isn't the philosophical background of the entire FDR show the idea:

"Love your friends, but love the truth more".

 

Isn't the whole concept of UPB the difference between what is commonly preferred compared to what is universally preferable?

[WasatchMan]

I see you're point.  But I'm not as quick as you to assert that there is no value to religion.  It certainly has gotten people through a lot of hard times.  It has a visible utility.  Don't confuse value with virtue.

 

 

I was using values in the sense of moral values, which has been the context in this thread.  However, I see where your interpretation came from giving that I dropped the "s" on values (accidentally) in my response to you.

[J. D. Stembal]

People are mainly criticizing this call for apologizing to religion, and for ascribing virtue and value to religion, when there is no philosophical or rational reason to (since effects are not philosophy).  Stefan could have given pragmatic advice without doing this.

 

Do you think there was a calculated cost-benefit reasoning behind praising the very religion that organized the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? I wonder what the motivation could be.

[WasatchMan]

Do you think there was a calculated cost-benefit reasoning behind praising the very religion that organized the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? I wonder what the motivation could be.

 

Stefan has put out enough stuff contradicting this that I am personally willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at this time that this was a mistake that he will clarify.  I think we will need to wait and see if he doubles down, or continues this line of rationalizing religion before coming to a conclusion.  I will say though that I cannot, and will not, support anything that provides cover to religion.

[Matt D]

Let me try to summarize Stef's logic in this podcast. I am skeptical of his apology but first I want to make sure I'm on the same page: 

 

1. The State is far worse that religion today because it uses coercion.

2. Christians are generally against the State and support family values.

3. For the sake of keeping a family together, since the alternative would be hard on the children, maybe there is a third option which is to stay in the Church and invite the community to consider philosophical "spirituality".

4. Fleeing from religion often creates a power vacuum which is filled by statist doctrine. So the question becomes "where are you going to go? Statism? Nihilism?"

 

 

Let me not hide anything: this debate hits very close to home for me. I was raised in the United Church of Christ (UCC) which is an overwhelming left Protestant church. To say that Christians tend to be conservative may contradict my own personal experience, but what are the facts? Below is a chart on Christian political views.

 

 

In the context of this podcast's conversation, it is true that Mormons are largely Conservative, however it would not be valid to project that onto Christianity as a whole. 

 

The UCC for instance used to be much more neutral in their political stance. My dad, who was a conservative, privately railed against the church and would make snide remarks about how ridiculous it was that our preacher asked the congregation to pray for wisdom for our leaders -- "You never heard them ask us to pray for wisdom when Clinton was in office! Humbug!" (I added the humbug as embellishment ) The question I wondered about growing up but didn't dare ask was "Dad, if the church drives you up a wall, why are you there!?!

 

By the logic above, he was there because he didn't know where else to go. He tried in vain to bring values back to a community, and even if deep down he didn't believe in God, he did it so that he could give his family support.

 

Yeeeah... I don't buy that. First of all, he could have easily taken his family to a more Conservative church. But let's set that aside for the moment. Even if it was a Mormon church which was strongly anti-state, would I have rather my Dad separate from my mom whose family revolved around the church, or stay together "for my sake"? Without a doubt I would have rather they separated. Because if the bond between my parents was so feeble that religion could come between them, I would rather have that fact out in the open than covered up for twenty years by a family built on falsehood.

 

I'm aware that divorce is bad for children. However, the mind-screw of religion is also bad for them, is it not? I have never forgotten FDR70, in which Stef describes the invisible apple as a metaphor for religion. How do you talk to your child about religion when you compromised your principles in order to keep your family and your community in tact? Maybe I'll understand when I'm older.

 

The last thing I'll say is that I don't think Stef ever retracted any of his arguments on religion. In fact, I think he has said multiple times that he still holds them to be philosophically valid. Instead, his apology to Christians was in reference to the approach that he took to leading theists to the truth. I get it. The truth is a sword that must be wielded with great responsibility. If you cut all the strings of belief holding someone up, that person is most likely going to fall. So you want to get them to gradually put some of their weight on the rope hanging right in front of them called philosophy. As they learn to trust philosophy more and more then you can begin to cut through their illusions. 

 

My point is that the rope is there -- philosophy is right in front of them. It's not Stef's or anyone else's fault that they choose to ignore it. They have free will and could grab a hold of it and never let go. Some of us, you and I, do exactly that; sadly, the percentage of people who instead fall into the state or worse into nihilism is far higher. To say that children justify staying in the Church is not your decision to make. Ripping illusion away from people is painful but it is not abuse. Staying with a spouse whose methodology is anti-rational would not exactly constitute abuse either, but it does show a lack of integrity. Is that the kind of action by which we should demonstrate courage to our children?

 

Is there an easy answer? No. And Stef doesn't give answers. But even if he did, getting to an answer is like trying to cure cancer rather than prevent it. So how can philosophy, which is primarily around prevention, give insight to the equivalent of a surgical operation? Let me know your thoughts.

[PGP]

Firstly, tremendous courage on behalf of the caller. To be in that position with kids and to find a middle ground way forward is heroic in my opinion. Secondly, I think that the dissemination of philosophy in these conditions is possible because of the bones and blood and suffering of countless generations. This needn't have been true, but I think it is. I have the possibility of pursuing philosophy by chance and the dichotomy I see in the world is along the lines of those who will allow that choice in the future and those who will not. Here I place what I consider the jackals of the Left and Marxism in contempt. They will lead us all to the pit if they are let. The middle ground for me is the right to choose and I think it relates strongly to Natural Rights. In this sense, there is something far greater than each individual at stake today.

[williamsjar]

This call was extremely valuable to me. I think some commenters are missing the point: For Scott, leaving or moving his family is not an option. The question becomes: What's next best?

[Laforge]

Did i pick up the word 'Choir' from that video??
Check out the Youtube band 'Pentatonix'. They are one seriously pimped-out choir!
They have a couple of religious songs but i don't think they are.
Main page: https://www.youtube.com/user/PTXofficial
For those who can appreciate an early christmas vibe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_MGWio-vc

I've always been a 100% atheist (and former leftist) but there is certainly a team-building aspect to religion from which the FDR community can learn.
As long as we're careful not to take the wide paint brush of propaganda and ignoring the pedophile inquisition which may always be lurking around the corner, waiting to grab power again through the priesthood-class as soon as democracy collapses.

P.S. i really think this peaceful parenting thing is the way to go
 

[thesmooter]

Amazing show! Loved the honesty by both Stef and the caller.  Wow! This one hit home for me as well.  I was a hardcore christian for much of my life.  I think there was some really great points and perhaps some missed opportunities for clarification.   

When Stef said; regarding the kids -"You got them in, you cannot leave (without them)".  Was awesome.  I couldn't agree more! However, I think the callers mental crossroads needed to be addressed more.  To stay in the church means to continue to lie, or allow others to lie to your kids and that cannot be good! That did seem to be ok by Stef for pragmatic reasons.   Could the guy slowly chip away and work within his family with extreme genteelness into realizing their error?  I don't know. 

Another issue I thought was the comparing the best of moderate Christians VS statist atheists.    While I agree most atheists are leftists I also have to agree they are way less likely to spank vs the christians.  Christians love them some spankin!  And they love the state too... As long as its used for imperialism and war.

I do appreciate Stefs' honest acknowledgment of the family ethic that Christians hold and the sense of community.  Obviously it was very emotional for both parties.  I would love to hear Stef expand on this one.  

[MMX2010]

By the logic above, he was there because he didn't know where else to go. He tried in vain to bring values back to a community, and even if deep down he didn't believe in God, he did it so that he could give his family support.

 

Yeeeah... I don't buy that. First of all, he could have easily taken his family to a more Conservative church. But let's set that aside for the moment. Even if it was a Mormon church which was strongly anti-state, would I have rather my Dad separate from my mom whose family revolved around the church, or stay together "for my sake"? Without a doubt I would have rather they separated. Because if the bond between my parents was so feeble that religion could come between them, I would rather have that fact out in the open than covered up for twenty years by a family built on falsehood.

 

I'm aware that divorce is bad for children. However, the mind-screw of religion is also bad for them, is it not? I have never forgotten FDR70, in which Stef describes the invisible apple as a metaphor for religion. How do you talk to your child about religion when you compromised your principles in order to keep your family and your community in tact? Maybe I'll understand when I'm older.

 

The last thing I'll say is that I don't think Stef ever retracted any of his arguments on religion. In fact, I think he has said multiple times that he still holds them to be philosophically valid. Instead, his apology to Christians was in reference to the approach that he took to leading theists to the truth. I get it. The truth is a sword that must be wielded with great responsibility. If you cut all the strings of belief holding someone up, that person is most likely going to fall. So you want to get them to gradually put some of their weight on the rope hanging right in front of them called philosophy. As they learn to trust philosophy more and more then you can begin to cut through their illusions. 

 

My point is that the rope is there -- philosophy is right in front of them. It's not Stef's or anyone else's fault that they choose to ignore it. They have free will and could grab a hold of it and never let go. Some of us, you and I, do exactly that; sadly, the percentage of people who instead fall into the state or worse into nihilism is far higher. To say that children justify staying in the Church is not your decision to make. Ripping illusion away from people is painful but it is not abuse. Staying with a spouse whose methodology is anti-rational would not exactly constitute abuse either, but it does show a lack of integrity. Is that the kind of action by which we should demonstrate courage to our children?

 

Is there an easy answer? No. And Stef doesn't give answers. But even if he did, getting to an answer is like trying to cure cancer rather than prevent it. So how can philosophy, which is primarily around prevention, give insight to the equivalent of a surgical operation? Let me know your thoughts.

 

 

First, let me state the major disclaimer that I still haven't listened to the call.  I've had a lovely, frightening, beautiful, and perfect weekend. 

 

Second, a relevant thought-experiment.  Let's pretend you have two boxes, and you have to pick which one is better.  You open the first box which contains something smelly, horrible, disgusting, and absolutely worthless.  Opening the box makes you instantly think, "If the first box contains this, then the second box must be better!"  (Except this isn't necessarily true, because there could be worse things...) 

 

Thirdly, I think Matt D's argument is excellent but suffers from the problem in the thought experiment.  Matt knows (like I know) how horrible it is for a parent to bow before religion in order to keep the family together.  And because that information is so heartfelt, and so painful, we both assume that the opposite choice (to divorce and rescue the children from religion) is better.  But we don't really know this.  Worse, I think that if our parents divorced, we would only know what that particular experience felt like.  And we'd find it so heartfelt and terrible that we'd assume, "If only our parents had stayed together, despite the presence of religion, then it would've been better for me." 

 

The best part of my argument is that religion is still garbage.  But the worst part of my argument is that each person gets to choose which crappy option (out of two horrifically crappy options) to accept, without the existence of an objective, morality-based counter-argument. 

 

Thus, Stefan defeats m.j., WastachMan, MattD, and the other "objectors" (couldn't think of a better word) by the narrowest of margins: 50.1 to 49.9.  Excellent arguments on both sides. 

 

(Though I might change my mind after I listen to the show.) 

[MrVitaminP]

Stefan, remember your book "How not to achieve freedom" where you were talking about how ineffective or suicidal would be to infiltrate the Mafia to persuade them to become good? Well, you are now suggesting to your listener to do exactly that.

Is that what Stefan is suggesting for the listener to do? It would seem to me that he has already joined the Mafia, pre-enlightenment. Is that not different than trying to infiltrate them in an attempt to do good? 

 

 

The Mormon guy can't influence anything in his community, it is a suicide mission. By advising him to go back there is to ask him to be a hypocrite all his life. ...

The listener had devised two options for himself: leave the church and accept the ostracization or stay and live a lie. Maybe I need to listen to the show again, but I did not equate the third option that Stefan presented as being the same as the listener's second option. In my experience, excommunication with a church doesn't come from one voicing that they have doubts or are struggling with their faith. Instead it comes when you essentially say: "screw you guys, I'm going home!" Your mileage may certainly vary, however. But, what I heard from the show was that the listener shares many of the values with his church. If he stays he can build on those values and possible keep his family without having to lie or be a hypocrite, as you suggest. Instead, he needs to not focus on the outcomes and speak more about the journey. In other words, you don't lead with: I don't believe in god. You lead with the journey you have taken and the insights you gained that resulted in that conclusion. Again, in my experience, this won't result in having your Christian friends agree with you but it also doesn't lead them to ask you to get the fuck out either.