Sounds like an interesting read. Do you know of a free copy of the essay, or did you buy it? I’ll read it then comment. — NOS4A2

I couldn't find it on line. You can buy it from Amazon.com . It comes as a little paperback.

The most obvious place where this plays out is with disorders like Down Syndrome, which are now screened for early in most pregnancies in some countries. People terminate these pregnancies at vastly higher rates, leading to very stark declines in prevalence in some countries (e.g. Iceland). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Downs isn't passed down genetically, though. It's a malfunction that takes place early during gestation. There wouldn't be any eugenics benefit from ending a Downs pregnancy.

I understand the motivation behind eugenics, but I don't think we know enough to engage in it large scale. Knowing how genetic manipulation will effect a handful of people doesn't tell us anything about the wider implications for the whole population. Diseases sometimes come in pairs where having one condition gives immunity to some other. A broad eugenics program might show us the benefit behind some conditions that we now think of as noxious.

Anyhow, the Alt-Right is fairly broad and in some sense the idea of "race realism" is more tangential than I think a lot of coverage suggests. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Nick Land's sentiments are central to the contemporary alt-right and the opening lines of Dark Enlightenment are about race. That's why I brought it up. I wasn't looking for low hanging fruit. That would be disingenuous.

Does "struggles" mean that they have to go to work five days a week? — Metaphysician Undercover

Living paycheck to paycheck is pretty common.

Worrying is self-inflicted anxiety. — Metaphysician Undercover

It often comes from a heroin deficiency.

Now Trump is doing exactly the same, but even higher tariffs when the World is far more integrated than it was in the 1930's — ssu

I think I was the one who told you that a trade war precipitated the Great Depression. Now you're teaching it back to me.

We can go over the reasons why Russian imperialism and military aggression is bad for Europe, but now the question is just why to start appeasing those, who see the US as it's enemy and alienate those, who thought being your allies? — ssu

Basically because the US can destroy Russia without Europe's help. If the US needed European support, it would be a different story.

And do you think that starting a trade war, which likely ends up in a global downturn, will help that? — ssu

It has the potential to. A trade war would help American labor as long as it doesn't coincide with a panic that crashes the system.

You don't want to have a welfare state, you don't want universal health care or free education. You could easily have that, but you do not want it. You want to give tax breaks to the rich and believe that the best thing is not only to man the highest positions in the administration with billionaires, but to give unchecked power to the richest man in the World. That's the United States Americans seem to want and vote for. Because obviously, for some reason you buy the argument that is this rule by the rich or then everything else is Venezuela type socialism.

It's all that you are doing yourself by your own choosing. And loosing that leadership role won't make it anymore easier. Actually it's the American defense companies that will be hurt when Europe starts focusing on it's own military industry.

In fact, you can both have a strong military and a welfare state and people be prosperous. But that means that the rich do have to pay taxes. Sweden during the Cold War is actually a great example of this: a rather small country could have it's own military industrial complex capable of building top of the line fighters, submarines and even building an own nuclear weapon. And also creating that welfare state.

The thing that either it's guns or butter is the wrong idea. — ssu

I'm not sure why you're having this reaction. Are you afraid Russia is going to invade your country and Europe will just stand by and let it happen?

Yeah, I don't think that's a left problem though. I think we're seeing that from all quarters. The left and right are just doing that in different ways. — flannel jesus

Agreed.

zombie? Not sure what exactly is meant by that — flannel jesus

No reflection. Just outrage.

Hayek favored dictatorship as the best way to preserve the freedom of the market. He's an ideological grandfather of Land and his friends.
— frank

On what basis do you say that? — Paine

I read a book about him? He praised the Chilean dictator and commented that a dictator is the best solution to threats to freedom. I'm not going to look it up and provide a quote though. I just don't care enough. Sorry.

You do know that Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US has, btw. — ssu

Ok.

It really comes down to this: when you cannot understand how much of the current prosperity you have is thanks to the Superpower status, it's really the epic failure of your own government to make it's case for this. Other countries have happily given the US the leadership role. But once other countries don't listen to you, you will understand it. — ssu

The average American struggles to make ends meet. They worry about how they're going to afford to retire. The ones just below average show up to the emergency room to get healthcare and when they're told that they need to stop working to get over their pneumonia, they start crying and explaining that they're working two jobs and they have to take care of their kids and they can't take any time off.

That is America. Thanks for the leadership role.

As a lefty, I largely agree with this and I've been saying similar things for years. The left shoots themselves in the foot by becoming extreme caricatures of themselves. — flannel jesus

I also get what he's saying. There's a little bit of zombie-ness in progressivism.

Take Hayek, for instance, who advocated for a completely free market but did not support the deletion of civic governance. — Paine

Hayek favored dictatorship as the best way to preserve the freedom of the market. He's an ideological grandfather of Land and his friends.

What Land describes as 'conservative' — Paine

What did he describe as conservative? He isn't conservative in any meaningful sense. He's post-Leftism.

By that measure, the alt-right does not want to have control of the commons but to force everybody else to live in their ghetto. — Paine

Libertarians truly want freedom and they think democracy has failed in its mission to provide that. They have joined hands with Neo-Nazis in order to make their sentiments known. To what extent do they realize that there's a looming disaster in that? I honestly don't think they care. They're useless dust for history's bin.

Would it be a bad thing is the liberal world order ended Frank? — ChatteringMonkey

If you mean should America's global influence end. Yes. It should.

So, St. Thomas's Five Ways demonstrate a lack of faith and are contrary to Church doctrine? — Count Timothy von Icarus

If he required any of that for belief, yes, it would show a lack of faith.

I'll tell you a secret about mysticism. As soon as you stop trying to be right, you'll feel God's presence. It's pretty cool.

Apparently, you know more about how to instruct Christians on their own faith than St. Anselm. — Count Timothy von Icarus

St Anselm was very well aware that faith is not based on reason.

Au contraire, the argument has two premises inconsistent with doctrine (see the Catechism above — Count Timothy von Icarus

You've got to be kidding me. He's clearly saying that if you require argumentation for belief in God, you lack faith.

The Pauline doctrine and the official Church teaching is that faith is a gift of God. It is not obtained through reason.

Read what he wrote. His view is traditional.

Let's revisit the OP.

But know this... all of you who do require reason-based thought, have a severe lack of faith in God. — DifferentiatingEgg

And you've affirmed that

... faith is above reason,

Faith is above reason. Those who require reason in order to believe are demonstrating a lack of faith. The OP is expressing the Pauline doctrine along with the official teaching of the Church.

Thanks for the explanation. I asked my question because I don't see how the positions you describe are relevant to the issue at hand - to quote the OP, "...using reason-based thought for God is necessarily a showing of a lack of faith in God." — T Clark

If someone refused to believe until they had a good argument, that would demonstrate a lack of faith, pretty much by definition. Just indulging in argumentation doesn't show a lack of faith. So you're right.

It depends on what you mean by "through reason." Reason in contemporary thought is often restricted to nothing more than demonstration and computation, the means by which man moves from premises to conclusions. However, reason is sometimes still used for the intellect, i.e., the rational part of the soul or nous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

One of things in your previous post that gave me pause was this:

Which is not to say "faith is irrational" and "faith does not involve understanding," even from the standpoint of Evangelicals. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If by "Evangelicals", you mean Protestants who support missionary work, that's exactly the population you'd look toward to find a real, full-bodied Christian rationalist. This is where the ridiculous "clock-maker" thought experiment comes from. This view is in direct contradiction to the views of Paul, which was that faith is a divine gift. This is the view of the Catholic Church. They see reason as compatible with faith, but it is by no means the source of it.

It depends on what you mean by "through reason." Reason in contemporary thought is often restricted to nothing more than demonstration and computation, the means by which man moves from premises to conclusions. However, reason is sometimes still used for the intellect, i.e., the rational part of the soul or nous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The human intellect is supposed to be a reflection of the second emanation of the One. This supports the Pauline view that faith does not arise from any work exerted by the mind. It's just part of the functioning of the mind.

Progress towards theosis is generally seen as involving ever greater degrees of understanding, certainly not its absence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The understanding involved here would be mystical in character. The One becomes the Two. The Two becomes the Three. The Three becomes the Four, which is the One. In comparison with this, logical arguments only offer half-truths. But we are here a long way from the concerns of Paul, which was my point.

Even St. Augustine, Calvin's main inspiration, dedicated significant efforts to apologetics and philosophy as well. Faith here is not will as uniformed by intellect — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. Reason is considered to be compatible with faith, but not its source. It appears you're going to hold fast to the wrong impression about the Pauline doctrine and the official teaching of the Church. I'm disappointed in you, but you're certainly welcome to your view.

Yes, that is not the same thing as what OP is saying at all. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So you're admitting that the Pauline doctrine, along with the official Catholic view is that faith is not through reason, but by the grace of God?

My brief look into what Pauline doctrine is doesn’t indicate it is primarily related to reason versus faith. — T Clark

The main issue Paul dealt with in his religious work was the salvation of the Gentiles. He believed Jesus offered the way for Gentiles to become beneficiaries of the Covenant. He basically established Christianity outside the Jewish community. His thoughts about faith and works were related to that.

Btw, this is my favorite Pauline scripture. When I was young, this was all of Christianity to me:

"If I speak with the eloquence of men and of angels, but have no love, I become no more than blaring brass or crashing cymbal.

"If I have the gift of foretelling the future and hold in my mind not only all human knowledge but the very secrets of God, and if I also have that absolute faith which can move mountains, but have no love, I amount to nothing at all.

"If I dispose of all that I possess, yes, even if I give my own body to be burned, but have no love, I achieve precisely nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2

And how do you know that the US isn't defended through NATO? — Christoffer

Could you explain how it is? The US has a giant nuclear arsenal with the ability to deploy them with ICBMs, medium range missiles, submarines, and Air Force bombers. Why does the US need NATO? I'm asking.

One of the striking features to me of Trumpian politics is that it is mostly vindictive. — Benkei

I agree.

This has been far from the norm in Church history — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is the official Catholic view:

"Again, it is evident that this "light of faith" is a supernatural gift and is not the necessary outcome of assent to the motives of credibility. No amount of study will win it, no intellectual conviction as to the credibility of revealed religion nor even of the claims of the Church to be our infallible guide in matters of faith, will produce this light in a man's mind. It is the free gift of God. Hence the Vatican Council (III, iii;) teaches that "faith is a supernatural virtue by which we with the inspiration and assistance of God's grace, believe those things to be true which He has revealed" Catholic Encyclopedia

"Faith is a gift of grace. God not only speaks to us, he also gives us the grace to respond. To believe in Revelation we need the gift of faith." Archdiocese of Minneapolis

"Faith is a gift of God which enables us to know and love him". (ibid)

The above is also Pauline doctrine.

Faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought.
— DifferentiatingEgg

Rubbish. — Leontiskos

No, this is the Pauline doctrine. You're saved through faith by the grace of God. You Catholics need to read the Bible. :razz:

It is traditionally held that Paul believed that faith is a gift from God. This scripture is interpreted as saying that:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." -- Ephesians 2:8-9

I could lay out more sources to show this. Do you need that? It's pervasive in the Pauline texts. His own faith was by the grace of God. He believed that was true of everyone.

The only presupposition I’ve made is that you don’t know enough about religious doctrine to make a meaningful statement about it. — T Clark

What he expressed was Pauline doctrine.

I see what you're saying, but the US put trillions into NATO because it was defending itself by containing communism. The US isn't defending itself through NATO now. It's just exercising global influence. I think most Americans would question the wisdom of continuing to take that role. What's in it for us?

My question is do you agree with Harris’ point regarding topics that have no strictly objective or easily proven right or wrong? — Captain Homicide

It's true that defining has to stop somewhere. It ends with assumptions, axioms, faith, etc. This is pervasively true. It's not just true of morality and health. It's true of science as well. What am I supposed to be concluding from that?

Btw, I judge art by giving a rating for the size of the aspiration (the grandeur of the artist's intentions) and the success of the execution. The product of the two is a sort of aesthetics rating. For instance War and Peace has big numbers for both, whereas Young Frankenstein has a minor aspiration rating, but almost perfect execution.

I think their goal is to overthrow the liberal democratic world order we have had the past 75 years. This is not about some policy change left or right, but about a total system change based on core values that are not the same.

If this is indeed their goal, then what they are doing kindof makes sense. — ChatteringMonkey

Exactly.

How was it out of date? It has worked well. — ssu

I thought NATO had to do with opposing communism. Communism is gone.

You don’t get the authentically Asian or Pacific Islander without exclusivity. — Fire Ologist

I don't think it matters how we treat them. They're still Filipino. That's not something we're creating with our hiring practices.

The idea is that some people opposed DEI because they think it forces stupid people to the top, where they contaminate the elite with their stupid genes. Chattering Monkey and I were adding in some futurism.

Remember, when you go to make sense of history, you inevitably narrate it according to some presuppositions or biases. Same thing with trying to understand the present moment.

This inspires me to look at all the significant viewpoints on the scene and place them as if on a chessboard where I can move them around and let them interact. Do I escape bias this way? Probably not entirely, but it's maybe a little more sophisticated than the rooting-for-my-team approach, which is just blind bs.

They aren't related — AmadeusD

What two things aren't related?

But if you can't be bothered reading, then I can't be bothered explaining. — Wayfarer

I don't blame you. You can't be bothered.

The general arc historically has been towards more integration. But I don't think this is necessarily the direction we should expect the future to go. — ChatteringMonkey

I wish I could come back in 10,000 years and see what happened. :grin:

Maybe we will get seperation and evolutionary bottlenecks. — ChatteringMonkey

Maybe from climate change?

You don't really want to summarize. I get it.

I should add that I can't claim to have reached any plateau of serene detachment, although I do see the point. — Wayfarer

What's the point?

This is maybe overly generous, but I think there's way to read this as being about culture and ethnicity rather than race ultimately. — ChatteringMonkey

And if we add in the part about eugenics, it's about genetic fragmentation of Homo Sapiens into different subspecies, and maybe eventually different species.

Imagine we're at a crossroads where we could remain fairly closely related, or we could start splitting apart as in HG Wells' Time Machine. The philosophy of staying together is liberalism and egalitarianism. The philosophy of splitting is what Land is talking about.

You're knowledge of this is pretty in depth. I didn't realize they were thinking along eugenics lines when they condemned DEI. I thought it was just racism. Plus eugenics had it's day. Wasn't the science behind it debunked?