Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always struggle with the confusion that seems so prevalent along these lines...
There is much anyone can compare and contrast between religion and politics. Some conflate in similar fashion science too, but I think the differences are just as important to note as well. Despite some similarities with respect to what people get behind and why, there are significant differences that should be noted between religion, politics and science too.
How we come to think and believe what we do with respect to all three tends to differ as well, in similarly important ways. All to say, I think it important to recognize and understand these important distinctions and/or avoid throwing them all in the same basket as if essentially the same. They are not.
I don't think anyone has claimed that politics and religion are identical. Merely that they have properties in common.
I think it's possible to elaborate on this point further.
Political views operate much the same as ethical views (both are axiological systems), so the divisive, religion-like quality that many find toxic in today's politics was always there, inherent in the very basic structure of political commitments, truths and duties.
The only thing that's changed in recent years is that opposing political views have become more evenly represented, making those latent divisions more visible and impassioned. The OP will only get what he wants by his preferred political side being dominant again.
The irony is, sociological evidence shows left-leaning secular cultures to have the most religion-like devotion to politics.
With respect to the actual facts of these matters too...
I'm curious if you can provide any supporting references to justify some of this in your comment; by what measure do we know "views have become more evenly represented?" Which views, to be more specific, are we talking about and again, by what measure are they "more evenly represented?" Also, what evidence is this that "shows left-leaning secular cultures to have the most religion-like devotion to politics." What sort of devotion is that more specifically? Serious devotion? Committed devotion? Are religious people also not all over the board when it comes to their level of devotion?
What makes humans tick is a favorite subject of mine, so I'm curious if your comment is born mostly from your own opinion or facts or both...
I don't think anyone has claimed the politics and religion are identical. Merely that they have properties in common.
Science, though, is completely different. Metaphysics or politics sometimes masquerades as science, but that's a different situation.
I haven't claimed anyone thinks politics and religion are identical either. Obviously they "have properties in common."
I'm just pointing out how the two or even three are all too often conflated one way or another rather than the other way around. Here too, I think specifics would help, but they are rarely included in these sorts of latitudes and platitudes of exchanged opinion about such things...
I haven't claimed anyone thinks politics and religion are identical either. Obviously they "have properties in common."
I'm just pointing out how the two or even three are all too often conflated one way or another rather than the other way around. Here too, I think specifics would help, but they are rarely included in these sorts of latitudes and platitudes of exchanged opinion about such things...
I'm just going by what you've written. Is this not your comment below?
Quote:
All to say, I think it important to recognize and understand these important distinctions and/or avoid throwing them all in the same basket as if essentially the same. They are not.
With respect to the actual facts of these matters too...
I'm curious if you can provide any supporting references to justify some of this in your comment; by what measure do we know "views have become more evenly represented?" Which views, to be more specific, are we talking about and again, by what measure are they "more evenly represented?" Also, what evidence is this that "shows left-leaning secular cultures to have the most religion-like devotion to politics." What sort of devotion is that more specifically? Serious devotion? Committed devotion? Are religious people also not all over the board when it comes to their level of devotion?
What makes humans tick is a favorite subject of mine, so I'm curious if your comment is born mostly from your own opinion or facts or both...
When your children ask you, "Papa, where were you in the Great Echo Chamber Implosion of 2016?", what would you reply?
Love the Donald or hate the Donald, you can't deny that there's been an evening (or even the start of a reversal) of the balance of power between opposing political ideologies with the redshift in US politics that took place with his election victory.
On your second point, this is the reference I linked earlier:
When your children ask you, "Papa, where were you in the Great Echo Chamber Implosion of 2016?", what would you reply?
Love the Donald or hate the Donald, you can't deny that there's been an evening of the balance of power between opposing political ideologies with the redshift in US politics that took place with his election victory.
On your second point, this is the reference I linked earlier:
I've got to sign off now, and you seem to be offering up a bit more than what a few seconds of review will do justice, but my first read from your link here doesn't seem to support your assertion that "sociological evidence shows left-leaning secular cultures to have the most religion-like devotion to politics." Then again, you are using terms all your own here that I'm not all too sure about, per my prior questions looking to clarify them a bit.
I'm not exactly sure how to address your other hypothetical or how you measure this "balance of power" your continuing to argue, but something other than your opinion would help here too.
I've got to sign off now, and you seem to be offering up a bit more than what a few seconds of review will do justice, but my first read from your link here doesn't seem to support your assertion that "sociological evidence shows left-leaning secular cultures to have the most religion-like devotion to politics." Then again, you are using terms all your own here that I'm not all too sure about, per my prior questions looking to clarify them a bit.
I'm not exactly sure how to address your other hypothetical or how you measure this "balance of power" your continuing to argue, but something other than your opinion would help here too.
Perhaps until tomorrow. Thanks.
Political power is an axiological property, in the same vein as beauty or elegance. Asking for a direct quantification of it is pointless.
There is, however, reductio ad absurdum. Try opening a new thread, arguing that the Donald is not upsetting the status quo of the politico-media complex, and that conservative voices have not become emboldened with his rise to power. See how far you get.
Zuckerman finds that the bigger the government size (with more generous welfare systems), the more secular the population.
Under the exchange model, this implies correlations between leftist politics, secular metaphysics and greater subscription to an 'exchange role' for government, where the government is ascribed the roles traditionally ascribed to deity in past cultures.
Political power is an axiological property, in the same vein as beauty or elegance. Asking for a direct quantification of it is pointless.
There is, however, reductio ad absurdum. Try opening a new thread, arguing that the Donald is not upsetting the status quo of the politico-media complex, and that conservative voices have not become emboldened with his rise to power. See how far you get.
Zuckerman finds that the bigger the government size (with more generous welfare systems), the more secular the population.
Under the exchange model, this implies correlations between leftist politics, secular metaphysics and greater subscription to an 'exchange role' for government, where the government is ascribed the roles traditionally ascribed to deity in past cultures.
Reductio ad absurdum it is then...
Though I understand "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder," I think you are doing a good job of dismissing what CAN be quantified, measured, methods of quantification that are not only pointless but utilized all the time. If you simply want to express opinion without concern for justification, then again, you do a good job.
A painting, for example, can be valued, though obviously the same painting will be appreciated more or less depending on who is doing the beholding. There remains that data point regardless. What the painting last sold for. Different from your mere opinion it's "priceless." The elegance of a car or dress or house same thing. In particular with politics even more the case. There are all manner of measure that determines where the balance of power tends to be. Not to be confused with how conservatives have become emboldened thanks to Donald. Of course they have, but to what extent there is balance or imbalance of power requires a bit more than just personal observation I think.
Again, I read what Zuckerman wrote. What he writes does not mean "sociological evidence shows left-leaning secular cultures to have the most religion-like devotion to politics." Not what he wrote in any case, but also again, you don't define your terms. "Religion-like devotion to politics," for example.
What I read is that as people begin to organize in ways that better serve their collective needs, people begin to devote their focus more toward those ways and perhaps less on religion, for some. No doubt the number of people considering themselves very religious is going down, but also no doubt there is more than one reason for that. Not sure any of this is so much "left-leaning" as much as man's progress over time. Is the 1st Amendment of the constitution "left-leaning?" I understand the relationship between religion and politics in any case, as well explained in this book you too might appreciate, "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind."
Simply put, I think your understanding of what Zuckerman writes tends to bend a bit in the direction of your bias and/or preconceived notions about the relationship between politics and/or religion. What is "left leaning" and what is something else perhaps as well. A little off the mark, just like how "quantification is pointless."
Though I understand "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder," I think you are doing a good job of dismissing what CAN be quantified, measured, methods of quantification that are not only pointless but utilized all the time. If you simply want to express opinion without concern for justification, then again, you do a good job.
A painting, for example, can be valued, though obviously the same painting will be appreciated more or less depending on who is doing the beholding. There remains that data point regardless. What the painting last sold for. Different from your mere opinion it's "priceless." The elegance of a car or dress or house same thing. In particular with politics even more the case. There are all manner of measure that determines where the balance of power tends to be. Not to be confused with how conservatives have become emboldened thanks to Donald. Of course they have, but to what extent there is balance or imbalance of power requires a bit more than just personal observation I think.
It's tautological to argue that axiological properties can be measured by monetary value.
When artwork is appraised for monetary value, all you are doing is comparing one axiological property with another. That is irrespective of whether the value of money is established by fiat, gold standard or promissory contract, given that none of these properties are reducible to empirical measurements. The monetary value of art is also influenced by factors other than aesthetics.
There are no direct measures of political power, at least of the type that you imply. The best you have are indirect measures such as public polling and surveys. Quantitative studies show only part of the picture and, even then, are prone to large margins of error.
I should add, you don't need to be a subjectivist to think that aesthetics is irreducible to empirical measurements.
You can be an objectivist on beauty, rejecting the notion that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', and still think the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Again, I read what Zuckerman wrote. What he writes does not mean "sociological evidence shows left-leaning secular cultures to have the most religion-like devotion to politics." Not what he wrote in any case, but also again, you don't define your terms. "Religion-like devotion to politics," for example.
What I read is that as people begin to organize in ways that better serve their collective needs, people begin to devote their focus more toward those ways and perhaps less on religion, for some. No doubt the number of people considering themselves very religious is going down, but also no doubt there is more than one reason for that. Not sure any of this is so much "left-leaning" as much as man's progress over time. Is the 1st Amendment of the constitution "left-leaning?" I understand the relationship between religion and politics in any case, as well explained in this book you too might appreciate, "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind."
Simply put, I think your understanding of what Zuckerman writes tends to bend a bit in the direction of your bias and/or preconceived notions about the relationship between politics and/or religion. What is "left leaning" and what is something else perhaps as well. A little off the mark, just like how "quantification is pointless."
Large government size and generous welfare systems are generally associated with the political left.
I have drawn an inference from the exchange model that isn't stated explicitly by its authors, as you correctly point out, and that is based upon the premise that political views have quasi-religious properties that can be polarizing and divisive.
If you want to prove my conclusions about secular cultures to be wrong, there are two approaches you could try.
1. Showing the premise to be wrong, which is probably a waste of time given that it's a truism.
2. Showing that my conclusion doesn't follow the premises, which is what I recommend you try.
Last edited by Hightower72; 04-07-2019 at 02:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
