Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Can Religion Still Answer Our Problems

Interesting link. they do not allow for you to see racial breakdowns for the answer, but with black claims to higher religious affiliation and audacious epigone's splits from other surveys on religion, it is safe to say the big change recently is in whites. the affirmative answer has a dramatic drop after the '60s, but stays steady around 60% since. the interesting change is the change within the negative or unsure answer split. whereas in the past it was an even split amongst a firm no and an i don't know, the recent trend up is in no. this could be a hardening of irreligious whites, atheist comfort in expressing their views or simply a modern view of the complexity of modern times being unique. it isn't unique. another change might be in modern misunderstanding of religion combined with a fear of truly admitting what prime mover problems are.

The general environmental dysfunction that children grow up in. Divorce. Religion can't fix it in itself, but people who want to engage in a religious marriage with the idea of death until you part could solve that. Illegitimate children. That'd be an easier fix. Religion is like a k-selection enforcing structure. Drug and alcohol addiction. Empty souls and lack of coping skills will push people to substitute with numbing the pain through chemicals. There are more, but these are some that are the core of other dysfunctional behavior. Similar to the debate about macroeconomics being only built up from microeconomics or not, many of larger society's problems stem first from personal choice at the intimate level. It's why progressives will never fix anything since they never assign agency to idiots.

The core of these problems lie in people. Humans are animals with a soul or animals with the potential to be lights upon the earth. We still have deep brain desires and reactions. The problem lies in being fed a steady diet of be yourself, individual freedom, unrestrained individualism and anti-institutional restraint. When pundits speak of the possible libertarian moment, it is silly because we do live in it already. Neoliberalism or Washington Consensus economics favors winner take all economics with access to the government helping out. Individuals have all the unrestrained freedom of children with their behavior. Every deviancy is encouraged. The state provides a safety net for all problems, and all consequences are socialized. The steady stream of anti-organized religion propaganda is just a piece of the anti-family and anti-private organization messaging. Anything that can unite the people outside of the state's control and guidance is a problem to the state mandarins.

As long as the culture is attuned to non-religious answers and can smear religion at every turn, religion will not solve problems. Religion also needs the flock. Sure, the poz that has infested many Protestant churches has turned some people away but many people just do not want to go. What do they say, "It doesn't speak to me. It doesn't relate to me". Stop being a narcissus. Religion is not meant to speak to your petty 21st century, late Imperial American self. You either feel it or you won't. Our chattering class and punditocracy does not feel it any longer, and with that, our virtue is gone and religion does not stand a chance. It will not answer our problems because there is no environment in the current system that will give it a chance.

15 comments:

Scott's Bluff said...

lol wut? God is dead, God doesn’t exist, he doesn’t even do anything, he’s so dumb, I’ve asked nicely for so much in the past and broheim never delivered. Yahweh? No way, unless I’m curled up on the bathroom floor as my stomach is attempting to eat itself or give my throat muscles a workout. Then I pray.

Libertarianism: the radical belief of leaving you the Hell alone *~* Yeah that sounds super awful.

OT, January was preparation month/starting month to begin working on your beach bod for the summer. My calves will be so jacked for jumping around inside the many gay foam parties I will attend. Can’t wait.

He doesn’t even do anything!

Anonymous said...

The trick is to make it like the Orthodox Judaism-belief is not important, you just have to follow the rules. I don't know how you could do that with Christianity.

deconstructingleftism said...

There is formal religion, and personal religion. The formal religion is PC, and it is very strong and paid obeisance when it is not actually believed in.

Christianity is on some level not in conflict with PC, PC having been extracted gradually from versions of Christianity over the last several hundred years.

What is in conflict with PC is reality. Reality without religion is pretty grim, so people will accept PC. The conflict is papered over.

Can Christianity and reality work together for a better world? That was how it worked from the late Roman Empire to the Renaissance. Might be worth trying again.

For the current world, though, Christianity is mostly a personal existential thing. It can't save the world, but the world is not worth saving.

PA said...

Religion should be aligned with the interests of the believers. Christianity can regain its vitality as a social force when these two things are done:

1. valorization of masculinity
2. reconnecting religion with ethnic identity

NZT said...

Can't speak for other religions, but the point of Christianity is not to solve worldly problems or guarantee worldly happiness, it's to save one's eternal soul by establishing a right relationship with God. "Pick up our cross and follow me" and all that. A person can disbelieve in that if they want, but it only confuses the issue to talk as though the goal is to get the illegitimacy rate down a few points, or as a substitute for Prozac. It's true that properly practiced Christianity is strongly pro-civilization and can be a powerful emotional support for the individual, but those are side effects (and clues for the wise), not the essential core.

Yes, some churches have fallen away from scripture and taught various pozzed heresies. This is slightly troubling, but there are still many millions of people who understand and uphold traditional doctrine. It's pretty ballsy to say a 2000 year old institution is dead or dying, personally I just chalk it up to the natural ebb and flow of human history. We fall away, are chastised, and re-learn what our grandfathers knew.

To suggest that modernity has achieved some kind of new innovations in sinful and decadent behavior that present a never-before-seen challenge to God is itself a very old idea and no more credible now than it was 1,500 years ago. Watching smug shitlibs think they are somehow profaning Christianity with their pozzed tumblrs and hashtag snark is like watching a child trying to befoul the ocean by spitting in it.

"Can Christianity and reality work together for a better world?"

Yes, but again, the point of Christianity is not worldly success. Men will never create paradise, though obviously we can do much better than we're doing now. If we take good care of our souls we'll usually find that everything else works out pretty well too.

"reconnecting religion with ethnic identity"

This is a slippery point. Christianity is explicitly, overtly a universal religion. All believers are brothers in Christ. As Pman at MPC points out, it's one of the ways it beautifully transcends the futile, ugly struggle that characterizes so much of life. HOWEVER. This DOES NOT MEAN that countries are obliged to throw open their borders or donate all their wealth to subsidize dysgenic breeding in the Third World. In our worldly vocations as citizens we are called to be good stewards of our respective cultures and nations, and can in good conscience take necessary steps to preserve their integrity and continuity. There is both Biblical precedent (as in the Babel story) and clear natural law that God divided us into separate peoples for a reason, and when we try to mix ourselves promiscuously the results are chaos and misery. It's un-Christian to hate blacks for being black, but not at all un-Christian to believe that whites and blacks should live in separate societies that best respond to their respective preferences. I agree that the church could strengthen itself by bringing clarity to this issue, that God's command to love your neighbors doesn't mean we should embrace insane, unbiblical one-world utopianism.

nikcrit said...

There is both Biblical precedent (as in the Babel story) and clear natural law that God divided us into separate peoples for a reason, and when we try to mix ourselves promiscuously the results are chaos and misery. It's un-Christian to hate blacks for being black, but not at all un-Christian to believe that whites and blacks should live in separate societies that best respond to their respective preferences.

I agreed with most of your comment but took exception to parts of this passage.
First, the mixing you speak of seems to be of the 'in-general' sort; your focus on 'promiscuity' is an irrelevant specific but understandable because 'mixing' in our current era and epoch is definitely often a man-woman union saddled with political, psychological and all sorts of other mental baggage.
And as often happens in political-driven discussion involving race, your applying religious doctrine to here-and-now racial realpolitik presumes an absolute constant in terms of race, the 'really-real' anthropological conceit that doesn't consider race through a phylogenetic lens.
'White' and "black" are not evolutionary consistents; how whites and blacks became what they are is a result of a social and human continuum ---- which also, btw, features a lot of definitional in-between in terms of race, ethne and ethnic identity.
I struggle with this all the time myself and mean none of my remark to come off as disparaging; for instance, take what we're discussing here and apply its advice or dare-say 'wisdom' to the problem and possible solutions for the issue of overpopulation control on the African continent and you have the ultimate epistemological and spiritual dilemma.

PA said...

Nikcrit, you say that you object to the passage you cite it's very unclear what exactly you object to. I read your comment twice, slowly to pick up on what you are trying to say.

It seems that the crux of your objection is two-fold: (1) the contemporary r-selected patterns of BM/WF mixing are not, as I infer, representative of the full potential of Euro-Afro mixing; and (2) the Euro-Afro divide is a fluid and perhaps socially constructed continuum rather that a categorical divide.

But if one disagrees with your objections 1 and 2, then to him the cited passage stands as valid and your objection is just another instance of solipsistic search for validation from race-realist whites.

nikcrit said...

PA,

Not sure what you're saying I am saying in Pt. 1; I need a primer-review on the R-vs-K thing.

Re. Pt. 2: Dont' think this 40-something journalist-turned-teacher is 'seeking validation' from anyone on this late date. As for me and my odd ethne commenting int he blogosphere, I've noted before, it's more or less a rabbit-hole I stumbled upon, and I'm surprised at how ---- what's the word ---- involving and invigorating the back and forth can be at times, e.g., the non-echo-chamber aspect I get here vs. some tepid center-left site energizes the upside to my commenting in the alt-right sphere. And as I've also said before, my humble 'goals' in being here is to raise the interracial candor while stemming the cant that infects the repartee in our age of p.c. sanctimony.
FWIW, i'm not trying to argue against or disapprove of his anti-race-mixing editorial aspect of his comment; again: I do understand that much racial antipathy is expected forevermore.

nikcrit said...

another instance of solipsistic search for validation from race-realist whites.

Well, I would put it in less-homely, more self-serving way, but i'm sure that's part of it --- 'it' being the meta reason I'd ever come to alt-right sites in the first place.

Though I truly don't think it's that personal. Rather, I believe in finding the communal aspects of differing humanity, I think it's noble and valid and practical in ways spiritual, practical, economical, etc.

And I do understand that many at blogs like these don't share that sentiment ( a fact that sort of re-iterates my initial point on why I come here anyhow),

PA said...

-- my humble 'goals' in being here is to raise the interracial candor while stemming the cant that infects the repartee in our age of p.c. sanctimony

One man's cant is another's real-talk. And really, there is no need for us to be policed. We're big boys. We can self-police. It's actually irritating to have somebody who is a self-identified outsider try to tell us how to comment. This has been gone over may times in the past.


-- the R-vs-K thing.

You can look it up on Wikipedia. It's from Rushton's theories. R-selection, in short, is high-quality and low parental investment mating strategy. K-selection is low quantity, high parental investment reproductive strategy. Among mammals, rabbits and mice are r-selected and elephants or wolves are k-selected animals. Rushton ascribed similar differentiation to different human groups. The term became shorthand for larger cultural things.

PA said...

Correction:

You can look it up on Wikipedia. It's from Rushton's theories. R-selection, in short, is high-QUANTITY and low parental investment mating strategy

nikcrit said...

"One man's cant is another's real-talk. And really, there is no need for us to be policed. We're big boys. We can self-police."

No! Not what I meant at all; I'm saying there should be candid talk across racial lines; that proverbial discourse rhetorically requested by Eric Holden but never truly expected to occur, etc.; e.g., I'm saying the kind of candid talk that could get an alt-righter fired and/or ostracized should be allowed to flow through the mainstream.

And no, i'm not saying that just because it's unlikely to happen anytime soon; I'm saying it because I truly believe that it would be healthy and really not so detrimental to my and other NAMs perosnal interests, to acknowledge some of the unspoken-but-widely-felt insights of the alt-right.
Anyhow, I really don't feel i'm inclined to tell someone how to comment. If someone doesn't want to engage, then they won't; still, no need to suffer fools silently.

nikcrit said...

P.S.,

And to be clear; italicized words added:

I'm saying the kind of candid talk that could get an alt-righter fired and/or ostracized should be allowed to flow through the mainstream with social, legal and cultural impunity!

nickbsteves said...

TBH, I don't know how I would have answered that question. I don't actually think religion, generically, can or is necessary to "solve all or most of today's problems", but I don't think it's "largely old fashioned and out of date" either.

Moral Therapeutic Deism, the regnant state religion today, has caused far more of the world's problems than it can ever hope to solve.

Solving social coordination problems is what broader cultures are for, not simply the religion part. Usually religion fits hand in glove with culture. But lately the two have declared war on each other: A Religious War. So more religion qua religion is not the answer. Religion that doesn't actively stand in the way of fixing "most of today's problems" is.

TheCitadel said...

Christianity is NOT for solving all or even most of today's problems.

I'll make that clear, as an Orthodox Christian. Christianity is a theology that if taken as the truth underlies our world and gives us a roadmap with which to understand the Divine Realm, that is the 'invisible world' that Julius Evola talked about, which is crucial to humanity's realization of itself.

As far as personal problems go, the Faith is restorative. It has saved people from intoxicants and other self-destructive behaviors.

As far as societal problems go, Christianity as most understand it is not a one shot/one kill solution, but rather an integral part of a broader program. The revival of masculinity for example, while supported by doctrine, stands independent and apart from it. Nationalism, while supported by doctrine, stands independent and apart from it.

We can talk about sound economic theory, governmental structure, and technological freedom, and though theology may influence these topics it doesn't provide clear cut answers to the questions we have.

For the Reactionary, one issue does seem to stand out above all the rest and make the case that no Reactionary should hold to an atheistic or secular view of the world, even from a rationalist perspective. It is terminally maladaptive.

Of advanced countries, two of the most atheistic, Sweden and Japan, are demographic tombs. These cultures, unless something dramatic happens, will be dead within the next 120 years, if that. Their native populations are not reproducing at all, and in Sweden they don't even care about going extinct.

I have defined man's influences as a series of four great laws: autonomy, heteronomy, patronomy, and theonomy.

Law of the self, law of the others, law of the father, and law of the Divine

When these four laws work harmoniously within a population, you have the World of Tradition in effect and things are as they should be.

In our age...

Autonomy is out of control in every area in which it shouldn't be, and chokingly restricted in the areas that people ignore.

Heteronomy is an illegitimate leviathan, a class of faux elites raised from the muck whose influence can adequately be summed up in the totalitarian kakistocracy (rule of the worst).

Patronomy has been emasculated, feminized, harassed to the point of being unmentionable, its presence enough to make men stammer and women fly into a rage.

Theonomy has been corrupted by internal liberalism, rendered impotent and irrelevant by secularization, and demonized by the mass media

So what is the solution? Religion is part of it, theonomy is absolutely critical to a Reactionary state that must dissolve the lines between church and state, according man his correct posture kneeling before that which is above. However the other laws that remain out of balance cannot be ignored.

The true Reactionary who has taken all four red pills rather than just one, who is ready to begin the work for the Golden Age, must reject the following...

He must reject that freedom and liberty are the primary directive for society.

He must reject the ever-expanding, cancerous, liberally democratic and bureaucratic central government.

He must reject the dismissal of true manhood and womanhood, affirming patriarchy

And he must reject secularism and materialism, recognizing the Almighty God as the perpetuator of our very existence hence the need for the state to be oriented to reflect that fact.

Religion as a structure is not here to solve all of civilization's problems. We've screwed up waaaay beyond that. Religion is fundamental and Reactionaries dismiss it at their own peril, but the scope of the coming Golden Age is wider than just the altar.