"Post Truth"

[Akita Suggagaki]

In a system which values rhetoric and the ability to sway, why should anyone think the truth matters in said system?

What's to be done? Live your best life apart from the system.

Then came 2010. It all seems so long ago.

 

[Gary K]

While the term was used academically and publicly before 2016, the Oxford Dictionary defined it as "relating to and denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief."

Defining Post-truth: Structures, Agents, and Styles

Factual truth has a limited but indispensable role to play in pluralistic politics, comparable to material environment that both enables and limits democratic debate.

www.e-ir.info

Where do we go from here? I really don't know. It seems that all any of us can do is challenge ourselves to seek truth beyond what we want to hear and read. And we can each do better in realizing that our present world views color our interpretations. On matters of importance to us we must dig deeper with more objectivity. It takes work.

It's good to see your posts as there is nothing in our world more important than truth. Our entire problem in this world started with a lie that was believed against all the available evidence.

 

[Niels]

I don't know where things go from here. I suspect modern people, at least in the West, are only disposed to moral deliberation through storytelling in media. Religion isn't credible, especially with younger people, and I doubt much can be done to change that. That's not just the fault of conservative Christians, mainline Protestant churches haven't done a great job offering a compelling moral vision, either.

But conservative Christians have done the most damage, at least in the US. Some recent popular portrayals of religion are fairly negative: I just got done re-watching the Netflix series the Queen's Gambit and it has a very cynical, albeit somewhat realistic portrayal of religion, and I found that telling. It seems many in the creative class expect religious people to be cold, calculating hypocrites peddling useless wares now days.

Random thoughts:

Sometimes, I wonder which came first. Widespread harmful behavior by conservative Christians or by the media portraying conservative Christians as generally harmful. For instance, let's say that you're a racist and you're looking for friends. If the media tells you that conservative Christians are racists, then you might be more likely to look for friends there. Of course, it's also possible that a bunch of racist conservative Christians were responsible for creating the very negative portrayal that the media propagates. Such people certainly exist, but to what extent is their behavior an accurate portrayal of the group as a whole?

All I can say for sure is that I grew up around a bunch of conservative Christians who struck me as genuinely decent people. They also did a good job of offering a compelling moral vision, which they lived out rather than beating people over the head with. To my young mind, that was the antidote to racism as I saw more racist things happen outside of the church. This dynamic, among other things, has long lead me to question the media's narrative.

When religion is harmful, it's important to note that the same harmful behavior also exists outside of religion and tends to be as harmful there. Large groups of people associate for secular reasons much like they do for religious ones. Personally, I would work towards correcting the problem behavior itself rather than targeting a particular religion or social movement.

Storytelling in the media has an outsized influence. However, I don't think the right answer is to overreact to it. Rather, we emphasize the fact that it's storytelling and subject to the author's opinions and biases.

Each of us sees the world through the subjective lens of our experiences. This doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist or that we can't find things to agree on. Rather, it's something that we should be mindful of.

 

[FireDragon76]

Random thoughts:

Sometimes, I wonder which came first. Widespread harmful behavior by conservative Christians or by the media portraying conservative Christians as generally harmful. For instance, let's say that you're a racist and you're looking for friends. If the media tells you that conservative Christians are racists, then you might be more likely to look for friends there. Of course, it's also possible that a bunch of racist conservative Christians were responsible for creating the very negative portrayal that the media propagates. Such people certainly exist, but to what extent is their behavior an accurate portrayal of the group as a whole?

All I can say for sure is that I grew up around a bunch of conservative Christians who struck me as genuinely decent people. They also did a good job of offering a compelling moral vision, which they lived out rather than beating people over the head with. To my young mind, that was the antidote to racism as I saw more racist things happen outside of the church. This dynamic, among other things, has long lead me to question the media's narrative.

Decency is part of the problem sometimes, if it is used to mask over other faults of a community. It's not merely that Christians can be cruel, but they are often seen peddling useless nostrums.

When religion is harmful, it's important to note that the same harmful behavior also exists outside of religion and tends to be as harmful there.

When religion sells itself as the cure for those ills, and doesn't live up to its claims, it casts doubt on religion.

 

[Niels]

Decency is part of the problem sometimes, if it is used to mask over other faults of a community. It's not merely that Christians can be cruel, but they are often seen peddling useless nostrums.

I agree if it's a charade. But then that isn't what I'm talking about here. Keeping up appearances is just that. Appearances. I can see how a word like "decent" can be weaponized, but then it becomes a cartoonish caricature rather than a description. I'm not married to using that word here. Unfortunately, the words escape me to describe people who are generally pleasant to be around, productive, pay their taxes, and focus on their own lives, etc.

Similarly negative stereotypes are also wrongly applied to liberals. Should good new ideas be automatically rejected because of a few bad apples? I say no. Liberals can be just as decent, in the way I intended the word to portray, as conservatives. The key is to treat them like the individuals that they are, and then let their own individuality shape our opinions of them.

When religion sells itself as the cure for those ills, and doesn't live up to its claims, it casts doubt on religion.

It can cast doubt on religion, especially in terms of religious social structures, but what social movement doesn't sell itself as a cure for some sort of ill? Decades later, are those other organizations doing a demonstrably better job?

Being aware that people can be cliquey, judgmental, snobbish, cruel etc. in any circle can help us learn to avoid such individuals. Or at least not automatically take their "truths" to heart. The way I see it, being a member of something and jockeying for social hierarchy is far removed from seeking spiritual wisdom and meaning.

It's one thing to "sell" and another thing to "do".

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread was moved from Current News & Events to The Junk Drawer. Please note that the Statement of Purpose for Current News & Events includes, and note what I made red and bold:​

The Current News & Events forum in the Discussion & Debate for Christians Category is for Christian members to discuss newsworthy events that are currently taking place in the world with other Christians. All news and current events must be documented or validated with a link to a credible online news source (articles and not videos) in the original post (OP). Political discussions with other Christians should be discussed in the Christians only Politics forum.​

Please pay attention to the Statement of Purpose in the future.​

 

[FireDragon76]

In a system which values rhetoric and the ability to sway, why should anyone think the truth matters in said system?

If you think democracy is bad for truth, authoritarian societies are even worse.

 

[stevevw]

While the term was used academically and publicly before 2016, the Oxford Dictionary defined it as "relating to and denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief."

Defining Post-truth: Structures, Agents, and Styles

Factual truth has a limited but indispensable role to play in pluralistic politics, comparable to material environment that both enables and limits democratic debate.

www.e-ir.info

Where do we go from here? I really don't know. It seems that all any of us can do is challenge ourselves to seek truth beyond what we want to hear and read. And we can each do better in realizing that our present world views color our interpretations. On matters of importance to us we must dig deeper with more objectivity. It takes work.

Iv'e been thinking about this for a while now. This is a strange new way of thinking. Some say its Postmodernist thinking where there are no truths or objective reality and everything is self referential. Which really means a persons feelings and experiences.

I think this has been cultivated over a long period where we have placed the focus on the individual, their rights and feelings over all else. Its a combination of things that have developed into a perfect storm of a new way of seeing the world.

Theres a bit of Marxism in that people reject Western ways of knowing such as attacking science used as tools to oppress people. There's some identity politics in that identity has become the new entity that needs protection. A real entity in the world that can even trump objective rerality. I think theres also some moralising in there but more about hedonism.

Maybe this was the natural way society would go to create a diverse society. I remember around 20 odd years ago all the talk was around hearing peoples stories, stories of different peoples struggles. I also remember how social workers made out young people had rights even over their parents and it was all about how the young person felt. Wghatever they said was sacred. Trying to kill them with kindness.

So I think we have created this new entity 'the self' which holds the highest status. That is why we are seeing growing narcissism. I think its a new form of Cartesian dualism but instead of Mind beyond body its Identity beyond body and the objective world. An appeal to some transcedent identity thats detached from reality yet real in the world.

I think its important to keep our feet on the ground. We are spiritual, physical and mental/psychological beings and we need to take all this into consideration. Denying any puts things out of balance where too mushc focus is on one aspect. But when it comes to the new identity ideology I think its important to keep reminding people about reality. REality has a way of coming back to bite us if we ignore it.

Making feelings the measure of reality can get you into trouble. Sometimes we have to deny feelings for something greater and I think this is the real value in life that has been forgotten. People want instant gratification. Maybe we should look at Christs example.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Sometimes we have to deny feelings for something greater and I think this is the real value in life that has been forgotten.

So I think we have created this new entity 'the self' which holds the highest status. That is why we are seeing growing narcissism.

You are on to something. The narcissism of a false self and all it wants to believe. If it does not align with reality there is a reckoning sooner or later.

 

[honey badger]

It's good to see your posts as there is nothing in our world more important than truth. Our entire problem in this world started with a lie that was believed against all the available evidence.

what lie would that be ...

 

[FireDragon76]

Iv'e been thinking about this for a while now. This is a strange new way of thinking. Some say its Postmodernist thinking where there are no truths or objective reality and everything is self referential. Which really means a persons feelings and experiences.

I think this has been cultivated over a long period where we have placed the focus on the individual, their rights and feelings over all else. Its a combination of things that have developed into a perfect storm of a new way of seeing the world.

Theres a bit of Marxism in that people reject Western ways of knowing such as attacking science used as tools to oppress people.

That's not Marxism, that's postmodernism, which is a distinct philosophical movement. Western ways of knowing about the world are not the only ways of knowing about the world. It doesn't take a genius to know that. And much of the rest of the world has, over the centuries, just been dismissed out of hand as barbarous, because it isn't white, Euro-American, or Protestant enough...

And last time I checked, it was not the Left that was trying to push pseudoscience like Creationism in schools.

So I think we have created this new entity 'the self' which holds the highest status. That is why we are seeing growing narcissism. I think its a new form of Cartesian dualism but instead of Mind beyond body its Identity beyond body and the objective world. An appeal to some transcedent identity thats detached from reality yet real in the world.

You mean like a soul? It seems to me people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones...

I think its important to keep our feet on the ground. We are spiritual, physical and mental/psychological beings and we need to take all this into consideration. Denying any puts things out of balance where too mushc focus is on one aspect. But when it comes to the new identity ideology I think its important to keep reminding people about reality. REality has a way of coming back to bite us if we ignore it.

Who gets to define reality?

Making feelings the measure of reality can get you into trouble. Sometimes we have to deny feelings for something greater and I think this is the real value in life that has been forgotten. People want instant gratification. Maybe we should look at Christs example.

The guy that didn't say anything about drag queen story hours and that said "blessed are the meek (soft)". That guy?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Who gets to define reality?

What an excellent question! But No one gets to define reality. It simply is what it is. But we do vary in how we interpret it and also create beliefs about it. But I do think sooner or later reality cannot be ignored no matter what we believe about it. People get sick and die no matter what they believe. People have to eat. The world changes. People can hang on to their delusions, and perhaps we all have them to some degree. So whether is is flat Earth Q anon or whatever, we can obstinately hold on to our beliefs no matter what, live in a bubble. But reality does not change. We either can recognize it or not. Live in reality or in denial of it.

 

[FireDragon76]

But we do vary in how we interpret it and also create beliefs about it. But I do think sooner or later reality cannot be ignored no matter what we believe about it. People get sick and die no matter what they believe. People have to eat. The world changes.

Two points to consider

1) it would be strange for a Christian to argue that death defines the limits of the meaning of a human life or its significance. And Jesus certainly didn't think food or clothing were ultimately significant, either.

2) It's not clear how death and food are relevant to the kinds of sweeping and totalizing generalizations that are being made about human nature and human morality. Indeed, it seems to me, if death is an obvious brute fact of human life (you'll get no argument from me on this one), then ones gender identity is quite irrelevant, as sex and gender expression ends in the grave. Moreover, getting ones gender identity right and orthodox is quite irrelevant as well, for the same reasons- moral deliberation will end in the grave as well. That has implications not just for liberals, but more importantly, for cultural conservatives, who seem to choose to make this a windmill to tilt in their bid for cultural supremacy.

 

[stevevw]

You are on to something. The narcissism of a false self and all it wants to believe. If it does not align with reality there is a reckoning sooner or later.

When there is no God or any meaning beyond the world then all meaning becomes what the self experiences. Individual status in the world, career, monetary value, looks, reputation, feelings and personal truth become the measure of meaning. Because all meaning is tied to self any truth or facts about reality outside self are a threat taken personally. That is why I think we are seeing such a reaction against even sicentific facts if they contradict personal truth because its like a threat to a persons very existence.

I relate this to how the Bible talks about how those without God will hate the Truth. That they live in the darkness and avoid the light which exposes everything.

​

 

[stevevw]

That's not Marxism, that's postmodernism, which is a distinct philosophical movement.

I think its a bit of both. Marxism or it its modern form Cultural Marxism instead of being about class oppression through economics itys about class oppression through culture. But its the same idea that one group in a position of power is oppressing another.

I think Postmodernist thinking allowed academia to apply it to culture because strangly enough they both see truth and reality as being from a relative position. In the case of the oppressed minorities, Indigenous peoples way of seeing the world challenges the dominant view of Western culture.

Western ways of knowing about the world are not the only ways of knowing about the world. It doesn't take a genius to know that. And much of the rest of the world has, over the centuries, just been dismissed out of hand as barbarous, because it isn't white, Euro-American, or Protestant enough...

Yes and that is very Marxist in that it positions the other ways of knowing that are being oppressed by the dominant Western Culture like Capitalist and Colonialists oppressed other cultures.

I think broadly this oppressor and oppressee situations relates to scientific materialism verses other ways of knowing which transcend the materialist and reductive way that the West is based on about what is real and true knowledge of not. Its a reflection of a deeper battle of epistemology.

But I think its about balance. There is a place for science and objective reality and there is for spirituality and the more transcendent truths.

And last time I checked, it was not the Left that was trying to push pseudoscience like Creationism in schools.

Yes and here we are appealing to the bad old Western Science and rationalism to refute teaching ideas without eevidence. So a good example of Western Science being useful in certain situations.

In saying that its ironic that science is used to refute beliefs as unreal and not to be taught while at the same time claiming other ways of knowing such as indigenous knowledge such as the Dream time or personal experience being valid ways of knowing that should stand alongside Western science and knowledge.

You mean like a soul? It seems to me people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones...

The difference being those who believe in a soul don't claim it is objective reality and a fact in the world. Rather it belongs to a different realm quite seperate from the material world.

Whereas self truth based on feelings and experience is being touted as something that trumps objective reality, trumps everything.

Who gets to define reality?

Like I said reality has a way of coming back to bite us. To remind us that there are certain things you can't deny, nature being one, objective reality another. If you walk off a cliff you will fall. If you play with fire you will get burnt. If you play god with nature there will be consequences. If you make feelings the only measure in life you will be disappointed. If you set unreal expectations you will be brought back down to reality in the end.

The guy that didn't say anything about drag queen story hours and that said "blessed are the meek (soft)". That guy?

Actually I was speaking more on a practical and psychological level. For example we know that to achieve a decent standard of life for your family we have to work hard and sacrifice things. To create a great artwork means working on it for a long time, persisting, chipping away with and end goal.

That greatness doesn't happen overnight or without effort and going against the grain of wanting to give in because it feels so hard. But we know that we we achieve that goal that the reward is great and worth it. It brings more benefits long term. THis is the same for most things like relationships, education, career and personal development.

From a psychological perspective 'delayed gratification' is related to emotional maturity, resilence and control and other positive outcomes.

What Is Delayed Gratification? 5 Examples & Definition

Delayed gratification is a muscle we can all grow.

positivepsychology.com

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

When there is no God or any meaning beyond the world then all meaning becomes what the self experiences. Individual status in the world, career, monetary value, looks, reputation, feelings and personal truth become the measure of meaning.

That is somewhat true even with "God" since there are so many personal versions of who or what God is.

 

[stevevw]

That is somewhat true even with "God" since there are so many personal versions of who or what God is.

But primarily and certainly for Christianity meaning of life, what makes true happiness transcends the worlds ideas. All religions appeal to something beyond the material.

 

[FireDragon76]

But primarily and certainly for Christianity meaning of life, what makes true happiness transcends the worlds ideas.

What @Akita Suggagaki said still applies, to a great extent. There are different versions of Christianity, after all.

All religions appeal to something beyond the material.

I would challenge that notion, since not all religions have a substance dualist metaphysics which would make that statement meaningful. It is more correct to say that religions deal with things of ultimate concern.

 

[stevevw]

What @Akita Suggagaki said still applies, to a great extent. There are different versions of Christianity, after all.

But the different versions (denominations) all still believe in the same transcendent truth that Christ is the Wat, Truth and Life. That He is the only way to a life of meaning. This basic principle that spiritual fullfillment brings true happiness and peace rather than the treasures of this world are much the same for all religions. They all appeal to some higher state of being beyond money and material possessions or the things of this world.

I would challenge that notion, since not all religions have a substance dualist metaphysics which would make that statement meaningful. It is more correct to say that religions deal with things of ultimate concern.

Isn't ultimate concern something transcendent. Ultimate meaning true happiness. Even secularists can admit that money can't buy love or true happiness. That is a transcedent concept.

I am sure even those religions without a substance dualist metaphysics still appeal to a non material metaphysics as the true source of meaning for life. If they didn't then we could hardly call them a theistic religion and more secular ideology. Even non religious ideas about consciousness beyond the physical brain are appealing to some transcedent basis for meaning of life.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But the different versions (denominations) all still believe in the same transcendent truth that Christ is the Way, Truth and Life

yes, but what that means to the person and how to live it out varies so much one can almost say there is no commonality. We see that right here on the forum.