Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is not my object or rôle to decipher your metaphysics or to explain you to you, but it is important to point out that the realism you would seem to profess is a rationalized false-front. You — you especially — seem driven, even determined, by a sort of metaphysics insofar as you are constrained by that structure of interpretation that you mention.

If I were to be honest with you, and I believe that I have been, I would say (and have said) that I interpret you (this disempowered man, a victim of a determining construct that is dissolving) as symptomatic of a cultural state quite evident and predominant in America today, and perhaps across the West.

What I suggest to you and those reading is to begin to understand in what ideas and ideologies the Dissident Right grounds itself. Because like it or not, understand it or not, there is taking place tremendous shifts in orientation.

I am not an activist in these areas, but I do have some sympathies or inclinations.

It is more interesting to me to make things clear than to “argue” specifics.

[Gary Childress]

It is not my object or rôle to decipher your metaphysics or to explain you to you, but it is important to point out that the realism you would seem to profess is a rationalized false-front. You — you especially — seem driven, even determined, by a sort of metaphysics insofar as you are constrained by that structure of interpretation that you mention.

As I say, I will not entertain discussions about why ethnic or racial purity would be good for the United States. I don't think it is. Do you have an issue with that? If not, then what metaphysical beliefs do you believe I have? Please highlight at least one belief I have that is metaphysical and we can examine it.

[Gary Childress]

I haven't seen you respond yet, so here's a belief I have that we can discuss for starters. I am a white male with blonde hair. Is that a metaphysical belief? If so, would you say it is an accurate or an inaccurate belief. And if so, what am I if not a white male with blonde hair?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I see metaphysics — as with Weaver’s ‘metaphysical dream’ — similarly to you: an intuited sense of what is really real and really important in life.

And also ideas and sentiments involving purpose, the reason for existence, and certainly those related to “meaning” (what meaning is, and how we perceive meaning).

I would maintain that though you — and so many others — do not seem on the surface to hold to a specific religious mythology (as IC does) that on other levels — felt levels, levels of sentiment — you definitely do. So I’d refer to submerged metaphysics or perhaps subconscious metaphysics.

I would place you, more or less, within a modern American perceptual framework which is deeply infused with a range of ideas, views, values and “progressive objectives” that exist, sub-rationally (?) in the American personality.

I think that when it is analyzed — and this is hard work — there is a “metaphysics” that operates there. I.e. it is not really realism, which is likely impossible, but a whole group of impositions on that ‘reality’ you refer to.

[Gary Childress]

I see metaphysics — as with Weaver’s ‘metaphysical dream’ — similarly to you: an intuited sense of what is really real and really important in life.

And also ideas and sentiments involving purpose, the reason for existence, and certainly those related to “meaning” (what meaning is, and how we perceive meaning).

I would maintain that though you — and so many others — do not seem on the surface to hold to a specific religious mythology (as IC does) that on other levels — felt levels, levels of sentiment — you definitely do. So I’d refer to submerged metaphysics or perhaps subconscious metaphysics.

I would place you, more or less, within a modern American perceptual framework which is deeply infused with a range of ideas, views, values and “progressive objectives” that exist, sub-rationally (?) in the American personality.

I think that when it is analyzed — and this is hard work — there is a “metaphysics” that operates there. I.e. it is not really realism, which is likely impossible, but a whole group of impositions on that ‘reality’ you refer to.

OK. So you suggest that I have beliefs that I am not sharing but believe nonetheless? Is that correct?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What did I write in my post? Did you read it?

I would maintain that though you — and so many others — do not seem on the surface to hold to a specific religious mythology (as IC does) that on other levels — felt levels, levels of sentiment — you definitely do. So I’d refer to submerged metaphysics or perhaps subconscious metaphysics.

[Gary Childress]

What did I write in my post? Did you read it?

I read it. Can you say anything specific about my "American" beliefs? I admit, I am an American citizen. Is that a metaphysical belief? Is it accurate or inaccurate?

[Gary Childress]

What did I write in my post? Did you read it?

I would maintain that though you — and so many others — do not seem on the surface to hold to a specific religious mythology (as IC does) that on other levels — felt levels, levels of sentiment — you definitely do. So I’d refer to submerged metaphysics or perhaps subconscious metaphysics.

Thank you for clarifying what I should respond to in your response. I am agnostic, but I would like to believe there is a God but I'm hesitant to embrace Christianity. I think I have made that plain. Is there something wrong with that or what more do you detect that I believe that there is something wrong with?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What did I write in my post? Did you read it?

I read it. Can you say anything specific about my "American" beliefs? I admit, I am an American citizen. Is that a metaphysical belief? Is it accurate or inaccurate?

Can you comment on the totality of the post? The entire idea?

[Gary Childress]

What did I write in my post? Did you read it?

I read it. Can you say anything specific about my "American" beliefs? I admit, I am an American citizen. Is that a metaphysical belief? Is it accurate or inaccurate?

Can you comment on the totality of the post? The entire idea?

I feel like I did, see my two responses above. Did I miss something that I should clarify with you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Robert Bellah, America’s civil religion.

Wiki

[Gary Childress]

Robert Bellah, America’s civil religion.

Wiki

OK. So I'm not going to read the whole article. Can you put into your own words what you think my problem is?

Is it that I have a "civil religion" and if so what do you think I believe that is in this "religion"? As I say, I'm agnostic but I hope there is a God and I lean a bit toward Christianity more so than probably any other religion, however, I don't embrace Christianity in its totality. I think it has some shortfalls as do most other religions as I see it. Is there something wrong with that?

Give me specifics AJ and try to stay away from nebulous pronouncements that ultimately seem to try to sneak something in the backdoor. I'll be open with you however, you must have good faith in your inquiry, otherwise, I probably won't be able to comply.

[Gary Childress]

OK. Maybe this will help. I've taken the concluding paragraphs of the essay and am going to try to see if I can work with that. Maybe you can help me here.

Out of the first and second times of trial have come, as we have seen, the major symbols of the American civil religion. There seems little doubt that a successful negotiation of this third time of trial-the attainment of some kind of viable and coherent world order-would precipitate a major new set of symbolic forms. So far the flickering flame of the United Nations burns too low to be the focus of a cult, but the emergence of a genuine transnational sovereignty would certainly change this. It would necessitate the incorporation of vital international symbolism into our civil religion, or, perhaps a better way of putting it, it would result in American civil religion becoming simply one part of a new civil religion of the world. It is useless to speculate on the form such a civil religion might take, though it obviously would draw on religious traditions beyond the sphere of biblical religion alone. Fortunately, since the American civil religion is not the worship of the American nation but an understanding of the American experience in the light of ultimate and universal reality, the reorganization entailed by such a new situation need not disrupt the American civil religion's continuity. A world civil religion could be accepted as a fulfillment and not as a denial of American civil religion. Indeed, such an outcome has been the eschatological hope of American civil religion from the beginning. To deny such an outcome would be to deny the meaning of America itself.

Behind the civil religion at every point lie biblical archetypes: Exodus, Chosen People, Promised Land, New Jerusalem, and Sacrificial Death and Rebirth. But it is also genuinely American and genuinely new. It has its own prophets and its own martyrs, its own sacred events and sacred places, its own solemn rituals and symbols. It is concerned that America be a society as perfectly in accord with the will of God as men can make it, and a light to all nations.

It has often been used and is being used today as a cloak for petty interests and ugly passions. It is in need-as any living faith-of continual reformation, of being measured by universal standards. But it is not evident that it is incapable of growth and new insight.

It does not make any decisions for us. It does not remove us from moral ambiguity, from being, in Lincoln's fine phrase, an "almost chosen people." But it is a heritage of moral and religious experience from which we still have much to learn as we formulate the decisions that lie ahead.

Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong, but the article above seems to say that America's civil religion is something Americans try to impose on the world. Is that a good overall summation of the essay?

If that is a good summary, then I duly note that I will not try to impose my beliefs on other countries. However, I will argue that my own beliefs as they pertain to me as an individual are good ones for the country I live in. As I say, if Europe wants to get Arabic ethnic groups out because some of their people aren't complying with local laws, then that is up to Europe, not to me. If the Middle East doesn't want US influence, then that is ultimately up to the people there to decide. I don't believe gunboat diplomacy has any place in the modern world. I can only say what I believe. Whether people like my beliefs or not, they are welcome to argue with me.

[Belinda]

People can't help it if they have been badly socialised. We need to find out dispassionately why it happened that trump supporters became ignorant and stupid.

And then try to influence them as and when we can.

My experience in studying the Dissident Right for over 10 years (unofficially) is that this is anything but true. First, the Dissident Right in Europe has influenced the Dissident Right in America, and the European DR is anything but stupid or ignorant. What they are is aware that *something has been done to them*. That is, that something occurred in European culture that emasculated men. The essence is there. This European man, the product of these processes of liberalization, had the ground under his feet removed from him. Had his *identity* thrown into moral doubt. And this man was attacked and made to feel unwelcome to himself.

One of the interesting manifestations of a new political will is taking the shape of the selection of Robert Kennedy Jr. to lead the HHS with the declared realization that America is terribly unhealthy and suffering “chronic diseases”. Aware people realize that physical health, mental health, cultural health and spiritual health are all part of a whole, and therefore a holistic approach to the well-being of men has been and is one of the major points of focus among those of the Dissident Right. That is, a sort of social and cultural biopsy that attempts to underdstand, and begin to counteract, *what happened* and why.

The question of rediscovering what is empowering is a vital concern, and associated with it is a recovery of a religious orientation. Meaning, for example, redefinition of one’s own *metaphysical dream* and that vision and understanding of life around which one can orient oneself. There are such movements within pagan traditionalism and at the same time within Christian traditionalism, both Protestant and Catholic. The value of studying people like René Guénon (Crisis of the Modern World) and Julius Evola (Revolt Against the Modern World) is that each of these defined metaphysics as the more important locus of religious principles.

A huge part of the present cultural manifestation that is labeled extreme right actually has much to do with the discovery of a type of will that can act against decades of social programming. In short it is saying *Fuck off* to that weakening ideology and all that undermines a genuine manliness. Naturally this involves redefinitions of what being *manly* entails. And in the process of redefinition there is also the necessary analysis of what makes a man weak.

Steve Bannon is an important figure in the Dissident Right (his podcasts are very popular among the MAGA crowd) is quite well-read among most of those who are European Dissident Right authors and theorists.

Those who write on this forum are, to be honest, nearly completely of the intellectual roots that stand behind the manifestations of the Dissident Right. You effectively *hide your heads in the sand* and refuse even to examine what must certainly be examined if you were to get any genuine, operative understanding of the present.

See this talk on Steve Bannon’s background.

Consider this as well.

"Manliness" means the social use to which the word is put. A poor wee powerless unemployed immigrant may have more courage , popularly known as 'balls' , than a political dictator or a rich man.
Our civilisation is built upon inclusion of the dispossessed, the powerless and the despised. The political extreme right reacts to economic problems with fear of the dispossessed, the powerless, and the despised . There is no way a rich man can be a better leader than a man who has sacrificed his wealth in the common good.
Technology should belong to everyone not solely to rich white men, Taliban , assorted dictators, superior races, or superior sexes. There is an argument for high levels of post-enlightenment education for all regardless of sex , social class, and ethnicity.

[Gary Childress]

People can't help it if they have been badly socialised. We need to find out dispassionately why it happened that trump supporters became ignorant and stupid.

And then try to influence them as and when we can.

My experience in studying the Dissident Right for over 10 years (unofficially) is that this is anything but true. First, the Dissident Right in Europe has influenced the Dissident Right in America, and the European DR is anything but stupid or ignorant. What they are is aware that *something has been done to them*. That is, that something occurred in European culture that emasculated men. The essence is there. This European man, the product of these processes of liberalization, had the ground under his feet removed from him. Had his *identity* thrown into moral doubt. And this man was attacked and made to feel unwelcome to himself.

So the underlying premise is that there is something that is essential to being a man that is not essential to being a woman. Is that correct? I can agree to some extent. I mean I honestly don't think a man can "prefer" to be a woman and just become a woman (and visa versa) based on that preference. Even if he undergoes surgery that makes him look like a woman, then, I don't think he's quite achieved womanhood as current ablities stand.

Of course, the line gets more and more blurred as technology improves. If we ever reach the point where a man can be turned into a female in every possible way--to have a fully functioning vagina, for instance--then that is going to blur the line even more. I don't know what the answer to that situation is. Should we say, "no" at a certain point? "No, you cannot become a female, even though we can surgically bestow upon you every quality essential to being a female."

That's a difficult question to answer. It's one I don't think we face quite yet but we may need to prepare ourselves for that point, I don't know.