Some examples: East Asian state religions are almost entirely a cultural thing outside of monk communities. Judaism I'd also expect to be majority cultural only. Christianity in Europe, again, mostly cultural. I think the US has a bit of a different viewpoint since the boundaries between Christians that have faith with those that don't, are much more extreme and seem to regularly cause interpersonal conflict.
As we understood more of the world, pantheons grew smaller and smaller. There are still religions around with many gods, but their roles have drastically changed away from being banally associated with natural phenomena and towards spiritual stuff or other things that most humans can't adequately explain (yet, or because they just lack the education).
There are practically no religions around anymore that have a god whose purpose is like "this guy brings the tides" or whatever, for good reason.
Catholic saints are pretty much exactly this, “lesser gods”, just not called that.
However the norm for most of history is to find some way to ratify the two believes even if they contradict.
Ancient Jewish writers like Philo simply wrote a whole bunch of stuff about how every part of the bible is to be interpreted as some Platonic way. He was very influential on Christianity. Ironically he had basically no influence on what became modern Judaism and his interpretation were all rejected.
And this is not just between science and religion. Even within religion this is a problem, because they are simply contradictory.
Its literally possible to believe in all of the bible, because it contradicts itself. And trying to reason your way around all that nonsense requires tons of scholars coming up with elaborate explanations on why everything is actually not nonsense. Usually you have some elite set of priests who guard the interpretation.
Today, there are whole field of Christian fundamentalists apologists who have whole universities field with smart people who do nothing then trying to 'read' the bible in ways that is not contradicting even if it very clearly is.
The simply fact is, unless you view the bible purely allegorically and massively change the interpretation totally from what anybody who actually wrote the bible might have believed you can't have a modern scientific worldview and be a Christian. But at that point you can just base your worldview on Lord of the Rings or whatever you want because its your morals driving the interpretation, not the other way around.
So its easy and reasonably consistent to believe in a Prime Originator who started the universe and then just let laws of physics work, but that is very different basically all religion.
How can you go around telling people what they can and can't believe? What does it mean, in your opinion, to "be a Christian"?
> But at that point you can just base your worldview on Lord of the Rings or whatever you want because its your morals driving the interpretation, not the other way around.
You say this like it's a bad thing, it isn't, but in any case religion doesn't work that way. A Church of Tolkien hasn't been around for hundreds of years to be passed down from generation to generation.
It might be logically consistent to mock one religion or another in this manner, but it isn't kind, and it certainly isn't going to change people's minds.
For many religious people, family is the most important aspect of their lives, and for better or worse religion has woven its way into the fabric of family bonds.
I appreciate the deep and sincere regard for rationality and science that atheist viewpoints bring to the table, but I think the more evangelistic expressions fail to appreciate the wildly interesting tapestry of traditions that are the religions of the world.
People will believe whatever they want, that's never going to change. Others might feel they don't have that freedom. Why waste time trying to change minds about something as immutable as religion, of all things? Better to build up than to tear down. We're all stuck on the same planet, might as well make some friends while we're here.
Frankly I can’t believe someone would state such a thing with a straight face.
Also, gender is a psychological construct more than a biological one. Are you confusing gender and sex?
are you saying that psychology has something other than a biological basis?
>Are you confusing gender and sex?
American Heritage Dictionary usage note on this point:
Usage Note: Some people maintain that the word sex should be reserved for reference to the biological aspects of being male or female or to sexual activity, and that the word gender should be used only to refer to sociocultural roles. Accordingly, one would say The effectiveness of the treatment appears to depend on the sex of the patient and In society, gender roles are clearly defined. In some situations this distinction avoids ambiguity, as in gender research, which is clear in a way that sex research is not. The distinction can be problematic, however. Linguistically, there isn't any real difference between gender bias and sex bias, and it may seem contrived to insist that sex is incorrect in this instance.
source, and of course the definitions
Yes, yes, psychology is applied neurology is applied biology is applied chemistry is applied physics. And yet we have psychologists and neurologists and biologists and chemists and physicists and they all seem to believe they have different jobs.
Your quoted usage note is stating that the word “gender“ can mean the same thing as “sex” in certain contexts. Not that it can’t mean something different. And the context is quite clear from the surrounding discussion.
Playing pointless semantic games doesn’t buy you any points.
the (Big) Five Factor model of personality (standard psychology) measures sex-based population (density) differences, and shows up across cultures.
Merriam-Webster[1]:
> b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
> c: GENDER IDENTITY
American Heritage Dictionary[2]:
> b. One's identity as female or male or as neither entirely female nor entirely male.
O.E.D.[3]:
> b. The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones
[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
Merriam-Webster 2018 says, sense 1 abc [gramatical gender] but sense 2 is all about sex.
>2a SEX ...
>2b the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
http://web.archive.org/web/20181125203538/https://www.merria...
it doesn't mention gender identity, but gender identity is a perfectly good word for gender identity.
I don't have access to the OED here but I'm sure we'd see a similar timeline.
I don’t believe that gender is a psychological construct. I believe that gender & sex are synonymous & it’s a politically correct construct to differentiate them in any way.
“Someone’s physical reproductive bits” and “someone’s own internal perception of their sexual identity” are two separate concepts even if you believe they ought to be in sync with one another. And then when you acknowledge that there do exist people who seem quite certain that those values differ for themselves—even if you think they oughtn’t—isn’t it nice to have a word that allows us to describe this exact scenario?
Also, I’d encourage you to ask more or less any biologist whether or not they think we’re just about done wrapping up their field of expertise.
If you produce ovum you are female.
If this person[1] tells you that they are a man, what level of scrutiny should they be subject to in order to confirm this to your satisfaction? If you do not intend to reproduce with them, to what end is it important that you establish which type of gamete they produce?
If a future surgery allows a woman to produce sperm, is this what will qualify them as a man from your perspective?
Where do hermaphrodites fit into this picture? What about people that produce neither sperm nor ova?
[1]: https://trueactivist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/transgen...
Biologically, a tomato is a fruit. This is inarguable fact. If you are a biologist breeding new strains, you will conceptualize a tomato as a fruit. And yet culinarily a tomato is a vegetable. Put a tomato in a fruit salad and people are going to look at you funny. Note that a biologist who eats food can and will consider a tomato both a fruit and a vegetable depending on the context.
If you can understand this, you can understand that someone’s biological sex—primarily relevant to reproduction and healthcare—can differ from their psychological sex (i.e., their gender), which is more relevant to social contexts. Both can be true simultaneously, but unless you’re a doctor caring for a trans person or intending to perform reproductive acts with them, someone’s psychological sex is almost certainly more relevant to your relationship with them than which gamete they happen excrete.
Sex is way more important in social context. If I am looking for sexual relationship I am interested only in females. For other social contexts I don't really care whether someone is male or female or thinks they are someone else. Gender is irrelevant.
Are you genuinely incapable of understanding the concept of context?
> Sex is way more important in social context.
I sincerely hope that the vast majority of your social relationships are not based upon the promise of reproducing with them.
What if I told you that none of this really matters to me? What if people discriminating against people who want to be one or the other now makes it matter because discrimination increases crime and reduces productivity?
What if I tell you I don't care what sex you are or you think you are.
Now you've completely changed your definition in the course of a few minutes, but you still don't want to change your beliefs. Funny how that works. Imagining what your new definition will be, what if you have any of these sex chromosome anomalies, as more than 2 out of every thousand humans do? What if you use gene therapy to change your chromosomes but don't alter your anatomy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies
> What if I tell you I don't care what sex you are or you think you are.
Then why are you making a big deal of trying to define it for others and supporting those trying to legislate who can believe what?
I was only stating definition of male and female. If someone believes for example, they are Apache Helicopter, good for them.
Here is somebody who wasn't male according to your original definition producing sperm after surgery. https://www.thepinknews.com/2019/12/09/testicle-transplant-s...
> If someone believes for example, they are Apache Helicopter, good for them.
Certainly. That's no skin off my back, just like people believing in magical invisible beings and praying to them doesn't affect anybody else. Both groups can believe what they like.
Legislating who gets to identify as what when it's not hurting anybody does make society worse, just like the people who believe in magical invisible beings legislating what everyone else can do based on the voices they hear in their heads also make society worse. That is a problem worth fighting against.
That said, I agree with you on how nonsensical gender ideology is. I find it particularly irksome because of how unscientific the whole thing is, there is a huge amount of bullshit being passed off as facts.
Like, I could've just said "Wow, that really deepened the discussion there, good job". But how about this instead:
Try actually specifying some of the complexities that have been missed. Try plainly demanding evidence and reasoning. Choose some goal posts and plant them firmly where they can be hit.
Because if I wanted to read useless sniping I'd be on reddit.
You can be religious and not a believer, and the original comment only talk about believers.
It's better to shun and ignore an unwanted post than to try to berate, punish and ban or delete it, IMO. Let people shout into the void if they choose to. You gave them the validation - there is no such thing as bad attention.
That's pretty much only my beef with it.
So my only point is: you probably have something that you hold dear to your heart and you would not liked to be judged or criticized for that, in some ways it's not even anyone's business but yours. Religion, spirituality, or weird new age practices are the same for a lot of people, and it doesn't presuppose that any of this is good or bad, it just is, and mounting a file against all of that at once is bound to be fruitless, and hurtful for the people involved.
I can't believe something that isn't true. It's not about them being idiots, it's about the sheer lack of evidence.
If religionists ever, ever, ever behaved that way then there would be no problem, but the fact is that for thousands of years they have imposed their beliefs on the rest of us with violence.
I don't believe myself, but I can recognize the comfort that people get from faith, either faith in a higher power or a belief in what happens after death. My GF is pagan, she says she can see spirits leaving the body; for her, it makes dealing with death a lot easier. Like when our dog died, she just got on with dealing with the body because it was just an empty meatsack to her. Likewise, she said she doesn't care what happens with her body after death, because empty meatsack. If that gives her comfort, who am I to tell her she's wrong? I don't know either.
Personally I'm more of a nihilist and think there's nothing after death, so there's no reason to fear it or care much about it, I won't be around. I've always theorised that life-after-death religions are at least in part based on fear - fear of nothingness, or fear of being judged and punished for things done (or not done) in life. I don't want to live in fear like that myself, but if others are more fearful and find comfort in faith that's good for them.
I know a lot of people who chose to believe that COVID was a hoax, and that vaccination was a conspiracy, because these beliefs made them happier.
But the consequences of these false beliefs was an incredibly large amount of death and suffering, all avoidable.
> she says she can see spirits leaving the body
But we both know this is a false belief. If she tested this scientifically, you know she would be unable to do better than chance.
Also, messages get lost, and misinterpreted. Quickly. I do believe that most [non explicit cult] religious texts shouldn't be interpreted literally, but instead take them the lessons they teach, or are interpreted to be.