Random Thread

[Raphael]

I think the narcissism of small differences is hard to ignore here. Catholic vs Protestant is a huge distinction for Europeans due to historical conflicts, but does it really make much difference in the present day--especially given the overwhelming secularism of Western Europe?

I'd say the importance comes to some extent precisely because of the overwhelming secularism. My impression is that in Germany at least, the "secularization process" is a good deal more advanced in historically Protestant places than in historically Catholic places. And how culturally conservative or non-conservative a place is doesn't sound like a small difference to me.

(Then again, in Germany, cultural conservatism doesn't necessarily have to mean religious conservatism. There's a certain type of cultural conservative who isn't necessarily all that religious and who approves of traditionalist ways of doing things and living one's life mainly because they see them as "proper", and disapproves of non-traditionalist ways of doing things and living one's life mainly because they see them as "improper", without much or even any reference to the "will of God". Germany is, or used to be, full of that type.)

To most of the world, y'all are just slightly different flavours of "Christian" anyway.

Be careful with your use of the term "y'all" there. I've seen people on the internet who see Christian-descended atheists, such as yourself, as just another slightly different flavour of "Christian", too. If one of them was here, they'd probably argue that you should have used "we" instead of "y'all" there. And, for the record, I no longer consider myself a Christian.

(My first tongue-in-cheek response to your question was "Austria and Bavaria". I don't think it's a stretch to say that the cultural differences within Germany exceed the cultural differences between Austria and adjoining parts of Germany.

Now I'm slapping my forehead that I didn't think of that first.

Administrative borders and cultural borders seldom match up; I see this all the time when people try to define cultural features on the state level in the USA. Is Missouri "Southern"? Parts of it, for sure. But it's nearly 500 km from north to south and you can't expect homogeneity throughout that entire space.)

As I posted recently elsewhere on the ZBB, I live in a neighborhood that has the city border of a major (by German standards) city running right through it. Legally speaking, on one side of the border, you're in a city with more than a million inhabitants, while on the other side, you're in a much smaller suburban municipality. But the neighborhood looks pretty much the same on both sides of the border.

[Travis B.]

To most of the world, y'all are just slightly different flavours of "Christian" anyway.

Be careful with your use of the term "y'all" there. I've seen people on the internet who see Christian-descended atheists, such as yourself, as just another slightly different flavour of "Christian", too. If one of them was here, they'd probably argue that you should have used "we" instead of "y'all" there. And, for the record, I no longer consider myself a Christian.

This only applies if one views "Christian" atheists as akin to Jewish atheists, where then "Christian" becomes an ethnoreligious category rather than a merely religious one. But just because one celebrates Christmas and Easter as secularized holidays and every so often goes to a Friday night fish fry (a big tradition here in Wisconsin which is by no means limited to Christians) does not mean that one ought to be regarded as religiously Christian.

[Raphael]

This only applies if one views "Christian" atheists as akin to Jewish atheists, where then "Christian" becomes an ethnoreligious category rather than a merely religious one. But just because one celebrates Christmas and Easter as secularized holidays and every so often goes to a Friday night fish fry (a big tradition here in Wisconsin) does not mean that one ought to be regarded as religiously Christian.

I was mainly thinking of to sources for the view I described: one were a few Jews who complained that Christian-descended atheists tend to project their bad experiences with organized Christianity on "religion" as a whole, and the other were a few people whose own religious views I'm not sure about who argued that many of the "New Atheists" are basically mainline Protestants (in Dawkins's cases, specifically Anglicans) in denial.

[Travis B.]

This only applies if one views "Christian" atheists as akin to Jewish atheists, where then "Christian" becomes an ethnoreligious category rather than a merely religious one. But just because one celebrates Christmas and Easter as secularized holidays and every so often goes to a Friday night fish fry (a big tradition here in Wisconsin) does not mean that one ought to be regarded as religiously Christian.

I was mainly thinking of to sources for the view I described: one were a few Jews who complained that Christian-descended atheists tend to project their bad experiences with organized Christianity on "religion" as a whole, and the other were a few people whose own religious views I'm not sure about who argued that many of the "New Atheists" are basically mainline Protestants (in Dawkins's cases, specifically Anglicans) in denial.

Well, yes, atheists do often criticize religion in general on the basis of the very Christian model of the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient monotheistic God. However, it is rather presumptuous to assume that individuals atheists necessarily do this simply by virtue of being descended from Christians if not being former Christians themselves. For instance, to myself, while the problem of evil and in particular the existence of natural evil are a big issue I have with traditional Christian theology, other conceptions of God or Gods have their own issues, e.g. with either positing things that ought to be observable which are not observed or being basically non-falsifiable assertions. Take the case of the most basic conception of a Deist god - a first mover which created the universe and set it in motion, which which then stepped back and allowed it to develop on its own without any further direction. There is no way to disprove this kind of God, by its very definition, but that in itself is reason to reject it, because inherently unfalsifiable assertions ought to be rejected out of hand.

[Linguoboy]

I'd say the importance comes to some extent precisely because of the overwhelming secularism. My impression is that in Germany at least, the "secularization process" is a good deal more advanced in historically Protestant places than in historically Catholic places. And how culturally conservative or non-conservative a place is doesn't sound like a small difference to me.

Except I'm willing to argue that your measures of "cultural conservatism" would seem pretty pixellated to people in many other parts of the world.

To most of the world, y'all are just slightly different flavours of "Christian" anyway.

Be careful with your use of the term "y'all" there. I've seen people on the internet who see Christian-descended atheists, such as yourself, as just another slightly different flavour of "Christian", too. If one of them was here, they'd probably argue that you should have used "we" instead of "y'all" there. And, for the record, I no longer consider myself a Christian.

Why would I use "we" when I'm specifically talking about Germany?

[Linguoboy]

This only applies if one views "Christian" atheists as akin to Jewish atheists, where then "Christian" becomes an ethnoreligious category rather than a merely religious one.

Which I more or less do. There's a hoary joke about an American atheist going to Northern Ireland during the Troubles and being asked, "Are you Protestant or Catholic?" He says, "Neither, I'm an atheist." He's then asked, "Which God don't you believe in, the Protestant God or the Catholic God?"

I'm sure there are atheists raised in religion who have thoroughly interrogated and rejected the cultural baggage that comes with that, but IME they're also the exception rather than the rule. For me this manifests as, "All revealed religions are wrong, but some are wronger than others." I grew up disdainful of Evangelical Protestantism and that's never going away.

[Raphael]

Travis: First, while I can't think of any way to disprove the existence of a deist God right now, that doesn't mean that there is none. Second, if you really want to argue that "inherently unfalsifiable assertions ought to be rejected out of hand", you'll have to throw out large parts of mathematics. Not all fields of knowledge are observation-based, and falsifiability applies to observation-based fields of knowledge, such as the empirical sciences.

Except I'm willing to argue that your measures of "cultural conservatism" would seem pretty pixellated to people in many other parts of the world.

Hm, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with you on that. On the one hand, even old-time traditional German women's clothes are way too revealing by the standards of some other places. On the other hand, questions of when it is or isn't acceptable to have sex are arguably pretty big questions everywhere, and the Catholic hierarchy has very different views on that than most secular Germans.

Why would I use "we" when I'm specifically talking about Germany?

Sorry, my bad, I thought you were talking about Christians everywhere.

[Raphael]

There's a hoary joke about an American atheist going to Northern Ireland during the Troubles and being asked, "Are you Protestant or Catholic?" He says, "Neither, I'm an atheist." He's then asked, "Which God don't you believe in, the Protestant God or the Catholic God?"

Oddly enough, I first heard that joke about a Jew.

[Travis B.]

I'm sure there are atheists raised in religion who have thoroughly interrogated and rejected the cultural baggage that comes with that, but IME they're also the exception rather than the rule. For me this manifests as, "All revealed religions are wrong, but some are wronger than others." I grew up disdainful of Evangelical Protestantism and that's never going away.

I would say that my mother, who grew up Catholic, would count as a "Christian" atheist, as much of her rejection of religion stems from a rejection of Catholicism. In my own case, though, I was raised without religion (without being told by my parents that they are not religious until high school) and never rejected any particular religious view in the first place. This may be why I have little venom for any particular religious view, and while I oppose positions held by some religious groups, this is for solely sociopolitical reasons (i.e. social conservatism) than religious ones.

[Travis B.]

Travis: First, while I can't think of any way to disprove the existence of a deist God right now, that doesn't mean that there is none. Second, if you really want to argue that "inherently unfalsifiable assertions ought to be rejected out of hand", you'll have to throw out large parts of mathematics. Not all fields of knowledge are observation-based, and falsifiability applies to observation-based fields of knowledge, such as the empirical sciences.

Okay, by "assertions" I mean "assertions about the observable universe".

[Raphael]

In my own case, though, I was raised without religion (without being told by my parents that they are not religious until high school) and never rejected any particular religious view in the first place.

I was raised partly without religion, partly with the kind of semi-secularized mainline Protestantism parodied here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84SD8WcZIfI

This may be why I have little venom for any particular religious view, and while I oppose positions held by some religious groups, this is for solely sociopolitical reasons (i.e. social conservatism) than religious ones.

I do find it very difficult to take certain variants of Pentecostal Christianity seriously ("The Lord has told me personally that each and every one of you should send me exactly 159 dollars and 27 cents, or you'll go to hell"), but aside from that, I completely agree with you on that.

[Travis B.]

This may be why I have little venom for any particular religious view, and while I oppose positions held by some religious groups, this is for solely sociopolitical reasons (i.e. social conservatism) than religious ones.

I do find it very difficult to take certain variants of Pentecostal Christianity seriously ("The Lord has told me personally that each and every one of you should send me exactly 159 dollars and 27 cents, or you'll go to hell"), but aside from that, I completely agree with you on that.

Well I oppose "prosperity theology" for the very reason that it's a scam meant to enrich megachurches and their like.

[Linguoboy]

Except I'm willing to argue that your measures of "cultural conservatism" would seem pretty pixellated to people in many other parts of the world.

Hm, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with you on that. On the one hand, even old-time traditional German women's clothes are way too revealing by the standards of some other places. On the other hand, questions of when it is or isn't acceptable to have sex are arguably pretty big questions everywhere, and the Catholic hierarchy has very different views on that than most secular Germans.

The Catholic hierarchy is pretty tiny minority of the population of Germany, however--even taking into account the disproportional influence they wield.

I'd be curious if there's any hard data showing significant systematic differences in sexual mores between "Catholic" and "Protestant" parts of Germany.

[Raphael]

I'd be curious if there's any hard data showing significant systematic differences in sexual mores between "Catholic" and "Protestant" parts of Germany.

So would I.

[zompist]

Going back to Moose's question— I'm wary of any 'obviously correct' answer, because there's so much I don't know.

E.g. to non-Hispanic Americans, almost any Latin American countries seem identical. But try telling (say) a Peruvian that Peru, Chile, and Ecuador are basically the same. They're not: they have different ethnic compositions, different histories, different favorite writers or foods, different relations to the Incas and to the US, and different century-old grievances with each other. If the "narcissism of small differences" makes them feel different to each other, well, mere ignorance makes them seem the same to norteamericanos.

I know a lot of this stuff because I'm married to a Peruvian, but there are only so many people you can marry. Are Algeria and Morocco similar? Rwanda and Burundi? Qatar and the UAE? Malaysia and Indonesia? Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan? You'd have to closely know all of these countries to know.

[Travis B.]

Going back to Moose's question— I'm wary of any 'obviously correct' answer, because there's so much I don't know.

E.g. to non-Hispanic Americans, almost any Latin American countries seem identical. But try telling (say) a Peruvian that Peru, Chile, and Ecuador are basically the same. They're not: they have different ethnic compositions, different histories, different favorite writers or foods, different relations to the Incas and to the US, and different century-old grievances with each other. If the "narcissism of small differences" makes them feel different to each other, well, mere ignorance makes them seem the same to norteamericanos.

I know a lot of this stuff because I'm married to a Peruvian, but there are only so many people you can marry. Are Algeria and Morocco similar? Rwanda and Burundi? Qatar and the UAE? Malaysia and Indonesia? Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan? You'd have to closely know all of these countries to know.

From what I have heard (as this is only what I have heard, take it with a grain of salt), Latin Americans typically identify with their country of origin first rather than primarily as Latin Americans. So while Anglo Americans may lump them together as "Latinos" or "Hispanics", they are much more likely to see themselves as Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Guatamalans, Peruvians, Chileans, and so on.

[Man in Space]

New avatar (via OpenAI's DALL•E), who dis?

[Ares Land]

Are Algeria and Morocco similar?

About the same thing as with Latin America they're really much more different than outsiders would expect.

[Raphael]

New avatar (via OpenAI's DALL•E), who dis?

Neat!

[Moose-tache]

to non-Hispanic Americans, almost any Latin American countries seem identical.

Name, like, literally one single human who thinks that. I've never met anyone that stupid, and I've been to Waffle House.

On the broader topic, people are pointing out that there are some regions that are extremely similar, like Austria and Bavaria (they even share a Hitler!). But these must be sovereign countries. So far, I feel very vindicated that people who live in a country are eager to point out that the very-different-people in the next country over are distinct in that they hold their crab spork at a 43.7 degree angle, instead of the 44.9 degree angle that God intended. Pro-tip, if you're scraping ancient sectarian schims off the bottom of the barrel, you're functionally out of differences.

We could apply a general culture test here:
What language do people speak?
What media do they consume?
What do they do in their free time?
What are they most angry about, generally?
What do people do for a living?
What do they buy when they get paid?
But I suspect this will only get us half way, because an Australian will insist that New Zealand English is basically !Xoo, and a Canadian will insist that buying your equatorial bean water from Tim Hortons is some kind of precious cultural hapax that no one else can relate to. The real key is in stripping away the bias from the application of these questions.