Heresy: What is it in the 21st century?

[basilio]

We know that traditionally Heresy refers to people denying Religious Truths as defined by particular churches .

But do we now have secular Heresy ? This essay opens that discussion.

April 2022

One of the most surprising things I've witnessed in my lifetime is the rebirth of the concept of heresy.

In his excellent biography of Newton, Richard Westfall writes about the moment when he was elected a fellow of Trinity College:

Supported comfortably, Newton was free to devote himself wholly to whatever he chose. To remain on, he had only to avoid the three unforgivable sins: crime, heresy, and marriage. [1]

The first time I read that, in the 1990s, it sounded amusingly medieval. How strange, to have to avoid committing heresy. But when I reread it 20 years later it sounded like a description of contemporary employment.

There are an ever-increasing number of opinions you can be fired for. Those doing the firing don't use the word "heresy" to describe them, but structurally they're equivalent. Structurally there are two distinctive things about heresy: (1) that it takes priority over the question of truth or falsity, and (2) that it outweighs everything else the speaker has done.

For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. They do not, having said this, go on to consider whether the statement is true or not. Using such labels is the conversational equivalent of signalling an exception. That's one of the reasons they're used: to end a discussion.

Heresy

www.paulgraham.com

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

We know that traditionally Heresy refers to people denying Religious Truths as defined by particular churches .

But do we now have secular Heresy ? This essay opens that discussion.

View attachment 150337

April 2022

One of the most surprising things I've witnessed in my lifetime is the rebirth of the concept of heresy.

In his excellent biography of Newton, Richard Westfall writes about the moment when he was elected a fellow of Trinity College:

The first time I read that, in the 1990s, it sounded amusingly medieval. How strange, to have to avoid committing heresy. But when I reread it 20 years later it sounded like a description of contemporary employment.

There are an ever-increasing number of opinions you can be fired for. Those doing the firing don't use the word "heresy" to describe them, but structurally they're equivalent. Structurally there are two distinctive things about heresy: (1) that it takes priority over the question of truth or falsity, and (2) that it outweighs everything else the speaker has done.

For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. They do not, having said this, go on to consider whether the statement is true or not. Using such labels is the conversational equivalent of signalling an exception. That's one of the reasons they're used: to end a discussion.

Heresy

www.paulgraham.com

I'm a card carrying Heretic.

At least they don't burn us at the stake anymore.

If a cause or "issue" ( I hate that word ), or is taken up by politicians, the elites or what passes for an intelligentsia, the I'm agin it.

An example are those silly ribbons politicians wear in Parliament for some cause or other (nothing against the cause).

They look as if they have been made Heroes of Russia, the DROK or the DRC or some other godforsaken place.

gg

 

[SirRumpole]

For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. They do not, having said this, go on to consider whether the statement is true or not. Using such labels is the conversational equivalent of signalling an exception. That's one of the reasons they're used: to end a discussion.

Yes indeed. Criticise the LGBTI community in any way however justified is "homophobic" , same with criticism of indigenous people is racist. It's an easy out for people to avoid justified criticism.

 

[basilio]

Yes indeed. Criticise the LGBTI community in any way however justified is "homophobic" , same with criticism of indigenous people is racist. It's an easy out for people to avoid justified criticism.

Did you read the essay Rumpy ? The writer was careful not to offer any particular x-ist examples. He was opening the discussion to across the board examples of the use of such heresies. Very thought provoking IMV

It is certainly a short cut way to dismiss any discussion on a topic or a person opening that conversation. And it does cut across all social/political fields.

 

[wayneL]

We need more discussions like this among we plebeians; hopefully, while we may all still disagree and debate things, we can send a message that the form of argument mentioned is not wanted or productive.

 

[moXJO]

Did you read the essay Rumpy ? The writer was careful not to offer any particular x-ist examples. He was opening the discussion to across the board examples of the use of such heresies. Very thought provoking IMV

It is certainly a short cut way to dismiss any discussion on a topic or a person opening that conversation. And it does cut across all social/political fields.

What's with the fascist talking points Bas?
Are you promoting free speech, because that will open you up to a cancelling.

 

[sptrawler]

What's with the fascist talking points Bas?
Are you promoting free speech, because that will open you up to a cancelling.

Funnily enough, but I didn't want to say it, but wasn't Rumpy just giving examples of what Bas wanted to discuss.
But I have a tendency to upset people, so I didn't say it, but wasn't that what Bas wanted to promote? discussion.

Yet when Rumpy gave reasonable feedback, the clamp came down?
Just shows, even with our small sample, how flucked up the whole thing has become.

No one can say anything, unless it fits in with the narrative, not only can they not say it openly, they are $hit scared to say it anonymously.

This is going to end badly, because what is accepted in the media as fair or justified, can become not fair and justified in a court of law.

Then it becomes interesting, currently the media is taken to court and sued for their stance on their opinion, eventually the situation will arise where people have to decide which is the better a court or the media decision on the issue?

We have had a very interesting rape case recently, that has pushed those boundaries and they aren't the only boundaries that are being pushed, as the public will find over the next 5-10 years IMO.
Interesting times IMO.
Currently it is innocent until proven guilty, we are currently on the cusp of guilty until the media is proven wrong, yet what qualifications do the media have? Other than a big following of the gormless masses? ?

 

[moXJO]

I think the "twitter drop" is exposing exactly how far this crap went. Which was to the point of silencing a Stanford professor, who was ultimately proven right on the effects of lockdowns.

I think everyone saw just how idiotic it became during covid. It was just stupid. And worse still was we had "credited professionals" that were actually shown to be morons.

 

[Smurf1976]

think the "twitter drop" is exposing exactly how far this crap went. Which was to the point of silencing a Stanford professor, who was ultimately proven right on the effects of lockdowns.

A big problem is the binary nature of debate. That someone must support either this side or the other side and everything they say must support that side.

My view is radically different. Using the lockdown example, it's entirely possible for someone to point out that lockdowns have these downsides, and then go into great detail about those downsides, but to also point out the benefits of those same lockdowns. It's not a binary situation, there are pros and cons, and it's entirely reasonable that an individual acknowledges all the issues.

Same goes for pretty much anything. Rarely is a situation clear cut where there's simply no argument in favour of one side. Usually there's at least some merit in both sides of an argument and whichever side you conclude is preferable, it's an on balance decision that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages but there are some disadvantages yes.

 

[Smurf1976]

Did you read the essay Rumpy ? The writer was careful not to offer any particular x-ist examples. He was opening the discussion to across the board examples of the use of such heresies. Very thought provoking IMV

I took the comment to be more general on the subject and not solely in response to the original essay.

 

[basilio]

A big problem is the binary nature of debate. That someone must support either this side or the other side and everything they say must support that side.

My view is radically different. Using the lockdown example, it's entirely possible for someone to point out that lockdowns have these downsides, and then go into great detail about those downsides, but to also point out the benefits of those same lockdowns. It's not a binary situation, there are pros and cons, and it's entirely reasonable that an individual acknowledges all the issues.

Same goes for pretty much anything. Rarely is a situation clear cut where there's simply no argument in favour of one side. Usually there's at least some merit in both sides of an argument and whichever side you conclude is preferable, it's an on balance decision that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages but there are some disadvantages yes.

Quite agree. The COVID situation was ( and is) a very uncertain and fluid issue. The understanding of how it was being spread, how it could be treated, how dangerous it could be was a fast moving target.

At now stage was anyone ever going to be totally right (whatever the xxxx that means ) . IMV in such critical situations clear determined but often blunt decisions are necessary. Quarantine, lock downs are such actions.

I have my reservations about Health Authorities and Big Pharma. But I was far more concerned about points of view which totally underestimated the dangers of the virus, promoted some very dubious cures, and demonised health authorities and governments for taken the tough but blunt actions that did stop the spread of the disease.

 

[basilio]

Yes indeed. Criticise the LGBTI community in any way however justified is "homophobic" , same with criticism of indigenous people is racist. It's an easy out for people to avoid justified criticism.

I see your point Rumpy. But how would one view such "criticism" from a person/organisation whose entire stance was one of denigration of gays or indigenous people ? Those two areas are quite interesting areas because we are all aware within our own lifetimes that homosexuality was widely viewed as criminal, disgusting, perverse or at the best a sickness. Frankly that was the over arching view.

Racism in the US and Australia as well as other countries was also frank and open. And being clear this attitude is a part of many extreme right movements that have been gathering strength at the moment.

Which way do we want to go ?

PS In no way was I suggesting you were being homophobic or racist.

 

[SirRumpole]

I see your point Rumpy. But how would one view such "criticism" from a person/organisation whose entire stance was one of denigration of gays or indigenous people ?

That's a fair point. If criticism of the LGB community came from a church then that criticism could be condemned because it's a blanket criticism of a group because of their identity.

If medical authorities pointed out than some behaviour of gay men spread disease, would that be homophobic ? If it was based on medical facts then it would not be homophobic because it criticised behaviour not identity.

The media is being sanitised to protect minority groups in some respects at the expense of factual reporting.

 

[moXJO]

Quite agree. The COVID situation was ( and is) a very uncertain and fluid issue. The understanding of how it was being spread, how it could be treated, how dangerous it could be was a fast moving target.

At now stage was anyone ever going to be totally right (whatever the xxxx that means ) . IMV in such critical situations clear determined but often blunt decisions are necessary. Quarantine, lock downs are such actions.

I have my reservations about Health Authorities and Big Pharma. But I was far more concerned about points of view which totally underestimated the dangers of the virus, promoted some very dubious cures, and demonised health authorities and governments for taken the tough but blunt actions that did stop the spread of the disease.

Sorry but this is bull. Even WHO did not endorse lockdowns when the world started going mad.

But the problem was that actual scientific debate was silenced. It got to the point that anything that was against a ridiculous narrative was condemned.

Excusing it away will be the biggest injustice.
The science was very clear around a lot of this stuff and yet we followed things against the actual proven data.

Debate for years has been "you're racist, sexist, homophones, nazi, climate denier" and yes also "greenie, commie, leftist nutbag, antifa".
It's now been revealed that yes, dissenting voices were silenced across social media.
A light needs to be aggressively shone on what happened. People need to be called out for what happened. Because the big fear right now is that the right overstep the mark and do something similar to the left.

The end result must be open debate in as informed as possible way. Personally I think @Joe Blow has done a fantastic job through a very difficult number of years. And a lot of the world is finally catching on that this type of openness is essential.

 

[SirRumpole]

The science was very clear around a lot of this stuff and yet we followed things against the actual proven data.

Do you really think politicians would risk attracting the ire of the population if it wasn't necessary ?

The 'science' depends on who you want to listen to. Fauci was in high positions in the health services for over 50 years. Are you saying he's an idiot ?

 

[wayneL]

Do you really think politicians would risk attracting the ire of the population if it wasn't necessary ?

The 'science' depends on who you want to listen to. Fauci was in high positions in the health services for over 50 years. Are you saying he's an idiot ?

It is unequivocal he was not acting in the best interests of the populace and at best, grossly misrepresented the science. For what reason is another matter.

At worst, yes a complete moron.

IMO, he is somewhere in between and most certainly had nefarious intentions.

 

[moXJO]

Do you really think politicians would risk attracting the ire of the population if it wasn't necessary ?

The 'science' depends on who you want to listen to. Fauci was in high positions in the health services for over 50 years. Are you saying he's an idiot ?

Masks outdoors is proven to be a waste of time. Virus becoming less lethal over time is known. Extended Lockdown effects and the rate of school infections (low rates). The list goes on. All these things and more were known.


Fauci walked a very fine line on "gain of function"
He was also famously wrong about how you contracted aids during the aids pandemic in the 80s. He used similar scare tactics then.

I'm saying he was a fcking nonce. Political and wrong.

 

[SirRumpole]

It is unequivocal he was not acting in the best interests of the populace and at best, grossly misrepresented the science. For what reason is another matter.

At worst, yes a complete moron.

IMO, he is somewhere in between and most certainly had nefarious intentions.

When I want a horse shoed I'll come to you, when I want a medical opinion I'll see a doctor.

 

[moXJO]

When I want a horse shoed I'll come to you, when I want a medical opinion I'll see a doctor.

It was doctors that were being shadow banned or condemned.
This is also part of the above problem. Point out potential problems and get shut-down.

Last time I checked journalists often have zero credentials to be writing about anything yet it's gobbled up as truth.

Not sure I've heard "if I want to write an article I'll come to you"

 

[wayneL]

When I want a horse shoed I'll come to you, when I want a medical opinion I'll see a doctor.

*shod

Good for you.

I'll see a doctor I trust, and if you ever need a farrier, you better damn well find a good one because most are worse than useless.

As an analogy, I regularly collaborate with veterinarians on lameness issues (many of which have systemic and endocrinal in origin and in fact have lectured vet class.s on the biomechanics aspects of such. Not doctors, I know, but same only different.

As part of CPD, I am acquainted with the world's top professors in this field, one of which was a neighbour.

So I'm not your average mug farrier, I am educated enough to discern the smarties from the idiots.

I think I can extend that to medicine, at least to know when something is amiss.

With Fauci, his involvement with gain of function research is truly moronic, because of the risks, and the escape of SARS-CoV-2 proved that. Thank God it wasn't a lot worse.

Additionally, his shifting narrative over the years, both regarding the virus, and the jab, is enough to show some nefarious goal.

Up to you if you want to trust this man. I don't.