Subject: You do not support the freedom of women
Afaics the highly educated women in your religious strategy are also not free to do what they want. Jim alludes to religious control:
http://blog.jim.com/culture/why-female-status-limits-fertility/
I think it is quite disingenuous and myopic of you to think you are emancipating women. You are merely indoctrinating them to enslave them. And if you do not succeed in indoctrinating them with religion and thus enslaving them, then they will defect by definition of not succeeding.
You claim righteousness, but afaics it is just an arbitrary perspective of yours with your belief that your religion’s beliefs (i.e. morals and ethics) are cardinal and objective. This is why you need an unfalsiable God, so you can claim objectivity, without it being falsifiable. Your argument is thus logically circular and thus baseless aka relative (as is everything in our Universe necessarily must be relative else it would be preordained, static, and thus non-existent).
I always come down on the side of diversity. We make choices and we are not all the same.
The blogger in your link describes a defect/defect scenario in human reproduction which in an age of secularism and birth control is a recipe for declining marriage, hedonism, and near zero children.
He then argues that solving this problem requires stripping women of most legal rights and making them property or stock animals owned men. This may solve the defect/defect problem at a horrific cost removing all freedom from half of the population and making them property. We also run into further challenges why stop at just at the women? Why shouldn't the strong make all the weak men/nations property too or better yet kill/euthanize them en masse to reduce competition?
A religion based on voluntary participation, ethics and God is a far better solution then any attempt to strip freedom of life or liberty from a part of the population for the "greater good".
Education does not equal indoctrination. Indroctination has a goal of unquestioning obedience. A solid religious upbringing should be questioned and questioned deeply.
You make the case that a belief in God and objective morality is not falsifiable and argue instead that everything is relative and subjective that there is no such thing as objective truth. This relativism is not a new argument it is the foundation of nihilism. Nihilism is also not falsifiable. It cannot be disproven. I can only point to the catastrophic consequences that result from adopting the nihilistic worldview and recommend against it.
So yes I do believe that religion and God emancipates women. I also think it emancipates men.
Freedom comes from moral self-control. There is no other way to achieve it.
Religion is based on (especially childhood or those who were vulnerable due to their suffering/mistakes) indoctrination and socialized pressure, not voluntary participation.
Each person may have a valid reason they employ religion in their life strategy for they think it gives them a better chance at a better quality of life. But that does not mean it is about individual freedom. If we take the basic truths of for example the 10 Commandments, one does not require religion in order to apply those truths to their actions and life strategy.
Females are not free in a religious society to do what ever they want. And when the religion loses its strict regulation of females, that religion is going extinct. Merging progressivism (which is essentially leftism) with religion is a Frankenstein outcome. Those who experiment with this will reap what they have sown.
The weak men have always been and always will be property. Ditto all women. This the reality of life. Many or most of them are contented with this reality. As they should be because it is the only way to organize civilization. Geniuses refuse:
Progressives say it is different this time, as it always never is. They will learn the same way everyone before them did. By failing.
Education does not equal indoctrination
Lol. Of course it does.
Indoctrination has a goal of unquestioning obedience.
By example, the obedience to progressivism is completely impenetrable in your case.
A solid religious upbringing should be questioned and questioned deeply.
If that were possible, religion would be ineffective and useless. You will claim this is because religion wins in terms of rational analysis due to being the only possible form of absolute objectivity. And I will retort that we know from Physics that absolute objectivity is impossible for if it is existed, then everything would be known a priori and the past and future would be undifferentiated and thus life does not exist. You will retort that a supreme God that existed outside of our spacetime (or multiverse) could be omniscient and yet we could still be alive because we are prevented from having this omniscience. I would retort that God would not exist if he was omniscient.
Thus I have proved your omniscient God can not exist. You can now go into obfuscating metaphysical contortions to try to deny the fact of it.
everything is relative and subjective
At some level of abstraction yes, but our individual existence is not (as far as we currently perceive it to be) on a global (past and future) scale, thus we can form some localized objectivity based on our limited frame-of-reference, and thus…
objective morality is not falsifiable
I can falsify some morality on a local metric. I know if I basically violate the 10 Commandments, I will create a difficult existence.
And I know if I empower women and weak men to defect, they will and this will have impacts which have been cyclically throughout recorded human civilization.
I reject Nihilism. I accept Jesus’ wisdom. And I did not necessarily reject religion as a potential way to organize society (although Jesus was teaching us to move away from organized religion towards an individual relationship with objective truths (sic) in our closet and I think perhaps the Knowledge age makes it more necessary).
And I repeat, religion does not make women (nor weak men*) free. Progressivists who make this error will have an evil outcome.
* See Romans and 1 Samuel 8 - 15.
Perhaps it would help to hear from a highly educated women?
Ah you have provided a prime example of what I warned you would happen if we mix highly educated feminist leaning females with religion— Frankenstein.
Women are biologically incapable of doing anything for the deep meaning of the virtues or the long-term reproductive strategy (i.e. that maximizes productivity), but it is always about their short-term fantasies and emotional needs (which drive also their hindbrain).
For maximum productivity and competitiveness/functioning of a society, men need to run the lives of women and keep them focused in the areas where they excel and happiest in their traditional roles, which is child rearing, family, and neighborhood. And roles larger in scope than that, and the will turn civilization towards fantasy and clusterfuck as exemplified by the linked essay you provided wherein anecdotally the woman justifies her participation in religion because it fulfills her fantasies which have no grounding in reality (of maximizing production of society). Yet per my prior message, we also need defection from those who do not understand this, so we can diversify the gene pool.
We are all slave to a life which best fits our capabilities. I am slave to my work. But that is a good slavery that should give us the most true satisfaction.
For example, I would not believe in a God of omniscience, because I believe that omniscience is the antithesis of life.
Yet I might come to believe in a God of universal love, meaning to maximize the production and thus satisfaction-driven-by-production (e.g. production of offspring or production of knowledge) of every human (and thing that lives). This definition of love would be antithetical to the one that progressives preach, as it is against equality and the freedom to enslave oneself in reduced production while myopically claiming empowerment and freedom.
Many debates do not end with one party convincing the other but by mutual fatigue and the futility of further discussion.
Moralistic arguments must necessarily end this way. I think that is instructive. Now I remember what I had said to my Grandad about moralism when I was not yet a teenager.
If we used instead a falsifiable metric such as maximizing production, then at least the discussion can proceed on measurements.
You, Eric Raymond, and James Donald helped expose me to information that caused me to formulate that the key metric is production. And clearly by that metric women will lower production if given roles of culture leadership and role models outside their core competency as dictated by biology.
Subject: addendum to prior msg
This video caused me to remember a thought I had recently about our debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7F9x91Gpw4
The defection is an important part of civilization. For example, the periodic defection is useful for mixing the gene pool, because otherwise societies tend to become xenophobic in order to protect their strict culture.
Life is wonderfully complex and entropy is always increasing.
There is not one right way. And male defection is not the great single evil, with female vulnerability the great single victimization card.
Taking a cue from @miscreanity and his point about not directly criticizing people and rather trying to help them see how to improve without judging them to need improvement. I find I have no option but to simply disengage from this debate. What could I possibly say to you that would not sound like judging when I protest your judging of males who defect or males who want more strict discipline of females.
The world is a competitive place. I like that. Go forth with yours. I wish you the best with it.
I do not endorse absolutism. I may make choices for myself, but they are not choices I require everyone else to make.