Discourse on contemporary political beliefs reminds me, in a strange way, of the strong nuclear force.
The strong nuclear force binds quarks to form hadrons, and also keeps protons and neutrons contained in atomic nuclei.
Like electromagnetism, it is a fundamental force. Now the force carrier of electromagnetism is the photon, which is massless and electrically neutral. This makes electromagnetism relatively easy to analyze. The force varies as the square of the distance, that sort of thing.
The force carrier of the strong nuclear force, the gluon, itself carries a strong nuclear charge. This makes analyzing the strong force fiendishly difficult, because you have to account for the attraction of the gluon to the particles for which it is conveying strong force attraction, and the charge of the additional gluons that carry the strong force of that gluon, and so on.
And so it is with politics. Consider “Ten Commandments for Atheists”:
1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
Blah blah blah
Which were mocked by a Based Internet Duck:
look i’m not religious at all myself either but if you proudly self-identify as “atheist” just fuck off and unfollow me, you’re a big faggot
I find all this passing strange because … I don’t believe in God.
But I am not an “atheist.” An “atheist” is a progressive. A progressive is a believer in a mutant strain of Christianity which discarded its belief in God, much as a virus discarded most of its cell material.
I am an “agnostic”. An agnostic is technically “One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.” But that is just something a 19th-century intellectual made up so that he could smirk to his friends while still getting invited to fashionable parties. Nobody could actually think that way.[a] It is not how humans are made.
In our world, “agnostic” means “an atheist, but not a dick about it”.
And in spite of:
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
in our world, an atheist is one of the Godly.[b]
[a] It’s worth keeping this in mind if you are confused by the multitude of early Christian doctrines and heresies. It’s likely that no one cared about Monophytism or Nestorianism as such. Future historians may well say to themselves, “impossible to know whether there is a God?! Was there something in the water supply to make people incredibly passive-aggressive?”
[b] Perhaps by analogy with neo-Reactionary, we could call the Cathedral belief system “neo-Puritanism.”