Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Barna profiles a generation on the cliff’s crumbling edge — 78 million US Millennials

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Barna’s current report, “New Insights into the Generation of Growing Influence: Millennials In America,” is a portrait of a generation adrift, dancing on the edge of a cliff, and reflective of generations of civilisational betrayal by intellectual, policy/political, media and educational leadership leading to a destabilised culture. And so, this cannot wait, triple bereavement life crisis or no, this needs to be highlighted and preliminarily assessed here at UD:

The report’s snapshot summary tells the grim story in outline:

And:

Also, we may add on Religious identification, affinity and affiliation:

We can start with the obvious, as within living memory of those of us who were of age to notice, between 1989 and 1991, Marxism’s credibility as a principle of economic organisation collapsed before our eyes. So, if the immediately following generation does not understand such after its seventy years of chaos, tyranny, state led murder of over 100 millions and outright economic failure, we are dealing with a generation that were deliberately misled by ideologues who cared not a whit for that horrific track record. One that is actually worse than that of Communism’s kissing cousin, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi, for short). (And yes, they meant the “Socialist.”)

So, first and foremost we are dealing with a deeply manipulated generation robbed of objective truth about pivotal worldview, policy, history, ideology and personal matters. That indicts at least two to three full generations of intellectual, policy, media and educational leaders and influencers, with implications across the full span of the pillars of community influence:

Likewise, the Overton Window speaks:

Where, the modified political spectrum is therefore also instructive on the peril:

So, it is unsurprising to see the overall outline being sketched. Selecting key points:

  • almost half of those born 1984 – 2002 prefer socialism to capitalism
  • a majority (likely with a large opposed minority and that’s the obvious trend-direction) “held a positive opinion of Jesus Christ, the United States of America and the Bible”
  • Confirming that inference, 40% “don’t know if God exists, don’t care if God exists, or don’t believe that He exists.” (God, the necessary and maximally great being at reality’s root is the single most important point of knowledge of reality; where, a serious candidate necessary being either exists as framework to any possible world or is impossible of being, the latter never having been shown. So the hyperskeptical indifference is telling on intellectual breakdown.)
  • Unsurprisingly, in this light, only 1/3 claim to “believe in God as the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect and just creator of the universe who still rules the universe today”
  • parallelling this, “Roughly two-thirds . . . align themselves with the Christian faith”
  • likewise, “[j]ust over one-quarter of them said they do not associate with any religious faith”
  • “39% of 18-24 year olds identify as LGBTQ” (Historically, in the West, 1 – 3% have been practicing homosexuals but this proportion globally ranges from vanishingly small to 100% forced participation through institutionalisation, in different cultures.)
  • “[t]hree out of four . . . believe all religious faiths are of equal value”
  • on “social issues,” 40 percent [a now familiar figure] identify as liberal or progressivist, with 29% as conservative.
  • they identify as Democrats vs Republicans 2:1, revealing the predominant ideological influencers of their formative years
  • “[m]ost Millennials reject the existence of absolute moral truth and identify feelings, experiences, and advice from family and friends as their most trusted sources of moral guidance” (That is, they drift with the cultural flow and thus those who dominate education and media.)
  • likewise, three out of four “said that they are still searching for their purpose in life,” reflecting the influence of worldviews and cultural agendas that are antithetical to purpose, other than arbitrarily selected desires
  • “[o]f the nine cultural influencer categories tested, none of them were trusted by a majority to “always or almost always tell the truth or do what is right.” (This cynicism reflects disintegration of social and cultural capital built up over generations.)
  • “[t]he least trusted entities were entertainment celebrities, popular social media personalities, and elected government officials” (So, the influences come through peers and opinion leaders in families and groups.)
  • “The most highly trusted influencers were their parents and friends”
  • 2 out of 3 “admitted to avoiding interaction with someone if it was likely to produce conflict,” which tends to block change based on mutually critical reflection and to reinforce cultural echo chambers
  • issues they prioritise indicate “never let a crisis go to waste” media domination of their thinking: “CORONAVIRUS MANAGEMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, ABORTION, THE ECONOMY”

The need for a sound counter-culture is patent. END

Comments
Origenes, you will note that I have consistently noted that our accessible degree of warrant is in most cases defeatable, but that warrant must be reliable, similar to say scientific knowledge. That is our lot with knowledge, commonly used sense. However start with say 3 + 2 = 5, warranted by || + ||| --> ||||| and we will see that while relatively few, there are indeed many cases where warrant can and does provide utter certainty. Already, the import of having to be to doubt existence shows that I exist as a self aware being is undeniable and readily communicated to similar agents, triggering the same degree of warrant in them. Likewise, any language using, thinking creature cannot but affirm the law of identity thus its close corollaries, non contradiction and excluded middle. Error exists is similar. With a considerable number of other examples. Objectivity includes the utterly certain case as a limiting ideal attainable in relatively few but absolutely many cases. Such has been already pointed out. KF PS: We do not need to have general solutions to challenges to detect errors or lies, to recognise that there are many cases of successful warrant and significantly many where warrant is to utter certainty.kairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus LCD (attn Seversky): or, imply no binding first duties to truth, right reason, warrant and broader prudence etc? KF
Yep, I consider all mentioned by you under morality umbrella. Actually I think that 100% communication action(spoken or written word) involve morality. Can someone provide an example of communication that involve no morality? :) Even "Sky is blue " involve morality.
Origenes Nowhere have I argued that it does. But what it does change is the significance of warrant in the outside world WRT subjects. The examples of subjective statements I have provided in @134 show that indirect objective (or inter-subjective) warrant cannot give us certainty about the truthfulness of subjective statements.
You make the case of morality(truth/lies) that influences the statements. Do you have the tool to detect a lie? if yes then you have the warrant of a true/false statement. If not then you put the statement on the shelf of ambiguous statements.Lieutenant Commander Data
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
KF
that we may err or lie or be ignorant in part does not change the significance of truth as saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not.
Nowhere have I argued that it does. But what it does change is the significance of warrant in the outside world WRT subjects. The examples of subjective statements I have provided in @134 show that indirect objective (or inter-subjective) warrant cannot give us certainty about the truthfulness of subjective statements.Origenes
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Origenes, warrant is in principle communicable thus public. We work things through in accord with right reason and we can share our findings, that BTW is how bodies of reliable knowledge [weak, defeatable/correctable sense that is usual] and best practice are built up. KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Sev, BTW, one of the utterly certain things is our self-awareness, and I am no figment of your imagination. You may find excuses to dismiss as you please but that does not change the reality nor my ability to speak or write of it. And meanwhile we see the way playing with hyperskepticism and imagining it a virtue have played havoc with our civilisation, Plato's Cave and now increasingly Ship of State mutiny leading to voyage of folly level havoc. KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
LCD (attn Seversky): or, imply no binding first duties to truth, right reason, warrant and broader prudence etc? KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Origenes & Seversky, that we may err or lie or be ignorant in part does not change the significance of truth as saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. For, it is accurate description etc that put us in touch with reality, warrant providing reliability. Trying to live out of accurate contact with reality is a recipe for disaster; some would say, for cause, that in some cases that defines not mere error but outright insane and too often stubborn folly. . It is a measure of the sad state of our civilisation that we seem to have in many cases lost touch with that. No wonder we tend to dance on the crumbling edge of a cliff as the OP highlights. KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Seversky:
On the correspondence theory of truth, a claim about the world is true to the extent it can be observed to correspond to what it purports to describe or explain.
I may be speaking truth when I say that I suffer from weltschmerz, even if didn’t tell anyone about it before and kept it otherwise perfectly hidden for the outside world. IOWs it may be true even if there is no inkling of warrant for it in the outside world, other than me saying it. And I may be speaking untruth when I say that I love Betty, even when I proposed to her and told everyone I know that I love her. It may be a lie even if I had a plane fly a banner with “I love Betty.”Origenes
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Origenes, it is not parts of truth but degrees of access to it. Given our error proneness on one hand, means of warrant in the middle and the relatively few cases where we can acquire complete certainty. Objective truth is sufficiently warranted as to be reliable per tests etc, but our warrant in most cases is subject to further correction though reliable. In some few cases we can attain utter certainty. KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Seversky On the correspondence theory of truth, a claim about the world is true to the extent it can be observed to correspond to what it purports to describe or explain. Moral claims are not descriptions of the nature of observable reality or what “is”, they are prescriptions for how we should behave towards one another or what we “ought” to do. On this understanding, moral claims are neither true nor false.
Can you rewrite your message that would contain no moral claim ?Lieutenant Commander Data
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Objective is whatever exists regardless of whether it is being perceived or experienced by some other entity. Strictly speaking, however, this is an assumption since there is no way for me to be certain that something continues to exist when I am not aware of it. I experience continued existence regardless of whether anyone else is around to be aware of me. But even that is an assumption since I am not aware of myself when I sleep. I could be a new creation every time I'm awake fully-stocked with false memories of a fictitious history. BA77, KF and WJM could all be figments of my imagination or I could be an AI simulation constructed by some alien supercomputer. As Mr Spock was wont to say, "fascinating!"Seversky
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
On the correspondence theory of truth, a claim about the world is true to the extent it can be observed to correspond to what it purports to describe or explain. Moral claims are not descriptions of the nature of observable reality or what "is", they are prescriptions for how we should behave towards one another or what we "ought" to do. On this understanding, moral claims are neither true nor false.Seversky
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Origenes Truth is an accurate description of reality. Truth is truth, there is no sense in breaking it up into multiple parts — such as ‘objective truth’ and ‘subjective truth’.
Let's think at a family. Parents are wise and loving . Child is naive, curious and developing. In a dialoque between parents and child we visualize parents as objective and child like subjective but the assimilation of parents objective information is transforming the child gradually towards more and more objectivity. Objectivity is not only a raw information has to contain love and moral purpose (the trinity of human powers: reason, sentiment and volition.) We analize any info through all 3 filters and decide about it. If one filter is broken(for reason:mental problems;for sentiment:hate,vices; for volition:ignore) we deal with subjectivity.Lieutenant Commander Data
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Truth is an accurate description of reality. Truth is truth, there is no sense in breaking it up into multiple parts — such as 'objective truth' and 'subjective truth'. There is however the crucial divide in internal and the external world: two separate realms of warrant. Therefore it does make sense to speak of "objective warrant" and "subjective warrant". It is important to note that "objective warrant" does not automatically make truth and "subjective warrant" does not make error. A hypothesis can be false despite the presence of objective warrant. Only perfect understanding makes truth.Origenes
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
F/N: Drifting, again, I highlight the focal issue in the OP:
within living memory of those of us who were of age to notice, between 1989 and 1991, Marxism’s credibility as a principle of economic organisation collapsed before our eyes. So, if the immediately following generation does not understand such after its seventy years of chaos, tyranny, state led murder of over 100 millions and outright economic failure, we are dealing with a generation that were deliberately misled by ideologues who cared not a whit for that horrific track record. One that is actually worse than that of Communism’s kissing cousin, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi, for short). (And yes, they meant the “Socialist.”) So, first and foremost we are dealing with a deeply manipulated generation robbed of objective truth about pivotal worldview, policy, history, ideology and personal matters. That indicts at least two to three full generations of intellectual, policy, media and educational leaders and influencers
KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Origenes, truth is best recognised as accurate correspondence of what is said to what is real, entities, states of affairs, whatever. Truth conditions has to do with having reliable warrant of such correspondence, reducing likelihood of error or bias etc. In turn, the issue is our error proneness and our being able to take steps to more reliably connect thought, ideas, words etc to truth. Hence, pivotal importance of warrant, beyond oh X sez so. Seven year olds know this at basic level. KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Joe @124
“A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. “
What truth conditions exactly? So when you say that statement X is an 'objective truth', you are declaring that you are not biased in saying so. But why should anyone believe you? Put differently, should we believe every person who claims that he/she makes a statement without bias?Origenes
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Can you tell me what the term “objectively true” means?
“A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. “Joe Schooner
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
MNY, I note AmHD, on common [good] sense: "Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge." You will note how this relies on prudence, right reason and orientation to truth, fair mindedness etc, precisely the foci of first duties of reason that several frequent commenters at UD have gone out of their way to sideline. Such relies on general knowledge, awareness of current and major historic events, broad experience of the world accessible to the man in the Clapham bus stop and being perceptive enough to recognise key basic fallacies. One of the first recognitions is our error proneness and need to do due diligence to think through soundly. Which is another way of saying, need to warrant, grounding objectivity. Which then becomes highly relevant to the focal issue in the OP, breakdown of straight thinking by an extraordinarily high proportion of a generation. DV, more to follow, there are further warning signs. KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
@Joe Schooner
The things that can be said to be objectively true, with a few rare exceptions, are (...)
Can you tell me what the term "objectively true" means? Does it mean "really true", "really really true", "everyone should agree with me that this is true", "true in the external world" or something else?Origenes
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
LCD, you may have a point. KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
MNY, you have set up a strawman. With error-prone perception, cognition, imagination, ideation etc we need to filter and detect/correct error as much as possible to enhance reliability hence warrant, use of principles of reason, filtering to remove biases etc. I cannot but note how tangential this is in a context where the issue on the table is vital to recognising that something has warped a generation to the point that one of the most liberating and protective developments of all time, constitutional, rights protective democracy, is widely derided and deemed of low repute. Similarly, where lawful, free market enterprise, which opened up widespread breakout from poverty is similarly disregarded. This is a signature of agit prop turnabout and needs to be corrected by precisely prioritising objectivity. KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
MNY:
You ask the wrong question.
Is this claim objective or subjective?
The question that should be asked is, what logic is used with subjective statements, and objective statements, in common discourse.
I'm surprised to learn that this is the question that should be asked. That question would have never occured to me. Not sure what it means, if anything. But Ok, here we go: What logic is used with subjective statements, and objective statements, in common discourse?
The concept of interpretation is not fundamentally relevant, only the terms subjectivity and objectivity are fundamentally relevant.
So, you don't have to answer my question. How convenient for you.Origenes
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
We cannot "see" by radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, ultra-violet light, X-rays or gamma rays. Our other senses have similar limitations. We create - and live within - a model of what we believe to be an external reality. That model is necessarily incomplete and imperfect because it is based on sensory data which is itself incomplete. In terms of survival, though, all that is required is that it be accurate enough to enable us to navigate through - and survive within - that external reality. We knew nothing of neutrinos until Wolfgang Pauli had his insight even though, as we now know, billions of them are pouring through every square centimeter of our bodies every second. Our knowledge of the neutrino is an illustration of how by, developing models within models. we can learn things about external reality which we cannot perceive directly. And this knowledge was not dispensed grudgingly from on high. It was excavated by dogged human research without any outside help, another example of what methodological naturalism can achieve.Seversky
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
As it appears that the thread is cycling around to objective truth and objective moral truths, this might be a good place to drop a comment that was lost in moderator limbo. ————— The things that can be said to be objectively true, with a few rare exceptions, are: 1) Humans are emotional beings; 2) Humans, for whatever reason, categorize behaviors into “right” and “wrong”. And that these are further classified into levels of severity; and, 3) Humans have an emotional response (guilt) when they perform a behavior that they have categorized as wrong. The strength of this response is proportional to the severity the behavior has been classified. From here there are two possibilities: 1) These “rights” and “wrongs” are based on objective moral truths; or, 2) They are based on subjectively derived moral “preferences”. The best way to examine this problem is to attempt to envision a society based on each of these. The one that requires the fewest additional assumptions, and which best resembles the societies we see and have recorded throughout history, is likely to be the best explanation.Joe Schooner
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Mohammadnursyamsu I am the only one who is right.
@KF , :) I guess MMN confuses objectivity with methodological naturalism , and subjectivity with spirituality.Lieutenant Commander Data
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
@origines You ask the wrong question. The question that should be asked is, what logic is used with subjective statements, and objective statements, in common discourse. And the answer is subjective statements are chosen and express what it is that makes a choice. And objective statements are a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation. The concept of interpretation is not fundamentally relevant, only the terms subjectivity and objectivity are fundamentally relevant.mohammadnursyamsu
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
MNY@113
Objectivity is not really error prone. The senses generally automatically provide a perfect 1 to 1 corresponding model of the real world. When you look at things with your eyes, you generally get a perfect representation of what you are looking at, in your mind.
So 'objectivity' is what comes to us via our external senses. Objectivity is our perception of the external world. How do you name the interpretation of our perception of the external world? Is interpretation part of objectivity or does it belong in the domain of subjectivity?Origenes
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
@KF Objectivity is not really error prone. The senses generally automatically provide a perfect 1 to 1 corresponding model of the real world. When you look at things with your eyes, you generally get a perfect representation of what you are looking at, in your mind. It is basically the same as a videocamera recording. While there are various exceptions and limitations to the capability to make 1 to 1 corresponding models, the process is not fundamentally errorprone. Instead our senses provide accurate information up to an incredibly high standard. What you say is absolute rubbish, because it is just fantasy. It is fantasy because you openly do not try to accurately describe the logic of subjectivity and objectivity as used in common discourse. It is still a total outrage, that you just fantasize whatever. And you are causing us to lose the war against socialism, with this kind of total stupidity that you, and all the rest of you here, are spouting. It is very obvious to me that academics is systematically rejecting the entire subjective part of reality. The whole spiritual domain, including both human emotions, and God, they reject it all. It is total evil. While you are still sensitive to accusations from academics, that you are supporting creationism. You are sensitive to accusations from totally evil academics. Why would anyone listen to the utter fools from academics who deny God? Creationism is the only thing that validates the concept of subjectivity. That becomes obvious, when you investigate the logic of subjectivity as used in common discourse. Only creationism can destroy socialism. Make people accept the validity of what is subjective, and therefore believe in the reality of the spiritual domain in general, including human emotions, and God.mohammadnursyamsu
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
PPS: Augustine has a point:
[CoG, Bk II Ch 1. Of the limits which must be put to the necessity of replying to an adversary If the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture. But this mental infirmity is now more prevalent and hurtful than ever, to such an extent that even after the truth has been as fully demonstrated as man can prove it to man, they hold for the very truth their own unreasonable fancies, either on account of their great blindness, which prevents them from seeing what is plainly set before them, or on account of their opinionative obstinacy, which prevents them from acknowledging the force of what they do see. There therefore frequently arises a necessity of speaking more fully on those points which are already clear, that we may, as it were, present them not to the eye, but even to the touch, so that they may be felt even by those who close their eyes against them. And yet to what end shall we ever bring our discussions, or what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we proceed on the principle that we must always reply to those who reply to us? For those who are either unable to understand our arguments, or are so hardened by the habit of contradiction, that though they understand they cannot yield to them, reply to us, and, as it is written, “speak hard things,”[1] and are incorrigibly vain. Now, if we were to propose to confute their objections as often as they with brazen face chose to disregard our arguments, and so often as they could by any means contradict our statements, you see how endless, and fruitless, and painful a task we should be undertaking. And therefore I do not wish my writings to be judged even by you, my son Marcellinus, nor by any of those others at whose service this work of mine is freely and in all Christian charity put, if at least you intend always to require a reply to every exception which you hear taken to what you read in it; for so you would become like those silly women of whom the apostle says that they are “always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”[2]
kairosfocus
November 14, 2021
November
11
Nov
14
14
2021
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply