Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Is secularism incapable of forming civilization? 33

Journal by Marxist Hacker 42
This philosopher seems to think so: He claims that The Enlightenment Story is as illusory and mythical as any other scripture on the planet that is taught to school children- that the dark ages didn't really exist and that no less of a philosopher than John Locke claimed that atheists are incapable of the "oaths, promises, and covenants" that bind civilization together.

It's an interesting thesis, and may explain why we're losing in Iraq and why democracy isn't very transplantable.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is secularism incapable of forming civilization? More

Is secularism incapable of forming civilization?

Comments Filter:

  • ONE of the surest ways to bring a certain type of dinner party to a halt is to speak piously about "God." Earnest reference to sinners, apostates or blasphemers, or to the promise of salvation offered in evangelical churches, is likely to produce the same effect. Among the cosmopolites who live in secular enclaves, religion is automatically associated with darkness, superstition, irrationality and an antique or pre-modern cast of mind. It has long been assumed that religion is opposed to science, reason a

    • I love the bit about "secular enclaves". Oh noes, can't be living next to them christians! As for the "assumption" that religion is opposed to science, they're certainly not fucking for it, at least not when it contradicts dogma.

      In Catholicism at least, well-proven science IS dogma. The key there is well proven- most science isn't very well proven, and Roman Catholicism at least takes centuries to add new ideas too dogma anyway.

      Umm, no. The Millenium came and went with no Armageddon. Instead of just sh
      • Dresden or Hiroshima ring a bell to you?

        You're joking, right? Penicillin or small pox vaccine ring a bell? Further, per capita fewer people died of violence in the 20th century than any other previous century. In fact, it was a precipitious drop. If the world is more violent, it is only because there are more people, not because the world is worse.
        • You're joking, right? Penicillin or small pox vaccine ring a bell? Further, per capita fewer people died of violence in the 20th century than any other previous century. In fact, it was a precipitious drop. If the world is more violent, it is only because there are more people, not because the world is worse.

          You missed the point. The myth of the Enlightenment was that ONLY religious people kill, that there is no other reason to wage war other than the religious.
          • OK. There is a corresponding per capita rise in atheists and agnostics in the 20th century as well. Heh. But all seriousness aside.

            The success of religion in the past is based upon the lack of seperation or even the understanding of the possibility of a seperation of church and state. The church propped up the state and the state was the church. All these were forms of civilian control, creating moral control and legal control directed by the same institution.

            The Enlightenment did not point out t
            • Western Europe made a decision to eliminate the moral control over people. It has taken time, and may ultimately not be successful, but it is an experiment in life. Personally, I hope it is successful. Morals being wielded by the mighty concern me greatly.

              And thus the question. We've been in this experiment for 300 years now. Can we form any conclusions from it?
      • You do realize that most of modern Christianity doesn't even believe in armageddon to begin with, right?

        Huh!?!?!?!? I didn't get that memo.

        ...just perhaps, atheism doesn't contain enough of a command and control structure to build civilization.

        It does. It just lacks a foundation to make it a moral one. You hit on it with your ending comments re: oaths: Without cognizance of a higher power, and reward or punishment in an afterlife for how one conducts this life, we have no real reason to engage in a
        • Hell, I'd start robbing banks. And killing anyone who annoyed me. Afterall, why not?

          Just because you are not capable of acting morally without threat of violence does not mean that others are so incapable.
          • Just because you are not capable of acting morally without threat of violence does not mean that others are so incapable.

            True enough- but then what happens when individual moral systems clash? Without a JOINT moral system providing a foundational bedrock, you end up with the same problem. Atheism seems to lack such a joint moral system. Not everybody agrees that murder is a bad thing, for instance.
            • Not true enough -- GP is simply missing the point, and not thinking in larger terms, and instead opted to just put me down (what small-minded people do -- what else can they do?). No one said anything about people being incapable of acting morally. (Or under the threat of violence -- God only knows where that came from.) The executives at Enron were perfectly capable of acting morally. They just instead chose to act as if there was no reason to act morally. Take away the main reason most people act morally
              • I didn't seek to put you down. I pointed out the logical inconsistency of your argument. Currently the majority of people are part of a religion with an "objective" moral compass - that does not mean they are going to act according to said compass though. Therefore, the most logical thing to assume is that it is not the religious moral compass that encourages people to be moral, but their own moral sensibility. My point was that you were implying that because you would go out and rob banks, that everyone w
                • Therefore, the most logical thing to assume is that it is not the religious moral compass that encourages people to be moral, but their own moral sensibility.

                  Interesting. I would say it is precisely this moral compass that encourages people to be moral, and it's what you're calling their moral sensibility that defines to what extent they are led by that encouragement. Remove the "objective" religious moral compass, and the bulk of the encouragement is removed (leaving only things like the threat of criminal
                  • Remove the compass and there's nothing to follow. Except one's personal desires, and level of tolerance for the consequences of their actions.

                    We would have evolved to be altruistic, cooperative creatures if there wasn't a tangible benefit to being selfless.
                    • Err... whoops.

                      That should be:

                      "We would not have evolved to be altruistic, cooperative creatures if there wasn't a tangible benefit to being selfless."
                    • I don't believe that the human race IS altruistic or cooperative. In fact, there's quite a lot of proof to the contrary.
                    • No, there's evidence to the contrary. There is also evidence in favour of it. Evidence is not proof.
              • Let's put it in language that the athiests should understand: Individual morality is like individual science. Unless you have objective evidence, publish, and peer reviews, you don't have real science. Unless you have an external driver for your morality, you effectively have no morality.
                • But I do have ethics. I don't need an external moral driver because I could give a shit about morals. I really could care less if people are moral and not just because morals change with the time, culture and geography. What is perfectly moral here in Spain is grounds for being stoned to death for immorality in other cultures, times and places. But that's not why I reject morality as useless. I reject morality as useless because I reject the external drivers you site for morality as useless.

                  God, relig
                  • I'm not about to become the judge of whose moral system is right and wrong- as you seem wont to do. But I am going to say this: Without a COMMON grounding in a moral system within certain geographical boundaries, civilization is impossible.

                    Why do I say this? For exactly the reason YOU cite- different moral systems are incompatible with one another, different ethical systems the same. If everybody had their own ethical system, the clashes would be unavoidable.
                    • There is a difference between ethics and morals, and I've read your posts enough to know that you know the difference, so I won't bother with that. Second, civilization is clearly NOT impossible without a common moral grounding since we currently live in a civilization that does very successfully without one. Societies can (and in the case of any large society, do) get by without all of us buying into one group's views. We ABSOLUTELY don't need a common external moral ground for our morals because we do
                    • There is a difference between ethics and morals, and I've read your posts enough to know that you know the difference, so I won't bother with that.

                      Agreed- but the two are very strongly linked.

                      Second, civilization is clearly NOT impossible without a common moral grounding since we currently live in a civilization that does very successfully without one.

                      Incorrect. Despite the United States being secular, it does have a very strong common moral grounding. It's one I personally disagree with, but have t
                    • Is it really an argument to just call any set of ideas a religion? What's your definition of a religion? There are loads of things you're calling "religion" that I wouldn't, so lets clarify our terms. I'm actually interested in keeping this thread going but I don't want to keep running into semantic walls. I'm willing to use your definitions since it's your journal post, but lets have them.

                      Can we define: religion, civilization, society, ethics and morals.

                      Also, I'm not American, I'm a Canadian living i
                    • Is it really an argument to just call any set of ideas a religion?

                      A set of ideas rises to a religion when it becomes dogmatic and exclusive: "We're right and the rest of the world is wrong". A religion doesn't need a God, it must only be dogmatic and mythical. Much of science today rises to the point of being a religion to it's adherants.

                      What's your definition of a religion? There are loads of things you're calling "religion" that I wouldn't, so lets clarify our terms.

                      Anything dogmatically followe
                    • Not dropping off the thread, it's just that my ISP flaked out at home and it's public holidays here in Spain for Wed through Fri of this week. In a cyber cafe checking email and will reply on Monday. Cheers.
        • Huh!?!?!?!? I didn't get that memo.

          There are 2.1 billion Christians in the world. A billion of them are Roman Catholic- and the teaching of the church is that the end of the world is an individual, not corporate, experience. Several of the "Mainline" Protestant churches such as the World Lutheran Foundation have also followed into this teaching to some degree; but the one thing most modern Christians are absolutely sure about is that hucksters like Tim LaHaye, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh Day Advent
          • But that's my point- "do anything you like as long as you can get away with it" is a LACK of a command and control structure.

            No, there'd still be laws. And punishment for breaking them (but of course only if caught). There would just be no stopping people from behaving badly when the long arm of the law wasn't present at that time. The level of "morality" we'd have, would be exactly tied to how much enforcement the govt. could sustain.
            • No, there'd still be laws. And punishment for breaking them (but of course only if caught). There would just be no stopping people from behaving badly when the long arm of the law wasn't present at that time. The level of "morality" we'd have, would be exactly tied to how much enforcement the govt. could sustain.

              Which is pretty much what we have now, so I have no idea how more dogma and morality can help...
              • Which is pretty much what we have now,...

                Only insofar as society and people have become secularized. IMO.
                • Only insofar as society and people have become secularized. IMO.

                  Where is this magical land you speak of? Because I sure as shit would love to move there. This planet is far from secularized, far from it.
                  • Where is this magical land you speak of?

                    The United States of America- where it's illegal to mention God in the classroom or the courthouse.

                    Because I sure as shit would love to move there. This planet is far from secularized, far from it.

                    Maybe there's a REASON for that situation? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason the planet is far from secularized is because secular societies are not a survival trait?
              • Which is pretty much what we have now

                Right now we live in a very secular society.

                so I have no idea how more dogma and morality can help...

                That's because you've never bothered to research religious societies and how they operate. If you don't know the alternative, haven't attempted to understand or live the alternative, you've got nothing to compare to.
            • No, there'd still be laws.

              And where would the ability to enforce these laws come from? The justice system as it is runs on oaths and covenants. "Put your right hand on this Bible/Koran/whatever and repeat after me....".

              And punishment for breaking them (but of course only if caught). There would just be no stopping people from behaving badly when the long arm of the law wasn't present at that time. The level of "morality" we'd have, would be exactly tied to how much enforcement the govt. could sustain.

  • Science has not replaced religion; group loyalties have intensified, not eroded.

    Science frames the existential question with increasingly finer detail.
    It says nothing ontological about reality.
    People seem to think that parsing the syntax is the end of things. Syntax is necessary, but not sufficient. The semantics of "why are we here?" is crucial, but science is not the tool for that job.
    Here is an interesting, somewhat related piece: http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/? id=110009312 [opinionjournal.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Everything that can be invented has been invented. -- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899

Close