3 ms·

This seems like a conflation of Enlightenment values and fundamental humanistic values with Christian values, even if they may overlap in some cases; they may b

This seems like a conflation of Enlightenment values and fundamental humanistic values with Christian values, even if they may overlap in some cases; they may be mutually exclusive in other cases, depending on the sect. I see no throughline between the growth of any kind of atheism and intellectual cowardice, apathy, or rejection of relevant social norms. The rise of atheism, if anything, required considerable moral fortitude and conviction in the face of ostracization and worse, and this is still the case for many in America, even if attitudes are shifting. The cause is the same force that drove McCarthyism and other forms of tribalistic insanity. Blame humans, not individual human groups or ideologies. I have no problem with religion, but I strongly disagree with the notion that society is, as you suggest, necessarily held together by the social norms of a particular instantiation of organized religion. It's perpetration of the same ostensibly righteous style of judgment that this article seeks to criticize.

froasty 6y ago
Your post is, in all effects, a recapitulation of the precise juncture and jettison of which I was speaking. That you strongly disagree with my post, all I can say in response is e pur si muove.
- meowface 6y ago
  I agree with your post; just not the theistic spin on it. I think you got the symptoms right but the cause wrong. Not because I'm anti-theistic, but because I just don't think it's the binding fabric holding society together and which society becomes lost without, even if it may have cynically and pragmatically served such a purpose in more chaotic times of the past. I believe in social norms for the inherent sake of the norms, rather than due to doctrine. I jettison no norms - only doctrine. Philosophical systems are orthogonal to theological ones. If there exist implicit beneficial norms associated with Christianity, as you say, then I posit their implicitness implies they can be disentangled from theistic ideology and the case can (and perhaps should) be made for them outside of such systems.
  - froasty 6y ago
    The overwhelming majority of the population is not grey tribe. Yes, abstracting fundamental social functions onto universal, non-ideological bases is a Good Idea in theory, but the reality is the majority of people don't learn Esperanto or participate in the Cult of the Supreme Being. There are very real switching costs that often exceed the supposed advantages sought out and the end result often pales in comparison to the original, both in substance and meaning, and fails accordingly. If you think another attempt would be successful, that you, or another cadre of well-intentioned reformers, can successfully inoculate a society with an abstracted ethical code that mandates returning evil with good, embracing the martyring of oneself for truth, total pacifism, etc. on a purely logical basis, by all means go ahead and give it your best shot. Until then, I'm going to loudly proclaim that Chesterton's fence should be returned to its field.

froasty 6y ago

Your post is, in all effects, a recapitulation of the precise juncture and jettison of which I was speaking. That you strongly disagree with my post, all I can say in response is e pur si muove.

meowface 6y ago
I agree with your post; just not the theistic spin on it. I think you got the symptoms right but the cause wrong. Not because I'm anti-theistic, but because I just don't think it's the binding fabric holding society together and which society becomes lost without, even if it may have cynically and pragmatically served such a purpose in more chaotic times of the past. I believe in social norms for the inherent sake of the norms, rather than due to doctrine. I jettison no norms - only doctrine. Philosophical systems are orthogonal to theological ones. If there exist implicit beneficial norms associated with Christianity, as you say, then I posit their implicitness implies they can be disentangled from theistic ideology and the case can (and perhaps should) be made for them outside of such systems.
- froasty 6y ago
  The overwhelming majority of the population is not grey tribe. Yes, abstracting fundamental social functions onto universal, non-ideological bases is a Good Idea in theory, but the reality is the majority of people don't learn Esperanto or participate in the Cult of the Supreme Being. There are very real switching costs that often exceed the supposed advantages sought out and the end result often pales in comparison to the original, both in substance and meaning, and fails accordingly. If you think another attempt would be successful, that you, or another cadre of well-intentioned reformers, can successfully inoculate a society with an abstracted ethical code that mandates returning evil with good, embracing the martyring of oneself for truth, total pacifism, etc. on a purely logical basis, by all means go ahead and give it your best shot. Until then, I'm going to loudly proclaim that Chesterton's fence should be returned to its field.