4 ms·

This type of reasoning is in my mind a typical expression of how mere cultural values create an unhealthy bias. It is similar in this respect to how the Inuit m

This type of reasoning is in my mind a typical expression of how mere cultural values create an unhealthy bias. It is similar in this respect to how the Inuit might consider whale flubber a great delicacy, or a Swede might enjoy fermented herring, whereas everyone else looks on in distaste, and will tend to express their dislike in universal terms. That is not the same you might argue, and you'd be right of course. But there are so many overlaps that is certainly motivated to call it similar: We are weaned into a secular disdain for religion - at least in many parts of the world - just as the Inuit are weaned into their food culture. It is not primarily a function of our superior intellect that we look down on religion, it is a function of our age and time. We will eventually abandon our present hubris for something else, just as people under the monotheistic era departed from the previous animistic and polytheistic beliefs. So what is unhealthy about it? wasn't the monotheistic religions a big step forward that allowed for greater societal cohesion and (in most places) a rule of law? Isn't a secular society a much better place than before, where beliefs are not passed down from above in a unintelligible language and jealously guarded by the elites that profited from the system? Well the key term is probably "step forward" as opposed to right and wrong. It is not like the Inuits are wrong in their eating habits - but uninformed and biased people might be prone to think so. It is not like the polytheists were wrong, in spite of the persecution they endured. And it is not like we are right in our present thinking either - a step forward in many respects, yes. But we will one day also be ridiculed for our primitive assumptions about reality - by the biased people of the future. Provided we all survive the present at all, our present and ubiquitous self-righteousness sure looks poised to snuff out whatever future we may dream of.

igouy 4y ago
> So what is unhealthy about it? wasn't the monotheistic religions a big step forward that allowed for greater societal cohesion and (in most places) a rule of law? Huh? Greece. Rome. Polytheism could accommodate monotheism. Monotheism could not accommodate polytheism or different monotheisms. How is intolerance a step forward?
- stareatgoats 4y ago
  Well first of all, I don't believe "tolerance" is useful for evaluating historical epochs as if from a position of absolute truth. It is mainly a construct, which rapidly falls apart at further inspection: at most something which arbitrarily occurs towards a variety of human expression at specific times in specific places. But above all, what we call "tolerance" today is hardly applicable to societies that practiced slavery, considered women property, didn't even have writing etc. It is barely more than a (slightly intolerant) dogwhistle, a "look at me, I like flubber" if you like. The same actually applies to the terms "forward" or "backward"; we are steeped in a belief that originated in the zeitgeist of intellectual Europe in the early 1800s (Comte et al) that society always moves forward, i.e. to a better place than before. It was supposed to be a secular set of objective values applied to the historical progression of epochs, but it has turned out to be as arbitrary as any other that touts as superior and eternal the finicky values of their own specific time and place. When I use the term it mostly just represents the arrow of time, with no further valuation. Many people feel like this kind of reasoning will cause them to lose their moorings, but it is really the only viable antidote to the ubiquitous self-righteousness that is ultimately putting us all at risk. It is not like nihilism, because it leads to the conclusion that it is better to have an understanding for, and come to terms with other people, be they from times gone by, with beliefs that may seem strange, or from the other side of the globe.
  - igouy 4y ago
    > … what we call "tolerance" … hardly applicable to societies that practiced slavery… Both monotheistic and polytheistic. > … didn't even have writing… Greece. Rome. > When I use the term ["forward"] it mostly just represents the arrow of time, with no further valuation. Except that the term you used was "a big step forward" which certainly suggests more than "the arrow of time".
    - stareatgoats 4y ago
      Haha touché. Ok then, I won't disturb you circles in the sand as it were. Have a good evening.

igouy 4y ago

> So what is unhealthy about it? wasn't the monotheistic religions a big step forward that allowed for greater societal cohesion and (in most places) a rule of law? Huh? Greece. Rome. Polytheism could accommodate monotheism. Monotheism could not accommodate polytheism or different monotheisms. How is intolerance a step forward?

stareatgoats 4y ago
Well first of all, I don't believe "tolerance" is useful for evaluating historical epochs as if from a position of absolute truth. It is mainly a construct, which rapidly falls apart at further inspection: at most something which arbitrarily occurs towards a variety of human expression at specific times in specific places. But above all, what we call "tolerance" today is hardly applicable to societies that practiced slavery, considered women property, didn't even have writing etc. It is barely more than a (slightly intolerant) dogwhistle, a "look at me, I like flubber" if you like. The same actually applies to the terms "forward" or "backward"; we are steeped in a belief that originated in the zeitgeist of intellectual Europe in the early 1800s (Comte et al) that society always moves forward, i.e. to a better place than before. It was supposed to be a secular set of objective values applied to the historical progression of epochs, but it has turned out to be as arbitrary as any other that touts as superior and eternal the finicky values of their own specific time and place. When I use the term it mostly just represents the arrow of time, with no further valuation. Many people feel like this kind of reasoning will cause them to lose their moorings, but it is really the only viable antidote to the ubiquitous self-righteousness that is ultimately putting us all at risk. It is not like nihilism, because it leads to the conclusion that it is better to have an understanding for, and come to terms with other people, be they from times gone by, with beliefs that may seem strange, or from the other side of the globe.
- igouy 4y ago
  > … what we call "tolerance" … hardly applicable to societies that practiced slavery… Both monotheistic and polytheistic. > … didn't even have writing… Greece. Rome. > When I use the term ["forward"] it mostly just represents the arrow of time, with no further valuation. Except that the term you used was "a big step forward" which certainly suggests more than "the arrow of time".
  - stareatgoats 4y ago
    Haha touché. Ok then, I won't disturb you circles in the sand as it were. Have a good evening.