7 ms·

The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to

by Guthur 3y ago

The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to become the arbiter of moral truth and with out any real moral center it can only but fail spectacularly. The second and third political theories of racial and social idealogies more rapidly succumb to this due to a more overt desire to place the state at this moral centre. But I feel liberalism is ultimately doomed to the same fate, just more by accident. No matter how individual everyone seems to think they are they still seem to want some sort of collective morality. Maybe because we mostly need to live some sort of relational existence and in the absence of anything else a collective morality will fill that void, but when that reality is so grounded in human will it can get quite corrupted quite quickly.

nonrepeating 3y ago
Interesting point, and one that's difficult to dispute. Belief in the supernatural or divine is baked into human nature. There's significant research showing that human capacity for faith is genetic. So, as we're building a secular society, it's worth asking: what happens to that need for the divine? Failing to account for basic human nature drove vast amounts of suffering in the 20th century, I fear that making a similar mistake will do the same.
- Guthur 3y ago
  There is a concept that we can only BE in relation to something else, indeed even the most basic idea of true and false, 1 and 0 are in and of themselves relations. It permeates everything, a sort of cosmic dichotomy. In the mundane it's our relation to ourselves and the world, but they are very fluid and chaotic. The believe in the metaphysical provides a means to ground a relation outside the chaotic uncertain reality, which can be very comforting and liberating.
- freedomben 3y ago
  This rings true to me, but it reinforces my existing beliefs, so my awareness of the dangers of confirmation bias demands that I not trust it without some due diligence. Does anybody have any citations to backup this point?
mullingitover 3y ago
Historically, religion doesn't have a great track record with its use of moral authority.
- jimmygrapes 3y ago
  Historically, no entity does
- Guthur 3y ago
  I'd beg to disagree. The track record of secularism from the French revolution, to empire and idealogy had quite a lot of blood on it's hands. The body count is most certainly not skewed to religion by any stretch.
  - areoform 3y ago
    We now live in the most peaceful time in human history. And just to be clear, we're contrasting this time of unprecedented peace with entities that have killed in spasms of violence with no apparent public casus belli than "my book is better than your book and it told me to do so?" Spasms that, in one set of instances, led to the deaths of a significant fraction of the global population? “Estimates of the number of people killed in the Crusades begin at 1 million (Wertham…) and go as high as 9 million (Robertson…) passing through 3 million (Garrison…) and 5 million (Elson…) along the way. I took the low middle (Garrison’s estimate) as my estimate. The geometric means of the extremes is 3 million.” Matthew White, The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History’s 100 Worst Atrocities (2012), p. 576 (see f.n. 1 under The Crusades). Or, the religiously affirmed divine right fascists felt during WW2 to rule others as decreed by their holy men? NAZI 'DIVINE RIGHT' TO RULE ASSERTED; Dr. Ley Says Reich's 'Mission' to Dominate Other Nations Is Among War Aims WOULD WIPE OUT BRITAIN 'Annihilation' of Obstacle to German Destiny Demanded by Labor Front Head https://www.nytimes.com/1939/12/19/archives/nazi-divine-right-to-rule-asserted-dr-ley-says-reichs-mission-to.html https://www.nytimes.com/1939/12/19/archives/nazi-divine-righ... Or, doctrines like "Manifest Destiny" that were religious in origin and preached in church? http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/mandestiny.htm http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo... The only way to end the cycle of violence is by embracing the scientific method, rationality, and empathy. Anything else is a step to madness. Voltaire said it best, There have been people who once said, you believe incomprehensible, contradictory, impossible things, because we have ordered you to do so; therefore do unjust things because we order you to do so. These people reasoned wonderfully. Certainly, whoever has the right to make you absurd has the right to make you unjust. Or, more succinctly, as Desmond MacCarthy put it via a fictional Voltaire, Ah, my child, as long as people continue to believe absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities! We must fight irrational lunacy and ensure that the light of enlightenment doesn't die out.
MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
Yes, trying to have a "secular state" just means that traditional religions are going to be replaced by something that doesn't read as such, like "human rights", "liberal democracy" which we are happy to spread by the sword with disastrous consequences (afghanistan, iraq etc), DEI, ESG...
ledauphin 3y ago
i think this is a strong point, and it's underscored by how little anyone is willing to center the discussion on something quite fundamental: is the behavior from the individuals in question acceptable even if it were legal? My answer to that is no, it is not and could not be acceptable human activity even if the laws protected it. We've largely lost the ability to talk about the things themselves, preferring instead to look at things through the tremendously artificial lens of "what do the lawyers say?" We've outsourced morality to a technocracy.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  You don't think government agencies should be allowed to report things to private companies? Why?
JediWing 3y ago
People can most certainly believe in a collective moral code that is, at times, at odds with the laws of their country, and simultaneously not dictated by a central religious authority. Desiring the state to more closely model one's personal moral code isn't a signifier that people are placing the state at the "moral center", it's an indicator that they want those with a monopoly on violence to act in accord with what they believe is right. I do believe the collective moral codes are drifting from those dictated by religions, but I hardly think that is a bad thing, given the rigidity and absolutism of many religions.
hnfong 3y ago
If "secular governance" includes mega corporations I'd fully agree. Social media is just the latest of them. For example, relatively traditional companies like credit card companies have disproportionate power in deciding whether transactions are allowed or not, regardless whether they're legal. Often they refuse to process transactions for industries apparently out of "moral" reasons. Governments are actually becoming less influential because laws don't reach beyond their borders. Yet multinational companies often have monopolistic power and influence over many important aspects of people's lives.
shadowgovt 3y ago
Make no mistake: the old arbiters of morality can also fail spectacularly. Christendom did centuries of crusades with no better justification than "Our god says that land is ours." The problem is the challenge of scalable applied philosophy. What name we affix to that challenge is less relevant than the challenge itself.
sixstringtheory 3y ago
This is survivorship bias, literally. Religion displays a seemingly higher cohesiveness of a moral and ethical philosophy partly because many who disagreed were actually killed. In more modern times they are merely excommunicated, shunned. Now that we can't just kill our political dissidents, we are left with less cohesion. I am currently reading The Brothers Karamazov and recorded a couple quotes from the chapter I'm currently in (Book V: Pro and Contra, Chapter 5: The Grand Inquisitor) about freedom and religion, which seem too poignant to pass up right now. Not that I think religion is the answer to the problem. Here's one of my favorites: "So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship. But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it...what is essential is that all may be together in it. This craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and all of humanity from the beginning of time." This just tells me that there is no solution to this foible of human nature and that we are doomed to a future of dissatisfaction, and we'll invent endless ways to keep fighting. I'm not saying we should do nothing. I'm just so tired, it seems so obvious, yet the path is not clear at all.

by Guthur 3y ago

nonrepeating 3y ago

Interesting point, and one that's difficult to dispute. Belief in the supernatural or divine is baked into human nature. There's significant research showing that human capacity for faith is genetic. So, as we're building a secular society, it's worth asking: what happens to that need for the divine? Failing to account for basic human nature drove vast amounts of suffering in the 20th century, I fear that making a similar mistake will do the same.

Guthur 3y ago
There is a concept that we can only BE in relation to something else, indeed even the most basic idea of true and false, 1 and 0 are in and of themselves relations. It permeates everything, a sort of cosmic dichotomy. In the mundane it's our relation to ourselves and the world, but they are very fluid and chaotic. The believe in the metaphysical provides a means to ground a relation outside the chaotic uncertain reality, which can be very comforting and liberating.
freedomben 3y ago
This rings true to me, but it reinforces my existing beliefs, so my awareness of the dangers of confirmation bias demands that I not trust it without some due diligence. Does anybody have any citations to backup this point?

mullingitover 3y ago

Historically, religion doesn't have a great track record with its use of moral authority.

jimmygrapes 3y ago
Historically, no entity does
Guthur 3y ago
I'd beg to disagree. The track record of secularism from the French revolution, to empire and idealogy had quite a lot of blood on it's hands. The body count is most certainly not skewed to religion by any stretch.
- areoform 3y ago
  We now live in the most peaceful time in human history. And just to be clear, we're contrasting this time of unprecedented peace with entities that have killed in spasms of violence with no apparent public casus belli than "my book is better than your book and it told me to do so?" Spasms that, in one set of instances, led to the deaths of a significant fraction of the global population? “Estimates of the number of people killed in the Crusades begin at 1 million (Wertham…) and go as high as 9 million (Robertson…) passing through 3 million (Garrison…) and 5 million (Elson…) along the way. I took the low middle (Garrison’s estimate) as my estimate. The geometric means of the extremes is 3 million.” Matthew White, The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History’s 100 Worst Atrocities (2012), p. 576 (see f.n. 1 under The Crusades). Or, the religiously affirmed divine right fascists felt during WW2 to rule others as decreed by their holy men? NAZI 'DIVINE RIGHT' TO RULE ASSERTED; Dr. Ley Says Reich's 'Mission' to Dominate Other Nations Is Among War Aims WOULD WIPE OUT BRITAIN 'Annihilation' of Obstacle to German Destiny Demanded by Labor Front Head https://www.nytimes.com/1939/12/19/archives/nazi-divine-right-to-rule-asserted-dr-ley-says-reichs-mission-to.html https://www.nytimes.com/1939/12/19/archives/nazi-divine-righ... Or, doctrines like "Manifest Destiny" that were religious in origin and preached in church? http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/mandestiny.htm http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo... The only way to end the cycle of violence is by embracing the scientific method, rationality, and empathy. Anything else is a step to madness. Voltaire said it best, There have been people who once said, you believe incomprehensible, contradictory, impossible things, because we have ordered you to do so; therefore do unjust things because we order you to do so. These people reasoned wonderfully. Certainly, whoever has the right to make you absurd has the right to make you unjust. Or, more succinctly, as Desmond MacCarthy put it via a fictional Voltaire, Ah, my child, as long as people continue to believe absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities! We must fight irrational lunacy and ensure that the light of enlightenment doesn't die out.

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago

Yes, trying to have a "secular state" just means that traditional religions are going to be replaced by something that doesn't read as such, like "human rights", "liberal democracy" which we are happy to spread by the sword with disastrous consequences (afghanistan, iraq etc), DEI, ESG...

ledauphin 3y ago

i think this is a strong point, and it's underscored by how little anyone is willing to center the discussion on something quite fundamental: is the behavior from the individuals in question acceptable even if it were legal? My answer to that is no, it is not and could not be acceptable human activity even if the laws protected it. We've largely lost the ability to talk about the things themselves, preferring instead to look at things through the tremendously artificial lens of "what do the lawyers say?" We've outsourced morality to a technocracy.

ethanbond 3y ago
You don't think government agencies should be allowed to report things to private companies? Why?

JediWing 3y ago

People can most certainly believe in a collective moral code that is, at times, at odds with the laws of their country, and simultaneously not dictated by a central religious authority. Desiring the state to more closely model one's personal moral code isn't a signifier that people are placing the state at the "moral center", it's an indicator that they want those with a monopoly on violence to act in accord with what they believe is right. I do believe the collective moral codes are drifting from those dictated by religions, but I hardly think that is a bad thing, given the rigidity and absolutism of many religions.

hnfong 3y ago

If "secular governance" includes mega corporations I'd fully agree. Social media is just the latest of them. For example, relatively traditional companies like credit card companies have disproportionate power in deciding whether transactions are allowed or not, regardless whether they're legal. Often they refuse to process transactions for industries apparently out of "moral" reasons. Governments are actually becoming less influential because laws don't reach beyond their borders. Yet multinational companies often have monopolistic power and influence over many important aspects of people's lives.

shadowgovt 3y ago

Make no mistake: the old arbiters of morality can also fail spectacularly. Christendom did centuries of crusades with no better justification than "Our god says that land is ours." The problem is the challenge of scalable applied philosophy. What name we affix to that challenge is less relevant than the challenge itself.

sixstringtheory 3y ago

This is survivorship bias, literally. Religion displays a seemingly higher cohesiveness of a moral and ethical philosophy partly because many who disagreed were actually killed. In more modern times they are merely excommunicated, shunned. Now that we can't just kill our political dissidents, we are left with less cohesion. I am currently reading The Brothers Karamazov and recorded a couple quotes from the chapter I'm currently in (Book V: Pro and Contra, Chapter 5: The Grand Inquisitor) about freedom and religion, which seem too poignant to pass up right now. Not that I think religion is the answer to the problem. Here's one of my favorites: "So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship. But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it...what is essential is that all may be together in it. This craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and all of humanity from the beginning of time." This just tells me that there is no solution to this foible of human nature and that we are doomed to a future of dissatisfaction, and we'll invent endless ways to keep fighting. I'm not saying we should do nothing. I'm just so tired, it seems so obvious, yet the path is not clear at all.