8 ms·

I wonder if an "organized secularism" would only copy some the problems found in organized religion. Do people become less religious only because of a rejection

by cyorir 11y ago

I wonder if an "organized secularism" would only copy some the problems found in organized religion. Do people become less religious only because of a rejection of the supernatural, or for other reasons as well? I think some people become less religious for two additional reasons as well: "shared values" and "rituals." A set of shared values is nice until it fails to change in response to changes in the values of individuals. For example, the Catholic Church has been slow to accept the rights of gender and sexual minorities, even as many individual Catholics become more accepting of these rights. The result is a split in the church, between those who want an updated set of values and those who prefer the old set. Individuals may also dislike some of rituals associated with religions, perhaps because they take time or have some other cost that the individual doesn't want to pay (fasting, reduction of pleasure, etc.). A secular community that adopts a shared set of values and rituals may only take on some of the problems leading to less religiosity, rather than solving them.

tootie 11y ago
I think what makes most religions so inflexible is having a canon which can be difficult to circumvent. If a secular order is based on the opinions of the founders who are treated as wise humans instead of divine, it becomes easier to accept that they could be wrong or just misinformed.
- nicklaf 11y ago
  "Herding cats"
- tome 11y ago
  I'm sadly skeptical, given how much weight Americans seem to give to the intentions of the founding fathers when it comes to discussing the constitution.
  - cicero 11y ago
    I think it's only a small (though vocal) minority of Americans who care about that. It certainly doesn't affect the majority of the Supreme Court.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  On the other hand, that inflexibility may be what just makes it work. Being held to the same strict standard makes the community much stronger.
  - shanusmagnus 11y ago
    This makes sense -- I was trying to figure out why various secular groups with which I'm involved (e.g., improv theatre, or the guys at the gym) don't have any of the church-like feel. I think it's because they're too flexible -- people are always leaving, forming sub-groups, etc. I like those people but they would never show up at my house to mow my lawn, as another commenter described. Or maybe 'flexibility' is the wrong word, since the groups I mention are activity-specific, and one's interest in the activity ebbs and flows, whereas one's interest in fellowship with other people in the quest for some kind of human-level goodwill would presumably be constant.
  - xupybd 11y ago
    Based on my own reflections on the Christian community I am part of, I'd have to agree. I believe one of the things holds the community together is that every sticks to the same set of rules. And is willing to change if they find they are living outside of the rules. Not everyone's cup of tea but it's a life I enjoy. Perhaps similar systems outside of religion could help people.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I grew up in a Christian community and it's something that I miss - the feeling that you strive to uphold rules that are greater than yourself, and everyone around you fights with their own bodies and minds to do the same. In the group I used to be a part of, the mentality of "we're all in this together" was strong.
davesque 11y ago
This is true, although I suspect that the reluctance to change the set of values in traditional religions may have a lot to do with subconsciously (or consciously) fearing supernatural retribution. e.g. God will punish you for being sinful. In principle, this shouldn't be a problem for a secular community that does not accept the notion of a supernatural governing force.
aaron-lebo 11y ago
You only have to look at half the discussions on HN to know that humans are still very religious about subjects despite the rejection of the supernatural. We joke about language or editor wars being "religious", but really, that same thought process exists. On the same topic, but contrary to what you are saying, organized secularism with rituals, values, expectations may only draw out this natural propensity towards "religion" in people even further. Touching on your point further, Protestant churches actually fare pretty well with some of these cultural issues that force change. If someone disagrees about gay marriage or another controversial topic, they just start a new church and half the congregation goes there. It makes Protestant churches at the same time possibly more extreme but also much more varied in their belief systems and allows for religion to evolve. (This is not an endorsement of Protestantism, just an acknowledgement). I dislike the notion of organized secularism because it creates an us vs them attitude. You have churches and then secular churches when the real solution (whatever it may be) should be a less dogmatic form of outreach that grabs at people from all walks of life and engages them. That's how people change, that's how they get better.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>Do people become less religious only because of a rejection of the supernatural, or for other reasons as well? Sociologically, people mostly become less religious when they feel that they control their own fate, and feel no need to ask for divine intervention. Hence why societies grow less religious as they grow rich and egalitarian, while highly unequal and/or poor societies have a tendency towards greater levels of religiosity.
- wyager 11y ago
  What makes you think it's because of a sense of control, as opposed to, say, increased education? This correlates highly with increased wealth.
  - logicfiction 11y ago
    It's a reasonably studied concept in psychology. Locus of control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control#Organizational_psychology_and_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control#Organizationa...
  - Elrac 11y ago
    Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman have investigated this question by teasing out correlations like this. Their conclusion, as discussed in [1] and [2] is that three factors correlate well with a drop in religiosity: (a) egalitarianism (i.e. not being in a rat race against the Joneses and also not suffering the lifelong indignity of being substantially less well off than others), (b) freedom from financial and other catastrophes (as provided by a socialistic-leaning society) which does away with the need for a Big Brother to help you out and correct the injustices, and (c) education as you suggest. Education is helpful but the other two factors apparently rank above it. [1] http://www.epjournal.net/articles/the-chronic-dependence-of-popular-religiosity-upon-dysfunctional-psychosociological-conditions/ http://www.epjournal.net/articles/the-chronic-dependence-of-... [2] http://edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html http://edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html
mwcampbell 11y ago
I, for one, abandoned my religion simply because I came to the conclusion that the teachings of the religion itself (evangelical Christianity in my case) weren't true. I have no problem with shared values per se; I could probably get behind a secular humanist community's shared values. And even rituals might be good, as long as the participants don't regard them as time-wasting bullshit.
- virmundi 11y ago
  Out of curiosity, why secular humanism vs existential nihilism? I don't think I'll switch sides and time soon, but if I did it would be to nihilism.
  - lovemenot 11y ago
    I may not be reading you correctly, but I understand you to be coming from a position of faith and happy therein (for now). If so, your standpoint makes sense to me. I imagine you may feel it would take a good deal of momentum to cross the boundary at the edge of your faith. A nihilist alternative may also act as a warning of the scary outside to those still on the inside. Nevertheless, it is not actually necessary to go to extremes (see fallacy of excluded middle). The outside is closer to where you are now, than you might imagine.
    - virmundi 11y ago
      I am happy with my faith. I've gone through a crisis of it. I've come out much stronger on the other side. Specifically to the extreme, during that time I re-evaluated possible philosophic systems. I am an absolutist. I think there is Truth. Without a god, I needed to see if there was any system that provided a similar world view. Existential nihilism does. It says that the only fact we have is that nothing fundamentally matters (I'm treating existential nihilism apart from the extreme skeptics that deny the existence of things). The universe will die, or collapse and re-expand. Regardless to the exact details, every invention and power of man amounts to nothing. Therefore since every man is within the group man, individual acts amount to nothing. I've not seen a more honest system than this. I want an honest system Most other systems are predicated on a quasi-Christian-like system. They believe that people are somehow different than everything else in the universe. That they have intrinsic meaning while nothing else does. Or they go to the other extreme that makes everything equally special, and as we're taught in the movie The Incredibles, nothing is special then. As we've seen in this thread, the view might boil down to "it makes me feel good to help people". The problem that I have with such systems is that they ultimately anchor to a feeling or some other arbitrary truth. Upon that rock an edifice is made from which various dogmas are shouted. If I were to throw away one system of belief with that behavior, why would I adopt another? As a result, I find that there are only two systems that could be true given what humanity knows: some form of theism or nihilism. I'm convinced of the former, specifically Jesus as the Christ, but I find no honest system possible other than nihilism if my feeling and beliefs were some how shown to be false.
endgame 11y ago
On rituals: One user over at Less Wrong wrote a couple of posts[1][2] on designing ritual, and associated value and dangers. I also found the 2012 edition of a ritual book[3] that his group used to formally mark the winter solstice. [1]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/93l/the_value_and_danger_of_ritual/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/93l/the_value_and_danger_of_ritual/ [2]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/9aw/designing_ritual/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/9aw/designing_ritual/ [3]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2000477/SolsticeEve_2012.pdf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2000477/SolsticeEve_2012...

by cyorir 11y ago

tootie 11y ago

I think what makes most religions so inflexible is having a canon which can be difficult to circumvent. If a secular order is based on the opinions of the founders who are treated as wise humans instead of divine, it becomes easier to accept that they could be wrong or just misinformed.

nicklaf 11y ago
"Herding cats"
tome 11y ago
I'm sadly skeptical, given how much weight Americans seem to give to the intentions of the founding fathers when it comes to discussing the constitution.
- cicero 11y ago
  I think it's only a small (though vocal) minority of Americans who care about that. It certainly doesn't affect the majority of the Supreme Court.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
On the other hand, that inflexibility may be what just makes it work. Being held to the same strict standard makes the community much stronger.
- shanusmagnus 11y ago
  This makes sense -- I was trying to figure out why various secular groups with which I'm involved (e.g., improv theatre, or the guys at the gym) don't have any of the church-like feel. I think it's because they're too flexible -- people are always leaving, forming sub-groups, etc. I like those people but they would never show up at my house to mow my lawn, as another commenter described. Or maybe 'flexibility' is the wrong word, since the groups I mention are activity-specific, and one's interest in the activity ebbs and flows, whereas one's interest in fellowship with other people in the quest for some kind of human-level goodwill would presumably be constant.
- xupybd 11y ago
  Based on my own reflections on the Christian community I am part of, I'd have to agree. I believe one of the things holds the community together is that every sticks to the same set of rules. And is willing to change if they find they are living outside of the rules. Not everyone's cup of tea but it's a life I enjoy. Perhaps similar systems outside of religion could help people.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I grew up in a Christian community and it's something that I miss - the feeling that you strive to uphold rules that are greater than yourself, and everyone around you fights with their own bodies and minds to do the same. In the group I used to be a part of, the mentality of "we're all in this together" was strong.

davesque 11y ago

This is true, although I suspect that the reluctance to change the set of values in traditional religions may have a lot to do with subconsciously (or consciously) fearing supernatural retribution. e.g. God will punish you for being sinful. In principle, this shouldn't be a problem for a secular community that does not accept the notion of a supernatural governing force.

aaron-lebo 11y ago

You only have to look at half the discussions on HN to know that humans are still very religious about subjects despite the rejection of the supernatural. We joke about language or editor wars being "religious", but really, that same thought process exists. On the same topic, but contrary to what you are saying, organized secularism with rituals, values, expectations may only draw out this natural propensity towards "religion" in people even further. Touching on your point further, Protestant churches actually fare pretty well with some of these cultural issues that force change. If someone disagrees about gay marriage or another controversial topic, they just start a new church and half the congregation goes there. It makes Protestant churches at the same time possibly more extreme but also much more varied in their belief systems and allows for religion to evolve. (This is not an endorsement of Protestantism, just an acknowledgement). I dislike the notion of organized secularism because it creates an us vs them attitude. You have churches and then secular churches when the real solution (whatever it may be) should be a less dogmatic form of outreach that grabs at people from all walks of life and engages them. That's how people change, that's how they get better.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

>Do people become less religious only because of a rejection of the supernatural, or for other reasons as well? Sociologically, people mostly become less religious when they feel that they control their own fate, and feel no need to ask for divine intervention. Hence why societies grow less religious as they grow rich and egalitarian, while highly unequal and/or poor societies have a tendency towards greater levels of religiosity.

wyager 11y ago
What makes you think it's because of a sense of control, as opposed to, say, increased education? This correlates highly with increased wealth.
- logicfiction 11y ago
  It's a reasonably studied concept in psychology. Locus of control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control#Organizational_psychology_and_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control#Organizationa...
- Elrac 11y ago
  Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman have investigated this question by teasing out correlations like this. Their conclusion, as discussed in [1] and [2] is that three factors correlate well with a drop in religiosity: (a) egalitarianism (i.e. not being in a rat race against the Joneses and also not suffering the lifelong indignity of being substantially less well off than others), (b) freedom from financial and other catastrophes (as provided by a socialistic-leaning society) which does away with the need for a Big Brother to help you out and correct the injustices, and (c) education as you suggest. Education is helpful but the other two factors apparently rank above it. [1] http://www.epjournal.net/articles/the-chronic-dependence-of-popular-religiosity-upon-dysfunctional-psychosociological-conditions/ http://www.epjournal.net/articles/the-chronic-dependence-of-... [2] http://edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html http://edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

mwcampbell 11y ago

I, for one, abandoned my religion simply because I came to the conclusion that the teachings of the religion itself (evangelical Christianity in my case) weren't true. I have no problem with shared values per se; I could probably get behind a secular humanist community's shared values. And even rituals might be good, as long as the participants don't regard them as time-wasting bullshit.

virmundi 11y ago
Out of curiosity, why secular humanism vs existential nihilism? I don't think I'll switch sides and time soon, but if I did it would be to nihilism.
- lovemenot 11y ago
  I may not be reading you correctly, but I understand you to be coming from a position of faith and happy therein (for now). If so, your standpoint makes sense to me. I imagine you may feel it would take a good deal of momentum to cross the boundary at the edge of your faith. A nihilist alternative may also act as a warning of the scary outside to those still on the inside. Nevertheless, it is not actually necessary to go to extremes (see fallacy of excluded middle). The outside is closer to where you are now, than you might imagine.
  - virmundi 11y ago
    I am happy with my faith. I've gone through a crisis of it. I've come out much stronger on the other side. Specifically to the extreme, during that time I re-evaluated possible philosophic systems. I am an absolutist. I think there is Truth. Without a god, I needed to see if there was any system that provided a similar world view. Existential nihilism does. It says that the only fact we have is that nothing fundamentally matters (I'm treating existential nihilism apart from the extreme skeptics that deny the existence of things). The universe will die, or collapse and re-expand. Regardless to the exact details, every invention and power of man amounts to nothing. Therefore since every man is within the group man, individual acts amount to nothing. I've not seen a more honest system than this. I want an honest system Most other systems are predicated on a quasi-Christian-like system. They believe that people are somehow different than everything else in the universe. That they have intrinsic meaning while nothing else does. Or they go to the other extreme that makes everything equally special, and as we're taught in the movie The Incredibles, nothing is special then. As we've seen in this thread, the view might boil down to "it makes me feel good to help people". The problem that I have with such systems is that they ultimately anchor to a feeling or some other arbitrary truth. Upon that rock an edifice is made from which various dogmas are shouted. If I were to throw away one system of belief with that behavior, why would I adopt another? As a result, I find that there are only two systems that could be true given what humanity knows: some form of theism or nihilism. I'm convinced of the former, specifically Jesus as the Christ, but I find no honest system possible other than nihilism if my feeling and beliefs were some how shown to be false.

endgame 11y ago

On rituals: One user over at Less Wrong wrote a couple of posts[1][2] on designing ritual, and associated value and dangers. I also found the 2012 edition of a ritual book[3] that his group used to formally mark the winter solstice. [1]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/93l/the_value_and_danger_of_ritual/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/93l/the_value_and_danger_of_ritual/ [2]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/9aw/designing_ritual/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/9aw/designing_ritual/ [3]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2000477/SolsticeEve_2012.pdf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2000477/SolsticeEve_2012...