I was always of the view that, without Christianity vis a vis secularism to set some important ground rules that people are willing to abide by be it for the love of Christ or fear of God's vengence, society would break down like Soddom and Gomorah and Rome. That the rate of family break down would reach a threshold beyond which, society would not be sustainable as a sane unit in other words a disastrous scenario would ensue.
The problem with this hypothesis is, I don't know of any secular societies to make my comparison with. But I know the following. Late Rome was not a secular society neither was Victorian Britain, two highly immoral epochs. Early white America was highly religious but that didn't stop them from killing off the Natives of North and South America.
So looking at how low religious societies can go does it mean that a guideless secular society would be totally without scruples? And if there is guidance within a secular society should I assume that the main tennets can only come from a Christian ethos? For the latter question I would say that France fulfills this situation.
We know what religious society offers do we know what secularism untainted by religious input would offer?
Secularism vs Religion: Which can give society the best all round guide?
by Spectrum 14 Replies latest social current
-
Spectrum
-
jgnat
...but secularism can end up being a religion, too. If people slavishly follow it's precepts without thought.
Just from what I see, following any idelology without testing it against reality ends up causing pain. As a civil servant, I've seen my government make well-meaning and sweeping policy changes that creates as many victims as it helps. For instance, a noble concept like, "A child is better fostered in the culture they were born." Can turn in to "Let's remove this toddler from the arms of it's loving foster parents and return it to the reserve." Stupid.
I propose we round up all the common-sense people in the planet and put them in charge. Now, who has the common-sense-o-meter in their back pocket?
-
Narkissos
I don't see religion disappearing anytime soon, but certainly not because it would be morally necessary.
All social rules at any time result from a negotiation between more or less "conservative" and "progressist" sides which do not coincide exactly with "religious vs. secular". In a full-fledged secular society you would just have "secular conservatives" (there are already many of them).
Moreover it is not "either / or": no modern pluralistic society can exist without a dose of secularism ruling in "public space". And afaik no secular state (certainly not France) dreams of eradicating religion from the private domain anymore.
Historically religious diversity helped the secular state conquer its legitimity over the dominant religion (so the French Protestants, before, during and after the Revolution, against the Catholic church). Afaik the deism of the founding Fathers of America also seems to have been an original blend of Christianity and secularism, what some may now be losing sight of.
I don't believe "secularism can end up being a religion" (jgnat) as long as it doesn't offer adequate and universal ways of dealing subjectively with one's life and death. There is always a risk (especially where state, police, social and health services, including psychology, tends to constitute a consistent network), and the centrifugal force of religious diversity does struggle against it. But should it disappear individuals would certainly find new ways of expressing their difference.
-
slimboyfat
I disagree with the question because, I don't think it matters what is "better for society" - religion or secularism. The real question should be - what gives a better picture of reality and objective truth - a secular outlook or a religious one. To hell with the consequences, let's have the truth!
-
Terry
I was always of the view that, without Christianity vis a vis secularism to set some important ground rules that people are willing to abide by be it for the love of Christ or fear of God's vengence, society would break down like Soddom and Gomorah and Rome.
The most successful society that ever existed was the Roman society which became the empire under the caesars.
Discard whatever preconceptions you may have about that society. It has become a cliche or trope. It was around for over a thousand years. What held it together was a strong government and clear policies on how to deal with dangers to itself. This society was heterogenous religiously and in a secular admixture.
Theirs was a balance between polarized forces made possible by an astonishing ability to tolerate differences.
Importantly, Rome learned from its mistakes over time. It was willing to imitate success. Rome never attacked an enemy without pretext. Once it declared war, however, nothing would stand in the way of victory. With victory came Pax Romana. Local rulers were allowed to maintain order and little intrusion was overt without cause.
The failures of Rome, in hindsight, were the failures of a liberal social policy.
What destroyed Rome was the gradual acceptance of the Barbarian tribes as immigrants. The immigrants became soldiers. These solidiers were not dead set against fighting invading armies like themselves. The tax base eroded. The generals became emperors and soon there followed a series of poor leaders who endeavored to blame their own failures on whatever group was handy. When Constantine became emperor he chose the Christians as his grassroots base because he erroneously assumed they were monlithic. They were not. He tried to shore them up and use them as a bulwark against his enemies. This plan was foolish and illusory.
The main point is this.
A strong central government with tolerance for a variety of belief systems is the most effective context for a successful society of any kind.
Here in America we have had, at times, that very thing.
Morality is a practical matter. Morality is only as effective as it is practical. You cannot legislate morality; however, you can enforce law.
-
Spectrum
Narkissos
" In a full-fledged secular society you would just have "secular conservatives" (there are already many of them)."
Who?
"Historically religious diversity helped the secular state conquer its legitimity over the dominant religion (so the French Protestants, before, during and after the Revolution, against the Catholic church). Afaik the deism of the founding Fathers of America also seems to have been an original blend of Christianity and secularism, what some may now be losing sight of."
This is a very interesting point. Last night I was watching a documentary on the Romans. The narrator goes a long way to turn on its head the perception that the Romans were a civilised bunch whilst everybody else including the Greeks were the actual barbarians ( thought the Greeks coined that phrase for the Slavs and saxons). Anyway, last nights installment was about the Parthians whom the Romans failed to conquer. It turns out that the Parthians had very advanced views on cultural and religious intermingling, they saw this as the way forward as there would be a bigger pool of ideas to draw from and advance. And it worked, they developed warfare and strategy that the invincible Romans were no match for. I was very impressed and the same time felt conned by our school text books.
I don't know which was the civilising factor for the Parthians though. Did mesopotamian religion have a moral framework like christianity? Guessing I'd say the Parthians advanced social structure came directly from secularism as I don't see how bowing to a stone statue can add to the quality of society unless it is a binding rallying symbol that gives gel to society ie all batting for the same side. But like I've said the Parthians didn't see it that way. So what's left? -
Spectrum
Terry,
"Discard whatever preconceptions you may have about that society. It has become a cliche or trope. It was around for over a thousand years. What held it together was a strong government and clear policies on how to deal with dangers to itself. This society was heterogenous religiously and in a secular admixture."
Are you sure about this? I thought the Romans destroyed what they didn't understand. I don't think diversity was their strong point. If it didn't work for the greater good of Rome it was destroyed.
"A strong central government with tolerance for a variety of belief systems is the most effective context for a successful society of any kind."
THis is exactly what last night historical documentary had concluded but not about the Romans but the Parthians. -
Spectrum
slimboyfat,
"what gives a better picture of reality and objective truth - a secular outlook or a religious one."
You dismiss the question in one sentence then ask the same question in your own words. -
Caedes
Now, who has the common-sense-o-meter in their back pocket?
Now I had it this morning when I picked up my keys, Damn I must have left it at work.
They only people who should be in charge should be those who don't want the job (Douglas Adams)
-
Narkissos
" In a full-fledged secular society you would just have "secular conservatives" (there are already many of them)."
Who?Many if not most French right-wing politicians who might be branded as "conservative" on many issues (e.g. who opposed the civil union contract for gays a few years ago) are convinced secularists -- atheists, agnostics etc. Their political stance doesn't directly depend on religious values.
Moreover, if you take a broader view of "conservative" as "resistance to change," you'll realise that it comes from many sources and motives. Opposition to biological or genetic experiments is both from the far left ecologists and the right-wing Christians; opposition to social change (as in the destruction of the French Labour code under the pressure of globalisation) comes from the left wing, communist and socialist; opposition to societal changes (e.g. gay rights) from the right wing. Nothing is simple, because change cannot be construed as a one-way "progress" anymore. But you can bet that any possible change will raise opposition or resistance from a "conservative" side, whatever its ideological motives: this is as simple as in physics.
I don't know which was the civilising factor for the Parthians though. Did mesopotamian religion have a moral framework like christianity? Guessing I'd say the Parthians advanced social structure came directly from secularism as I don't see how bowing to a stone statue can add to the quality of society unless it is a binding rallying symbol that gives gel to society ie all batting for the same side. But like I've said the Parthians didn't see it that way. So what's left?
Afaik the Parthian culture was one of the most direct heirs of the older Persian (Zoroastrian) dualism, which provided much of the Jewish "moral" framework in the first place...