Secular Societies are happier and more sustainable

[total issues]

Not so long ago the intellectual consensus (for what it was worth) was that religion was doomed as societies modernised. That evidently seems to be untrue in some cases.

Now the reverse trope is a consistent feature of Spengler’s writings: that secular societies are doomed to extinction – which I why I think it is justified to post this here (move it Auerbach, if you wish). I mean, just look at their birth rates as, with no eternal life to hope for, the élan vital somehow slips away.

The evidence does not support this. indeed the contrary.

1. Birth rates (excluding the few remaining traditional societies). Yes, the ultra-orthodox have more children, but in America at least they must suffer a high level of defections, otherwise after several centuries the place would be overrun by Mormons, Hutterites and Mennonites by now. It remains to be seen what happens in Israel. As for the (godly) US being the only developed country where births are at replacement , compared to the godless lower-than-low across northern Eurasia – well it is more complicated. The ultra secular French are up there, and the equally unreligious British and Scandinavians (and Australians) are close behind, and it can be shown that the Muslim contribution is marginal. By contrast much more religious Italy, Poland and Korea are below replacement (as are Algeria, Tunisia – and Iran). The best determinants of birth rates seem to be either flexible labour markets with part time jobs for mothers (US, UK) or plenty of state family support (France, Scandinavia)

2. There is evidence that the religious are marginally happier on average than the non-religious other things being equal . They are not equal however; surveys indicate that most of the happiest countries are secular. There are various different measures, but small secular European countries all seem to rank top.Prosperity helps, but only up to a point – strong community and a fairly high level of equality seem more important (the US scores badly on the last). Israel, however, fits those criteria quite well, but it comes 8th, Spengler, not first.

3. There is no precedent for a sustainable secular society. Er, no – the longest surviving continuous civilisation, China, was humanist throughout its history: there was a vague deity (Tien) but as distant as 18C deism. Even the most developed local “religious” form, Chan (Zen) makes no mention of God, and Daoism is equally vague.

Finally and most contentiously, I would argue that for all their evident problems, secular societies are more likely to be sustainable. Birth rates may be falling globally, but there are still nearly 7 billion people to support under a system under environmental stress. Science and technology are needed more than ever, but the religious revivals are all fundamentalist and anti-science. Over 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution – and that includes nearly all the new fundies in Congress, the Tea Partiers. If America still leads the world in scientific research, it is increasingly dependent on imported scientists, and in time they will study at home or elsewhere.

[ellens]

TI,

You have been making most of these points for a good couple of years now, and I must admit, I would finally agree that you do have some good points. But the reason I would agree is because I think we are beginning to see a reaction in Europe to the excesses of secularism which is leading maybe to some other swing of the pendulum. European post-Christians don't seem yet to be embracing a religious revival, but I wouldn't rule it out in some future generation. They are having more children, though, and that does point to a cultural shift that really is important, even if we don't understand what is the basis for it.

The point is, no one states definitively anymore that secularism is the solution to all problems, as people once did. It helps solve some problems, mainly by applying the scientific method to social ills that are amenable to that sort of solution. But it creates other problems, as you nicely describe - the sapping of the elan vital of societies turning them into short-term gratification blind alleys. The other supposed advantage of secularism is that it eliminates religious sectarian warfare, something I used to hear endlessly in my young adulthood. Of course, it creates even more pernicious forms of ideological sectarian warfare (eg, Trotskyites vs Stalinists, vs Maoists, etc) whose track record of murder is second to none. That argument is the least convincing of all.

On the other hand, there is no getting around the fact that pure religious regimes and societies - of ANY religion (including my own) do not produce societies that any of us would consider ideal and appealing. So, I believe there has to be mix between the two. I think you need the religious to create balance and perspective for the excesses of secularism, and the same could be said in reverse. The mix, however, seems to be either combustible or nonsustainable. Religious groups always want to expand at the expense of the secular and vice versa, so that each can control the dominant culture. This is necessary, in the minds of the leaders of each side, because most people are not true believers. They conform to social norms, and whoever sets the social norms has enormous power in forcing conformity. The people who created modern centralized European states understood the huge power that exists in the hands of those who run school systems, the media, social institutions, etc. The Islamists in Iran understood this too.

The French are doing better at sustaining their laicite than Iran will be at sustaining its Islamic Republic because French secular culture is one of the world's great cultures, while Iran's Islamic culture is already falling apart at the seams. But I still don't see European secular culture being very sustainable or inspiring or even creative in the long term. Secular culture in Europe, as the dominant monoculture, is really only 150-200 years old. That isn't very much. What will Europe look like after 250 years of secular monoculture? That is the question. It won't be Islamic, because the Muslim birth rates are dropping sharply and their culture is in disrepute. But what will survive of the creative and admirable European culture 50 years from now that anyone will want to emulate? What even exists now that anyone wants to emulate?

[Simple Minded]

excellent posts TI & ellens, good points and lots of food for thought.

Some of the food is very bland and undefined however. Perhaps even unidentifiable. The definition of happiness for example? "Happiness" seems to fit in the same catagory as TI placed the word "culture." A word with meanings so widely distorted that perhaps it's use is best avoided.

It would be fascinating to compare the happiness ratings of various countries with the Elliott Wave definition of social mood. I think the overall happiness rating of any country would closely track a broad stock index.

The same is true for equality. How many consider themselves equal, and to what? Bill Gates' wealth. Tiger Woods golf skills? Brad Pitt's good looks? Cognitive Distoibance's sense of wit?

TI, some of the points in your post reminded me of a survey I saw that ranked countries in terms of climate. I don't recall the ranking of the US, but recall thinking that IMO, it was impossible to rank the US in terms of climate. There is no common climate in the US.

I think the link to the recent interview with Mark Steyn that I posted under General Dicsussion is relevant here. He discusses whether a culture is self-confident enough to defend it's virtues, and whether the existing culture is attractive enough to immigrants that they desire to assimulate.

Perhaps a ranking of desire to assimulate would be measurable?

[CognitiveDistoibance]

Science and technology are needed more than ever, but the religious revivals are all fundamentalist and anti-science. Over 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution – and that includes nearly all the new fundies in Congress, the Tea Partiers.

"History does not repeat, but it rhymes"

Believe in ... God
Believe in ... Jesus
Believe in ... evolution

Well, maybe it lacks rhyme, but there is a pattern. The fundie impulse draws from a deep well, methinks...

Not the least of which is an exclusive apprehension on truth...

[total issues]

I had hoped to set the cat among the pigeons on this site with the thread title; instead, typical of both ellens and SM, get some intelligent and balanced replies

Yes, I have been making these points for some time, but most of us lesser mortals have a limited stock of big ideas, and I must give credit to Spengler over the years for helping to define them . Our local public library has hordes of tracts on feminism, and environmentalists bemoaning world overpopulation, but even today search in vain for books on Europe's demographic problem. Thank goodness for the internet.

Yes, Europe is a cultural museum, with an empty heart, das Deutsches Bundeszombieland. Why don't immigrants want to integrate - no headscarves among the young a generation ago - because the native culture has lost its appeal.

Europeans stand in bemusement at the culture war in America, but at least it makes life interesting and creative - as long as the fundies don't win. Make no mistake, some of them are as much fundies as the Islamists: the violence is more sublimated, because they have bigger tools within reach (like, the world's biggest military).The Tea Partiers worry me more than the Islamists: even Mr. Steyn thinks homosexuals are perverts...

The Islamists owe their origins to the fact that the ME has been hopeless at the modern world, but violence initially paid off. Outside the region it stands no chance - they have by now even alienated the Left (at least in Europe) and they make no converts, their only weapon is demographic and that is a feeble and declining one.

I agree that current secular society is unimpressive and not (yet) sustainable. Where we may differ is that I think that religion has little or no part to play in its revival, if that is to happen, except as a cultural (and partly ethical) legacy. But then, Europe seems to be getting more interesting again, and not necessarily in a nice way. Historical shadows have made the place too nice for too long, but these things rarely stop at a nice, even, balance.

Trouble is, both America and Europe have been fervently religious worshipping the same God - Mammon. That game, kept going too long by the 30 year banking Ponzi scheme, is ending, and people are bewildered, angry and don't know which way to go.

Oh, and thanks to CD for his editor role in pointing out the pervasiveness of sloppy faith-based language:

total issues wrote:Science and technology are needed more than ever, but the religious revivals are all fundamentalist and anti-science. Over 40% of Americans do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution – and that includes nearly all the new fundies in Congress, the Tea Partiers.

Fixed.

[lzzrdgrrl]

Faith allows you to live when you're NOT happy, and that does happen from time to time......

I may allow that there is the possibility of a reality and frame of existence where the purpose of G_d is simply irrelevant, but that is past the omega point and I simply wouldn't be able to comment on it.....

[Frodo]

Faith allows you to live when you're NOT happy, and that does happen from time to time......

How about the Chinese, who have survived for thousands of years without faith in a personal god?

[Simple Minded]

Faith allows you to live when you're NOT happy, and that does happen from time to time......

How about the Chinese, who have survived for thousands of years without faith in a personal god?

Great question Frodo!

It begs another question, what does any one of us know about the personal beliefs of another individual?

I for one am not certain that none in China believe in a personal god. Could it not be one's own ancestors?

The Chinese? Which one? I do not know their name.

[Simple Minded]

I had hoped to set the cat among the pigeons on this site with the thread title....

You sneaky French bastage, Iknew there was a raisin I liked you!
Some day, like all great leaders we should get together for a beer summitt!!
I'll bring the beer and crackers, you bring the canned cheese/jerky/porkrinds/pretzels!

Yes, I have been making these points for some time, but most of us lesser mortals have a limited stock of big ideas.

My small cranium and hyper developed amygdala feels your pain.

The Tea Partiers worry me more than the Islamists

I have heard Uche make similar statements. This type of talk always amazes me. Please explain.

Perhaps I am missing something, the common theme of the Tea party seems to be parents and grandparents worried about the financial state their children shall inherit. Granted, none have stepped forward to say cancel my Social Security, Medidare, and Medicaid so my offspring won't have to pay for it.

I think you may be correct, we are at the end of 3 decades of mindless consumption/deficit spending and at the start of a least a decade of recalibration. As you say, Europe is getting....... interesting. Lets have the beer summitt elsewhere.....

[CognitiveDistoibance]

... Granted, none have stepped forward to say cancel my Social Security, Medidare, and Medicaid so my offspring won't have to pay for it. ...

I'll say that. Seriously.

As to "accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution" it would appear then that one's faith is now, instead of in evolution, adjusted to in scientific evidence for evolution. Much improved, I suppose, albeit that construction would still seem to proscribe non-scientific evidence, and even scientific evidence that is not supportive of evolution.

It would appear that the fundie impulse dies hard...

[total issues]

total issues wrote:
The Tea Partiers worry me more than the Islamists
I have heard Uche make similar statements. This type of talk always amazes me. Please explain.

As far as the Islamists are concerned, the ME is fundamentally weak and divided, and in the West they risk a typical Western democratic reaction - too much, too late. "Friendly Uncle Joe" in 1945, McCarthyism five years later. No way are they the threat Communism or Fascism was, and I suspect that the defining conflict of the 21c will be China v India (a cold war, one hopes)

If the Tea Partiers just want to cut taxes and spending, say that Barry O is an idiot, denounce "quantitative easing" as the Voodooism it is, and continue to muddle American healthcare, that's harmless politics-as-usual. The issues are twofold:
- Sarah Palin seems to resonate with parts of Middle America which is incomprehensible and scary to the rest of us. If that ignorant hysteric is elected POTUS she would not have a bunch of sad pyjama wearers with AK47s, but the nuclear arsenal of the world's only superpower. Yes, we 'furriners can say what we think, because you get to boss us around and we do not have a vote (that's OK, that's what superpowers do, long live America because we shall think fondly of you when Beijing gives the orders)
- the real argument is not with Tea Partiers but with fundies, which is why this is disturbing:

As to "accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution" it would appear then that one's faith is now, instead of in evolution, adjusted to in scientific evidence for evolution. Much improved, I suppose, albeit that construction would still seem to proscribe non-scientific evidence...

Too damn right, CD, it proscribes non-scientific evidence. I suspect you are a good guy , CD, whom it would be good to share a beer with SM and I (and you can edit his spelling) but if you think that, we are on different mental planets.

and even scientific evidence that is not supportive of evolution.

Er, what evidence? Of course one can question it, and some may turn up tomorrow which blows a hole in it, given that all scientific knowledge is provisional, but this is one of the best supported theories in science. Or is there a conspiracy to hide the Truth from you, X files style?

Do you accept semiconductor materials science, and electromagnetic field theory, even if you don't know it, and thus the opinions of the "experts"? Because if you don't, please switch off your computer now and return to sender. Science is a package, not a la carte

Except perhaps for global warming, where "religious" attitudes are entrenched on both sides, as well as inconclusive data ...

[Michael]

I should like to draw out a distinction that is, I think, implicit in Ellen’s post.

Laïcité, in the sense of the separation of Church and State – La République ne reconnaît, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte (The Republic does not recognise, salary or subsidise any religion) – Loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des Eglises et de l'Etat – is a principle that can be embraced both by those who are personally religious and by those who are not. It does not imply that the state is hostile to the practice of religion.

In his meeting with President Sarkozy on 12 September 2008, Pope Benedict XVI said

It is fundamental, on the one hand, to insist upon the distinction between the political realm and that of religion in order to preserve both the religious freedom of citizens and the responsibility of the state toward them. On the other hand, [it is important] to become more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring to – among other things – the creation of a basic ethical consensus within society

President Sarkozy pretty well agreed.

It is important to note that the same law of 1905 assures freedom of conscience and guarantees freedom of worship, subject only to restrictions in the interests of public order. ( La République assure la liberté de conscience. Elle garantit le libre exercice des cultes sous les seules restrictions édictées ci-après dans l'intérêt de l'ordre public)

This is not merely a right, but a guarantee, so the state pays chaplains in the military, prisons, hospitals &c. This is seen as guaranteeing the rights of individuals, not as supporting religious institutions, as such. Also, most congregations meet for worship and their ministers live, in state-owned buildings, placed at their disposal rent-free.

Again, the Jules Ferry laws that forbid religious instruction in state schools give pupils a half-day off, during the week (much to the annoyance of working parents) so that they can receive religious instruction, if their families so wish. In private religious schools, if they follow the national curriculum and their teachers are duly qualified, the teachers’ salaries are paid by the state. Once again, this is seen as guaranteeing individual rights, in this case the right of parents to educate their children in accordance with t heir own convictions, rather than as subsidising religious institutions.

In some ways, the Anti-Clerical Law of 1905, is more favourable to religion than the First Amendment, although I imagine some American Catholics might baulk at President Obama having a veto on the appointment of Catholic bishops.

The social and cultural influence of religion is difficult to estimate; a proposal in 1983-4 by the then Socialist government to change the (very favourable) status of private, mostly religious, schools brought millions onto the streets, in demonstrations up and down the country; the plan was abandoned. Similarly, Catholic social teaching has had a strong influence on the non-Marxist Left, especially in the Trades Unions. Such (unofficial) statistics as are available show about 45% of the population declaring themselves of no religion.

[Simple Minded]

total issues wrote:
The Tea Partiers worry me more than the Islamists
I have heard Uche make similar statements. This type of talk always amazes me. Please explain.

If the Tea Partiers just want to cut taxes and spending, say that Barry O is an idiot, denounce "quantitative easing" as the Voodooism it is, and continue to muddle American healthcare, that's harmless politics-as-usual. The issues are twofold:
- Sarah Palin seems to resonate with parts of Middle America which is incomprehensible and scary to the rest of us. If that ignorant hysteric is elected POTUS she would not have a bunch of sad pyjama wearers with AK47s, but the nuclear arsenal of the world's only superpower. Yes, we 'furriners can say what we think, because you get to boss us around and we do not have a vote (that's OK, that's what superpowers do, long live America because we shall think fondly of you when Beijing gives the orders)
- the real argument is not with Tea Partiers but with fundies,

TI, Thanks for the clarification. Different perspectives are always fascinating. Very different cultures on opposite sides of the Atlanic even though human nature is common.

I shall borrow from a couple of Michael's posts regarding France & Germany and modify accordingly, I think he has summed up the esprit de corps of the Tea Party very well:
there is great concern about communautarisme, by which they mean ethnic solidarities and allegiances that threaten to override Republican unity. .....it is deeply rooted in American political culture, going back at least as far as The Constitution that suspicion of particular interests that undermined the general will. Hence, the determination to keep the State and Civil Society distinct and separate.

[Simple Minded]

Oops, I hit the submit button buy mistake. I also think these excerpts from Michael's posts are descriptive of the Tea Party ideology:

the Third Estate, that is the middle class, is nothing now, but it may become everything, that is, it could become nothing less than the nation itself. The Third Estate represents the unprivileged majority of America. To constitute itself as the nation, it must assume power and abolish all privileges that place the ruling minority above and outside the nation. Those who associate themselves with the common struggle for equality, human rights and against privileges, these constitute the nation.

This theory contains two elements that have become dominant in the American concept. the nation is the community all those who are not exempt from taxation, military service and other public duties, and, second, it includes all those, and only those, who are willing and capable of sharing in the service of the country. The national community, resides in the voluntary and revocable loyalty of its individual citizens. In this sense the nation is based on a on a daily vote of confidence.

America has, indeed, been a country of immigrants.

I think one of the great tragedies of the last couple decades in America, has been the turning away from the concept of Americans as unique individuals, with equal rights, who share common ideology and goals. Instead, we seem to be morphing into a collection of demographic groups who all petition the state for privledged status above other demographic groups.

I recently had a young well-intentioned but naive Liberal incredulously ask me "How I could possibly be a conservative, when I seem so rational and fair minded?"

I replied that with limited government, the government does not have the power to establish privileged groups or individuals, therefore, the prejudices of the individuals in government ruling class are irrelevant.

Perhaps with the instutionalization of entitlements, and the exitance of PACs/lobbyists, the concept of equality among individuals is no longer possible in the US. Perhaps it is naive on my part, but it seems to me that human nature is such, that, when the third party robs Peter to pay Paul, resentment on the part of all three parties towards the other two parties is increased.

Whether this oocurs in state X or Y, in regards to crowd A or B, seems irrelevant.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

As to "accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution" it would appear then that one's faith is now, instead of in evolution, adjusted to in scientific evidence for evolution. Much improved, I suppose, albeit that construction would still seem to proscribe non-scientific evidence...

Too damn right, CD, it proscribes non-scientific evidence. I suspect you are a good guy , CD, whom it would be good to share a beer with SM and I (and you can edit his spelling) but if you think that, we are on different mental planets.

I think I'm a good guy. Not sure there is universal acclamation on that point but...

Sadly, you and SM would need to split my beer. I'll be content with a Coke or Pepsi.

I'm sure you know there is a whole class of evidence, which strictly speaking isn't scientific. Historical, for instance.

and even scientific evidence that is not supportive of evolution.

Er, what evidence? Of course one can question it, and some may turn up tomorrow which blows a hole in it, given that all scientific knowledge is provisional, but this is one of the best supported theories in science. Or is there a conspiracy to hide the Truth from you, X files style?

No conspiracy.* There is just something about the presumption that all evidence must and will support evolution that is a bit, well, hinky to me.

* That I know of.

Do you accept semiconductor materials science, and electromagnetic field theory, even if you don't know it, and thus the opinions of the "experts"? Because if you don't, please switch off your computer now and return to sender. Science is a package, not a la carte

Except perhaps for global warming, where "religious" attitudes are entrenched on both sides, as well as inconclusive data ...

A rather interesting exception there on the MMGW. Religion is where you find it. Which is pretty much everywhere, since few there be that grasp and have for instant recall scientific data on all points. That's why "believe in evolution" is the correct formulation for 9X% of evolutionistas. They don't have the means to sort it out for themselves, so their faith is in science, scientists, what have you...

Here's the thing about the TP / religious / fundies / et al. Other than its metaphysical implications, why should the average Joe Sixpack (beer or Coke--I'm partial to 24 packs of Pepsi Max myself) give a southern exposure of a northbound rat about scientific evidence for evolution? Thare are lots of reason to care about semiconductors, magnetic fields and computers. Sure, some can dork around with genetic modifications of plants and critters, but darn few--and strictly speaking that isn't evolution. Even fewer are in a position to construct environmental factors that will govern the controlled evolution of geckos into say, velociraptors.

In other words, what is the dad gummed point of believing in evolution? Or universally acclaimed scientifical evidence for same? Why should most anyone, TP folk included, care?

Does a failure to accept 100% of scientific dogma == heretical unbelievers?


If so, who are the fundies?