Secular Societies are happier and more sustainable

[Collingwood]

More, schmore. Nothing in this world is sustainable. Nor is the world itself.

That's the rub: seems to make lots of folks unhappy.

[Michael]

More, schmore. Nothing in this world is sustainable. Nor is the world itself.

That's the rub: seems to make lots of folks unhappy.

But, whilst they last, some allow their citizens to flourish more than others.

[Simple Minded]

More, schmore. Nothing in this world is sustainable. Nor is the world itself.

That's the rub: seems to make lots of folks unhappy.

Collingwood,

Having a few hardcore pessimists as ancestors, your post made me LOL!
Pray tell, what motivates you to get out of bed in the morning, or even expend the effort of drawing your next breath?

Keep the faith, the world has far too many optimists!

[Colonel Sun]

One only has to take any quality of life measure for various countries.

For example, the Human Development Index 2010

1 Norway
2 Australia
3 New Zealand
4 United States
5 Ireland
6 Liechtenstein
7 Netherlands
8 Canada
9 Sweden
10 Germany
11 Japan
12 South Korea
13 Switzerland
14 France
15 Israel
16 Finland
17 Iceland
18 Belgium
19 Denmark
20 Spain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ment_Index

and of the top ranked 20 countries, all but 2 or 3 are highly secular societies.

If there was no relationship between secularity and quality of life, then only about 1/2 of the countries listed would be secular. This is not an statistical accident. The probability that such a lopsided distribution towards the secular is solely due to chance is less than 0.001

[ellens]

Those statistics are a bit misleading, Colonel Sun. The reason why secular societies rank better in lots of ways than religious or traditional societies is that secular societies went through their industrial and scientific revolution first. Also, societies that label themselves as traditional today are largely Muslim, which is a special problem unto itself.

What is not clear is, at this juncture in history, whether the societies that went through their scientific revolution first can sustain themselves over the next 100 years. No one is arguing that they have done a better job of creating economically and technologically advanced societies over the past 300 years. But, in the process of doing that, they have so demoralized their inhabitants, that their future does not seem so rosy. We are at a turning point in history where the success of secular societies can really be called into question. If they can't sustain themselves, than all has been for nought, possibly.

[Colonel Sun]

Those statistics are a bit misleading, Colonel Sun. The reason why secular societies rank better in lots of ways than religious or traditional societies is that secular societies went through their industrial and scientific revolution first. . . .

You're more or less rephrasing my point here.
Nothing misleading about those stats at all.
The scientific - industrial revolution lead to the eventual rise of secularism.
The countries that chose this path are overwhelmingly well off, the countries that chose to remain traditional - theocratic or tried to replace religion with some recent ideological equivalent overwhelmingly are not.

What is not clear is, at this juncture in history, whether the societies that went through their scientific revolution first can sustain themselves over the next 100 years. No one is arguing that they have done a better job of creating economically and technologically advanced societies over the past 300 years. But, in the process of doing that, they have so demoralized their inhabitants, that their future does not seem so rosy.

Oh, that's far from a given, I would argue.
I do know I'm much happier doing what I'm doing now than staring at the rear end of a water buffalo while struggling with a plow or spending all day bent over up to my knees in mud and water in a rice paddy. The traditional subsistence life is highly overrated by those that have never experienced it.

We are at a turning point in history where the success of secular societies can really be called into question. If they can't sustain themselves, than all has been for nought, possibly.

Après moi, le déluge.

It would seem that we're always at a so-called critical turning point in history.
I don't buy it for one moment and consider it nothing more than the current [boomers and their offspring] generation's conceit of wildly overemphasizing the importance of present transient events.

Matt Ridely: Down with Doom: How the World Keeps Defying the Predictions of Pessimists

Ah, that phrase again. I call it turning-point-itis. It's rarely far from the lips of the prophets of doom. They are convinced that they stand on the hinge of history, the inflexion point where the roller coaster starts to go downhill. But then I began looking back to see what pessimists said in the past and found the phrase, or an equivalent, being used by in every generation. The cause of their pessimism varied - it was often tinged with eugenics in the early twentieth century, for example - but the certainty that their own generation stood upon the fulcrum of the human story was the same.

I got back to 1830 and still the sentiment was being used. In fact, the poet and historian Thomas Macaulay was already sick of it then: `We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason.' He continued: `On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us.'

Indeed.

[cassowary]

China: the future of Christianity?

Excerpt:

Second, the recommendations of the prominent Chinese economist, Zhao Xiao, that market economies benefit from active religious groups seem to have been adopted by the CCP leadership. Perhaps eying the benefits that a strong, state-approved Christian voluntary sector could bring to China, in late 2007 President Hu Jintao announced "the knowledge of religious people must be harnessed to build a prosperous society".

This state-sponsored investment includes building Protestant and Catholic seminaries, funding academic studies into the role of religion in China, and donating land and part-financing the construction of the largest state-sanctioned church in China (for an expected 5,000 worshippers).

The Chinese, after suppressing Christianity for years, are now seeing that it is beneficial. I suspect that they got this idea from Singapore whose Founders have believed that the right religion is beneficial for progress.

For example, Dr Goh Keng Swee, former Deputy Prime Minister, once recommended converting people to a strict Protestant form of Christianity to facilitate economic development.

It should be remembered that Goh and Lee are not true believers. But they see the relationship between religious beliefs and social, economic and political outcomes of a society.

[Marcus]

. . Goh and Lee are not true believers. But they see the relationship between religious beliefs and social, economic and political outcomes of a society.

You think? . . .

[ellens]

Yes, but the view that religious life has a positive and beneficial influence on society is a conclusion drawn most convincingly from social science studies. This is the irony because it was the social scientific disciplines that helped to undermine the influence of religious life to begin with, in the 19th century, by suggesting that government could play that same beneficial role in promoting human welfare. Now, we must reach the baleful conclusion that whoever controls the primary levers of power in a society - whether they are an ecclesiastical body like a church-state ruling elite (as in premodern Europe) or a secular government (as in most of the modern world) they have the power to do both evil and good. An all-religious regime like in medieval Europe with the Catholic Church or like today in the Islamic Republic of Iran tends to do more evil than good. An all-secular regime like the communist ones or the stridently left wing parties today likewise tend to do more evil than good.

What we need, I have been arguing with TI now for several years, is the two forces to constantly oppose each other to keep the one in power honest and doing good things, rather than evil things. The problem is, it's hard for religious groups to maintain their influence and viability in a world where secularism is predominant in the culture, while it is not hard for secular political power brokers to maintain their influence and viability. This leads to an excess of secular evils over religious evils in most modern societies, in my view. In a world where culture is now mostly disseminated through electronic means, the secular and degrading forces of culture will always win out over the religious or high culture forces, because they have a bigger mass audience. So, the playing field will never be equal.

As far as happiness goes, I don't think totally secular societies can ever really be that happy since the foundation for that philosophy leads people toward selfishness, narcissism, moral relativism and other characteristics which undermine the health of the society in the long run. That's the rub, though, it's in the LONG RUN, so in the SHORT RUN, our secularists eat, drink and are merry and appear to be happy. Not for long, though. Just wait.....

[Marcus]

. . What we need . . is the two forces to constantly oppose each other . .

Have no fear, ellens, the opposition ain't going away any time soon:

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

[rhapsody]

In a church-state separated ie secular modern Western society, we can all subscribe to what Marcus keeps reminding us: to each their own. Nobody is forcing anybody to believe or disbelieve anything. In the privacy of our family homes and spiritual clubhouses we can safely practice the hobbies of our preference. With and despite of all our differences, we achieved this together, and it means something!

As to the claim that secular societies are happier; this is obviously true because as mentioned above, people are free to do what makes them happy - within the limits of "as long as it doesn't hurt others" of course.

Secular does not mean "less religious", it just means the freedom for each to do his own. A secular society can be dominated by religious life styles, or religious life styles can be extremely rare where a majority engages in other things.

A secular society offers the best chances for people to become happy, and learn not to be afraid of differences, sometimes even appreciate them. Maybe some old fashioned religious believers long for the old days when top-down directives and creeds where handed over to the needy spiritual consumers on a holy silver platter, just as some Eastern Europeans may long for the time that the Commie state organised and ruled their lives.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

...

Secular does not mean "less religious", it just means the freedom for each to do his own. A secular society can be dominated by religious life styles, or religious life styles can be extremely rare where a majority engages in other things.

...

True in the abstract.

But let some religious folk believe:

• certain medical procedures are bad for their children...
• certain "origin of the species" teachings are wrong...
• certain biological underpinnings are associated with marriage and need maintained...
• certain biological reproductive teachings should only happen at home...
• certain procedures (like terminating an inconvenient fetus) should not involve their tax dollars...

And the excrement hits the propeller. The "secular state" is not without it's own metaphysical / religious inclinations. It is naive to think otherwise. Humanity is a religious species, even those segments that are religiously non-religious.

[rhapsody]

The "secular state" is not without it's own metaphysical / religious inclinations. It is naive to think otherwise. Humanity is a religious species, even those segments that are religiously non-religious.

The only people I know for whome everything has religious meaning, are Muslims. Even the asphalt on our A1 motorway has divine properties. Because Allah is in every atom.

The secular church-state separated modern Western society is just that: a set of roads, road signs and the rules that apply to the traffic using the network. I cannot argue with people who believe this network was created by ultimately metaphysical forces, who see the hand of God in it. Or God in the people who made it. Who when they put their ears on the asphalt, hear the voice of Allah already.

But sometimes a cigar is just... a cigar.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

The "secular state" is not without it's own metaphysical / religious inclinations. It is naive to think otherwise. Humanity is a religious species, even those segments that are religiously non-religious.

The only people I know for whome everything has religious meaning, are Muslims. Even the asphalt on our A1 motorway has divine properties. Because Allah is in every atom.

The secular church-state separated modern Western society is just that: a set of roads, road signs and the rules that apply to the traffic using the network. I cannot argue with people who believe this network was created by ultimately metaphysical forces, who see the hand of God in it. Or God in the people who made it. Who when they put their ears on the asphalt, hear the voice of Allah already.

But sometimes a cigar is just... a cigar.

For the record, I'm not exactly a dominionist. A truly secular state would be (this side of the eschaton) my ideal*. It's just that ideals are in short supply (again, this side of the eschaton). There is no completely secular state. Most especially at this stage in the game where still many of the atheistic and agnostic persuasions have an almost evangelical need to convert the masses.

* In God we trust ... all others require the maximum possible decentralization of power--along with checks and balances.

[Marcus]

For the record, I'm not exactly a dominionist. A truly secular state would be (this side of the eschaton) my ideal*. It's just that ideals are in short supply (again, this side of the eschaton). There is no completely secular state. Most especially at this stage in the game where still many of the atheistic and agnostic persuasions have an almost evangelical need to convert the masses. . .

You rascal . . your pre-millennial dispensationalism is showing . .