Secular Societies are happier and more sustainable

[ellens]

Rhapsody,

Your definition of secular is the one that is used in India, for example, where it doesn't mean that everyone is expected to be "secular" in the sense of nonreligious. Secular state in India means a government that rules without prejudice for or against any of the country's religions.

However, that is really not the reality in Western societies that call themselves secular. Here, I have to agree with what CD is saying. In Western societies secular most often means that the government is used to promote atheism or agnosticism, and actively tries to ridicule and minimize religious life, even if it doesn't blatantly shut it down the way the communists did.

It's very hard to find a happy balance here, because whichever view dominates the educational system and the mass culture will greatly bias most citizens for or against a religious view. So, while we can say that in America and Europe, the society is secular in the sense that people have the freedom to believe whatever they want to believe, in reality, the balance of influences (cultural, political, economic, etc) guarantees that most people will be nonbelievers because institutions that promote nonbelief are far stronger than those that promote belief. In addition, those that promote belief are promoting so many different beliefs corresponding to the many religions that people affiliate with, that nonbelief becomes, de facto, the largest group that ends up swaying people into its embrace.

[rhapsody]

EllenS, with that much freedom and diversity secured, a society may tilt towards a certain culture leaving minorities scratching their heads, wondering what space is left for them and if not their children being exposed to a dominant culture will be lost. Becoming such a pressured minority can happen to anyone. The good thing when it happens in a Western secular society is, that basically no one is still telling you what to think or believe, and it is rather easy to avoid cultural expressions in your environment that you don't like. Although avoiding them altogether may be hard, but that is a litlle price to pay compared with the alternative; being a minority in a non-secular environment. Dhimmi-dudes and -girls would we all be.

To not feel belonging to a majority culture and being exposed to its pressures, may also have advantages. Similar to the effect of visiting other countries, other cultures. They can be enriching and refreshing encounters, and even make coming home a relief.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

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 . .

Well, to be more precise, this side of Rev 22:1-5. There's a whole range of millenial-istic theories betwixt here and there. I'm still utterly convinced my pan-millenialism is, at least, the least wrong.

[total issues]

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?

Yes indeed, and I have expanded this theme further under another handle here. Comments welcome (you don't have to be a member of the now-suspended Conservatory forum to comment).

[ellens]

Thanks to TI for writing an interesting essay. See his link to the Conservatory website.

Rather than address the substance of his essay I will address the attitude behind it, which is rather symptomatic of one of the points I made above. Why is a 21st century Englishman looking to still backward China as a source for sustainable humanism? With all due respect and deference to the Chinese and their ancient civilization, I wouldn't want to draw conclusions about the "success" of modern Chinese society just yet. I tend to take an optimistic view of India's future, but it's way too early to draw any large conclusions about a country where most people are still cohabitating with cows or living among them as companion animals.

I think the tendency to glorify China speaks to what ails contemporary Europeans who no longer believe there is much worth in their own societies from a spiritual or cultural vantage point and fed up with Islam (and America) are now looking as far away as possible for inspiration. From a distance, everything looks rosier than it actually is. If China had the spiritual resources that TI seems to think they have, without a God, then they wouldn't be rushing to adopt Christianity as fast as they seem to be doing.

My feeling is that our global civilization is in a spiritual rut, and the people who are the least connected to this global culture but who are living in societies advancing economically are the best off. The upwardly mobile Chinese worker or peasant, the India middle caste person moving up, these are the people who still haven't lost their cultural and spiritual moorings for the pap of global pop culture. As they finally "arrive", however, they will end up wallowing in the same emptiness as the tired, worn out, maxed out on the credit card Westerners looking to them for inspiration.

If people want to be inspired, they will have to look in their own backyard first, I think.

[Marcus]

China: the future of Christianity?
With the state now actively financing Christianity, China could well become the largest Christian country in the world
Antonio Weiss
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 28 August 2010

Ever since Deng Xiaoping's relaxation of the Chinese Communist party's (CCP) suppression of religious practice in the late 1970s, Christianity has flourished in China. This has been an unexpected phenomenon, as it has been a story largely unheralded by the western media. While figures are patchy, it is estimated that the Christian missionaries (of whom the first were the Nestorians as far back as the Tang dynasty in the seventh century) that were expelled from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 left behind about half a million people baptised – the majority of whom were Catholics. Today, estimates of Christians range between 40 million and 100 million. . . . .

On its current trajectory and with state backing, as the former Time magazine Beijing chief David Aikman notes, within three decades there may be nearly 400 million Christians in China. The future of Christianity may well lie in the east.

[rhapsody]

We live in dangerous times. And just when almost everybody is happy comes along Murphy again with his meteorites, viruses, antibiotics-resistant bacteria, a super volcano maybe. There always are dangers just around the corner waiting to strike like hungry predators. That most of us here ended up in relative and prolonged safety and in reasonably good health, should be seen as a miracle and a reason for boundless joy and gratitude. The knowledge that it can only be temporal is a bit of a bummer. Not sure how to best deal with sad knowlegde. A Swedish friend, farmer and Christian, very cheerful and sympathetic guy, once said it most elegant: "It is good to know there is a better life after this one." A comfort us non-believers do not enjoy.

[Michael]

The secular state inevitably becomes the ethical state, because public policy must be grounded in some norms.

An example

In our land we want to substitute morality for egotism, integrity for formal codes of honour, principles for customs, a sense of duty for one of mere propriety, the rule of reason for the tyranny of fashion, scorn of vice for scorn of the unlucky; self-respect for insolence, grandeur of soul for vanity, love of glory for the love of money, good people in place of good society. We wish to substitute merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glamour, the charm of happiness for sensuous boredom, the greatness of man for the pettiness of the great, a people who are magnanimous, powerful, and happy, in place of a kindly, frivolous, and miserable people.

Fine sentiments, indeed, but, alas, these advocates of a Politics of Virtue will soon find themselves complaining that virtue itself

rallies against us all men who are vicious, all those who in their hearts plan to despoil the people, and all those who have despoiled them and want impunity, and those who reject liberty as a personal calamity, and those who have embraced the revolution as a livelihood and the Republic as if it were an object of prey. Hence the defection of so many ambitious or greedy men who since the beginning have abandoned us along the way, because they had not begun the voyage in order to reach the same goal.

And they are right enough.

Hence, their outraged denunciations of

The murderers who tear our country apart internally; the intriguers who purchase the consciences of the people's agents; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary libellers subsidized to dishonour the popular cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fires of civil discord, and to prepare political counter-revolution by means of moral counter-revolution—are all these men less to blame or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?

I'm sure I don't need to trace out the rest of this line of thinking.

[ellens]

Michael,

Where are those citations from and to what Revolution do they refer? The French Revolution?

Thanks

[total issues]

Rather than address the substance of his essay I will address the attitude behind it, which is rather symptomatic of one of the points I made above. Why is a 21st century Englishman looking to still backward China as a source for sustainable humanism? With all due respect and deference to the Chinese and their ancient civilization, I wouldn't want to draw conclusions about the "success" of modern Chinese society just yet. I tend to take an optimistic view of India's future, but it's way too early to draw any large conclusions about a country where most people are still cohabitating with cows or living among them as companion animals.

It has very little to do with modern China, which is a semi-fascistic convert to Western civ. in its secular mode. Nor has it anything to do with traditional Chinese values, which quite apart from the patriarchy consists of social duties and no individual rights (the opposite of the modern Western error). The point I was trying to make is that the modern West is evolving to an ethical humanist state plus therapeutic cults (which help you in this life, not looking to the next one). This is more analagous to traditional China than to the medieval religious mindset, or the pseudo-religions of nationalism/progress/communism of the past two centuries. Despite the Christian veneer, I don't think that the USA is very different. That is parallel evolution, not looking to China for inspiration, and with quite different ethics.

China merely shows that such a society may be sustainable. At the moment the modern global civilisation (it's not just the West now) is currently not sustainable for a a variety of reasons - demographic, environmental. Solving those issues should provide enough purpose in life and things to campaign for, IMHO.

If China had the spiritual resources that TI seems to think they have, without a God, then they wouldn't be rushing to adopt Christianity as fast as they seem to be doing.

The jury is till out as to whether they are rushing. With the signal exception of South Korea, Christianity's share in other east Asian countries seems to top out at about 5-10% of the population. 100 million Chinese sounds a lot, but it is within that range.

My feeling is that our global civilization is in a spiritual rut, and the people who are the least connected to this global culture but who are living in societies advancing economically are the best off. The upwardly mobile Chinese worker or peasant, the India middle caste person moving up, these are the people who still haven't lost their cultural and spiritual moorings for the pap of global pop culture. As they finally "arrive", however, they will end up wallowing in the same emptiness as the tired, worn out, maxed out on the credit card Westerners looking to them for inspiration.

If people want to be inspired, they will have to look in their own backyard first, I think.

No disgreement there, except:
- the whole world is our backyard now
- to the degree that two millenia old systems which require belief in a dying and reborn god incarnate/a uniquely chosen people/a book dictated by God/karma and rebirth, are part of the answer.

[rhapsody]

The secular state inevitably becomes the ethical state, because public policy must be grounded in some norms.

Uh, social animals that depend heavily on that social context for their individual survival, will of course be very much controlled by that social environment via public norms, law, rule of law. A pack of wolves also has public policy and norms. So does the Vatican, even though they are far removed from any full monty mammalian life style. It is extremely common.

[Marcus]

The secular state inevitably becomes the ethical state, because public policy must be grounded in some norms.

. . social animals that depend heavily on . . social context for their individual survival, will of course be very much controlled by that social environment via public norms, law, rule of law. . .

Aren't you simply restating what Michael said? All law is someone's version of right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical.

But wolves have no "right or wrong," only learned patterns of behavior, evolved over time, resulting in survival of the species. We are not wolves, we are made in the image of God with the ability to discern right and wrong even if we don't always codify the right.

[rhapsody]

The secular state inevitably becomes the ethical state, because public policy must be grounded in some norms.

. . social animals that depend heavily on . . social context for their individual survival, will of course be very much controlled by that social environment via public norms, law, rule of law. . .

Aren't you simply restating what Michael said? All law is someone's version of right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical.

Sure. But that is so obvious that I thought he probably refers to something else or more implicit.

But wolves have no "right or wrong," only learned patterns of behavior, evolved over time, resulting in survival of the species. We are not wolves, we are made in the image of God with the ability to discern right and wrong even if we don't always codify the right.

Arguably.

[Marcus]

Sure. But that is so obvious that I thought he probably refers to something else or more implicit.

Michael can answer that for himself.

But wolves have no "right or wrong," only learned patterns of behavior, evolved over time, resulting in survival of the species. We are not wolves, we are made in the image of God with the ability to discern right and wrong even if we don't always codify the right.

Arguably.

Arguable? Yes, but probably not here. You're better advised to toot that horn you-know-where . . .

[rhapsody]

Arguable? Yes, but probably not here. You're better advised to toot that horn you-know-where . . .

Are you saying you decided to stay away from... you-know-where... and quit decorating the threads there with your random pseudo-religious and anti-materialist droppings?