[FoRK] reas. conv. 10/31: The Good Society

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

[#6 in a "reasoned conversation" about Christianity and atheism]

Stephen et al,

Thanks for the many enthusiastic response.  I am guardedly optimistic  
we may actually be making progress.  Maybe only sideways, but at  
least we're moving. :-)

I'm starting to suspect that part of the problem is the way that I've  
framed the question as "Christianity" vs. "atheism."  As a few people  
have pointed out, "atheism" isn't _itself_  coherent belief system  
comparable to Christianity -- though at least some atheists _have_  
such belief systems (which others deny :-).   Conversely,  
"Christianity" isn't always a meaningful unitary block either: do you  
really think it is fair to lump the Amish in with, say, the Knight  
Templars when discussing theocracy?

Given that, I'm not sure how much value there is in trying to argue  
"averages" and "net positive" rather than specifics, since the  
normalization becomes completely arbitrary:

> During the infatuation stage of religious conversion / awakening,  
> this appears to be true.  Whether it is true on average varies.   
> Growing up in the Midwest with several times as many churches as  
> gas stations, it was often noted that the least trustworthy people  
> were often the hyper religious or sons of ministers, etc.  Once you  
> add in all cases of religious driven hatred-ostracizing-genocide, I  
> think you are in the red.

I agree that the record is mixed, though I think it a bit unfair to  
call multi-generational organizations like the Salvation Army  
_purely_ a matter of infatuation. After all, even Stephen himself was  
kind enough to point out there were at least _some_ positive  
structural aspects of Christianity:

> Well....  It's true that most of Western civilization, which turned  
> out to be the first to get the innovation cycle permanently on a  
> role and to have a subgroup firmly adopt the scientific method, did  
> have a Christian component.  You can probably even argue  
> successfully that Buddhism or the Islam would prevented or delayed  
> this innovation feedback loop.  There is at least some evidence  
> however that various forms of Christianity held back science at  
> various points.

Fair enough.  And I agree that there *is* evidence that what we might  
call "secular humanism" is a viable option, at least in the late  
stages of cultural development, as Strata says:

> It's a measure of the advancement of many cultures, imho, that  
> something like secular humanism can exist.  It owes its'  
> foundations to the definitions of morality laid down by many of the  
> world's religions, plus the look-into-the-mirror aspects of  
> philosophy.

So, if you will allow me the luxury of re-framing the debate, let me  
define the question as:

I.  Given America's current state of cultural development, is  
increased religiosity or increased secularization the best hope for  
creating a better society?"

I think the first answer is "it depends."  After all, I personally  
wouldn't consider Shari'a Law an improvement over the current  
situation, nor would any of you vote for Stalinist totalitarianism if  
that was the price for secularization.  Right?

So instead let me follow that question with two more:

II-A. Is it possible to construct a viable variant of Christianity  
that institutionalizes its more positive aspects and yet avoids the  
tendency towards theocracy and intolerance?

To Russell's point, I concede that Christianity *is* a religious  
structure, if for no other reason that large communities need such  
structure to propagate over time, despite their risks and dangers.   
But in a nod to Churchill, I consider Christianity the worst belief  
system ever developed -- except for all the others.   Which raises  
the question:

II-B.  Is it possible construct a secular system of ethics which is  
capable of generating more net social good than any variant of  
Christianity?

and, a bonus one for Strata:

II-C. Do there exist alternate metaphysics that might be superior to  
both Christianity and secularism?

Now, I'm sure some of you (hi Corinna :-) might think both questions  
are completely ridiculous.  However, it sounds like many of you at  
least recognize the validity of asking II-A (even if you're sure the  
answer is "No" :-), and are actively working on II-B.

Is that a fair characterization?

If so, let me start by trying to summarize what I hear y'all saying  
about the benefits of II-B, which at least Stephen calls "humanism."

> Possibly a good very highest level principle by this from http:// 
> www.americanhumanist.org/index.html
>
> Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without  
> supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead  
> ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater  
> good of humanity.

Specifically, the claimed benefits over any form of theism is that:

1.  It is inherently universal, rather than sectarian, so there is no  
"outsider/insider" dichotomy

2.  It is based on an inner moral compass, rather than external  
authorities

3.  It relies on an innate desire to do good instead of fear of  
punishment

4.  We take responsibility for defining our morality, and the  
consequences thereof

5. Morality is inherently something than can be rationally explored,  
vs. intrinsically unknowable

6.  It is inherently humble, by not claiming unique access to  
absolute truth

Is that a reasonable start?  Would anyone like to expand upon that?

The one question I haven't yet seen addressed, though, is _how_ one  
builds a strong enough consensus around such things to allow coherent  
action.  After all, as Corinna notes:

> I think one reason we have such religious tension is because nobody  
> can agree on exactly what those objective standards really are. So  
> one group or another claims they have the one true way, and so on,  
> and so forth.

However, as anyone whose studied the Libertarian party (or RSS :-P)  
knows, this challenge is hardly unique to theistic belief systems.   
Even if we reframe the debate in terms of preference rather than  
absolutes, as Matt suggests:

> Once an idea has "graduated" from personal beliefs to codified law,  
> we should drop reference to it as right/wrong, because that  
> discussion is in the past. (Unless you're challenging an existing  
> law.)  Just say "littering is unacceptable".  That focuses on the  
> fact that society has made a collective decision about it.  Calling  
> it "wrong" brings it back to your personal opinion.

But, that still begs the question: on what basis can or do we make  
such "collective decisions"?

Note, I am *not* saying that belief in Christ is the _only_ way to  
make such decisions. I personally think it is optimal, though I am  
well aware that my heuristic has numerous weaknesses and known  
failure modes, and thus not sufficient.

I am merely asking for a clearer articulation of what you are  
substituting in its place, so we can rationally explore _its_ failure  
modes.

Fair enough?

Best,
-- Ernie P.