We already saw what the results of a secular priesthood would cause in the French Revolution. It doesn't always follow that suit.I think religion does establish itself and spread at least in part because it meets social and personal needs in its particular contexts. And I also think that atheism will increase if the cultural needs for stability and social meaning are institutionalized in government. I’m not keen on that latter process (I don’t see a secular version of a priesthood as any improvement over a theocracy) priest but a lot of people are and I don’t see that trend reversing.
Atheism is not nihilistic at its core. It's simply a non superstitious brand of hope and faith in the progression of the human condition. We don't need Gnosticism to provide any framework to reality. It is not essential in meeting daily needs in the least.Certainly.
Agreed. Atheism is nihilistic at its core and we have seen what a-theism reaps when it banishes a religious conscience.
The Golden Rule originated in Confucianism, which was a secular movement of proper governance. Specifically Chapter 14 of Book 15 of the Analects 600 years before Christ. Religion borrowed it.If an a-theist borrows from religion the Golden rule and claims it for himself/herself then kudos. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But when one scratches off the veneer, the propaganda of a-theists, and gets them to admit that they fundamentally don’t believe in an absolute good, the darkness peeks out and discloses itself for what it is. An a-theist will do whatever is necessary to survive beyond his neighbor because good is defined by the necessity of the moment.
At it's core Morality is just social behaviour that promotes survival.Full disclosure, I worked with nonhuman primates in biomedical research for twenty years. I also worked with great apes, so I know a thing or two about monkeys and apes. I never met anyone in my industry who attributed morality to either.
What sort of behaviour do you think you would expect that would indicate morality?Full disclosure, I worked with nonhuman primates in biomedical research for twenty years. I also worked with great apes, so I know a thing or two about monkeys and apes. I never met anyone in my industry who attributed morality to either.
Did you forget the Moral Atheist perhaps?Because people were discussing it. A psychological taxonomy of atheism.
Personally, I think temperament and personality have a lot to do with how one settles on atheism as well, and these categories are not mutually exclusive, and may re-enforce each other, but forthwith an abbreviated version of this classification, somewhat modified from here:
1. Rocks and babies: (Mind Blind Atheism ):"If mentalizing supports the mental representation of gods, then weaker mentalizing tendencies, associated with the autistic spectrum and also commonly found in men more than in women, may undermine the intuitiveness of supernatural agents and reduce religious belief. "
2. Nobody on CARM: (Apatheism)
"Most people can mentally represent gods with ease. Beyond mental representation, however, several other factors might motivate people to care about supernatural agents, whether benevolent or malevolent, as sources of order, emotional comfort, and meaning. The term ‘apatheism’ is a useful way to characterize a stance of indifference towards religion that, we argue, arises from conditions of existential security. It has long been hypothesized that widespread human suffering and threats to human welfare encourage motivational states that make many religious beliefs and practices deeply comforting and meaningful ….Religious engagement is far stronger in societies marked by poverty, high infant mortality, short life-spans, economic inequality, and nonexistent or unreliable government services and social safety nets...……Where life is safe and predictable, people are less motivated to turn to gods for succor."
3. All the Cool Kids Aren’t Doing It: "Incredulous atheism results from people simply not receiving cultural inputs that encourage the belief that any god(s) are potent, relevant, or even real …. if an individual grows up in a cultural context comparatively devoid of cues that others believe in any gods at all, religious belief might not take root . Tellingly, even children of religious parents in Scandinavia are likely to become nonbelievers if they do not witness credibility enhancing displays of their parents’ faith . … reliable secular institutions such as governments, courts, and the police can supplant religion in many societies. People perceive God and government as interchangeable sources of external control and stability. Belief in God, commitment to supernatural monitoring, and distrust of atheists all decline as societies develop strong secular alternatives to religion ……strong, reliable governments might be another potent factor underlying incredulous atheism."
4: I Am Very Smart: (Analytic Atheism)
"Finally, some people become atheists also because they turn against the intuitive biases that make some super natural concepts intuitive. If – as much recent research suggests - belief in gods and spirits is supported by core intuitive biases, then atheism can emerge when such intuitions are revised or overruled by more analytic processes. Religious beliefs receive support from many intuitive processes, and reliance on intuitive thinking predicts stronger belief in God and in related supernatural concepts… Conversely, analytic thinkers show weaker religious belief and tend to lose their religious fervor, even if they were initially raised in a religious environment. Moreover, analytic thinkers, when they do endorse religious beliefs, favor less anthropomorphic and more intellectualized religious concepts …..Analytic overriding of intuitions can, but need not, involve effortful processing, because even subtle prods towards analytic thinking (disfluent fonts and implicit primes) encourage religious disbelief. These findings suggest that analytic cognitive strategies, available habitually or situationally, can overrule or block the intuitions that support religious belief, leading to religious skepticism."
All those civilizations were Predominantly secular? yeah, right. Can you provide a reference from a scholarly work who backs that up. Could there have been a-theists in the nation? Yes, but religion was a essential influence on the nation.Rome, Greece, the Chinese dynasties, Babylon, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, etc... Classical governments may have contained religious identities (many of which varied and changed multiple times within the civilization's lifespan) of various kinds, but they were predominantly secular in their recognition of the needs of their people.
It's not like every edict for the support of the populace needed to be reflected in scripture in order to act on what was happening in the streets and homes of the people. They saw it as a day to day issue just like we do. Civilization was recognized as a social survival strategy that religion played a role in congealing. But the congealing force of religion was not the inspiration for the civilization's survival. You have a cart before the horse issue here.
Because you have no interest in losing the argument over what constitutes or originates a moral act.If you want to believe monkeys are capable of discerning and following moral laws then have at it, but no science supports it. I have no interest in arguing over it.
You are so out there if you think religion was not an essential part of their cultures. Imagine whatever you want. I am not going to argue with you about something contained in many history books.Show me where their governance of the populace was not based on the needs of the people as opposed to an edict of God.
No. I read carefully above where you said you cannot attribute acts of morality to apes and where it was countered that acts of morality are simply tribal survival techniques. Do you think apes do not practice tribal survival techniques within their shrewdness?We were talking about monkeys, so now you want to change the subject to be about morality itself.. Your so mad you cannot even think straight.
I openly admitted that religion was "a part" of their culture. But you've yet to connect that their acts of social governance were based off of them.You are so out there if you think religion was not an essential part of their cultures. Imagine whatever you want. I am not going to argue with you about something contained in many history books.
That is a bad counter to say acts of self-defense are based on moral laws. Most animals, to include humans, instinctually will defend themselves when attacked. It requires no weighing of ethics, or right and wrong. It is: ouch!, his teeth in my flesh hurts,…adrenaline surge, fight or flight, —no moral decision involved.No. I read carefully above where you said you cannot attribute acts of morality to apes and where it was countered that acts of morality are simply tribal survival techniques.
Do you think apes do not practice tribal survival techniques within their shrewdness?
And if I did, you still would not believe it because religion is the enemy to you and No “enemy” of yours can ever benefit you.I openly admitted that religion was "a part" of their culture. But you've yet to connect that their acts of social governance were based off of them.