Does religion have a place in a secular society as long as it is taken relatively?

Other than the fact that it is a terribly misguided and incomplete worldview?
Making empirical, "ultimate-reality" maps about everything leaves out one thing - the mapmaker.

 

I always think of these perfect logical life systems that same way as those perfect, logical modernist buildings, those big concrete cubic "machines for living" that the architects of the early 20th century thought would be ideal for the people of the future to live in. Now they're being demolished with gusto, and the ones that are left are full of drug dealers and mostly have pee on the stairs.

 

Yes, but replacing an outdated logical life system with a new and improved one isn't really solving anything - the new one will only become outdated in it's own time.
Maybe this is because you in fact, can't create a perfect logical life system eh?

 

That was kind of what I was getting at there.

Flux seems more natural than any rigid system. It seems that people prefer to live in house-shaped houses. Some people would say that that's irrational, and that they should stop preferring that because, look, you can fit like an extra 1.8 people into the same space if they all live on shelves. But those people have forgotten why they were asking the question in the first place.

In the same way, applying scientific principles to aspects of life that are pleasantly irrational is in itself somewhat irrational. People forget why they started asking these questions in the first place.

 

So what are we gonna do, Hoatzin?
What are we gonna do?

 

Reminds me what the Pragmatists have said about the origin of violence being in fixed ideas. And not just religious ideas...also, "rational" ideas.

 

I'm thinking the origin of violence long predates the emergence of "ideas".

 

when does unbiased reason become outdated

 

I think sometimes it's ownership of ideas. The "ists" rather than the "isms".

I plan to calm down a bit. Then I plan to go over the ideals I have, and what I want to achieve, and see where I'm going on.

Basically, I'm going to mind my own business until I'm at least halfway to getting that right, and then I'll consider telling other people what to do. Or not, whatever.

Maybe. But the emergence of ideas brings with it the potential for the end of violence. e.g. once we can reason that two people will gain more benefit from sharing food than from one of them killing the other and gorging himself on the food til he throws up, that should never have to happen again.

When the notion of bias as something avoidable becomes old-fashioned. Or when the notion of "unbiasedness" becomes wholly commodified.

 

That's true, but ideas also give many people all kinds of new reasons to be violent. I wonder if people today are more violent than the primitive ever could be because of the ideas and ideals that they attach to inside their heads.

 

Kinda. Ideas allowed us to build atom bombs. But our motives for dropping them haven't really changed. We still hit people to show them who's boss, and then we hit them again while they're running away just to remind them that we're serious. Sunrise, sunset.

 

I think in some cases our motives have changed. Patriotism, "love", the whole good guy-bad guy mentality, religion, these are all just made up ideas that many people become violent over.
Take the recent murder of that abortion doctor. We all have a world we envision that would be perfect for us, we all know how we would like things to happen, and the world outside doesn't sync up with that ideal we harbor. A lot of people will resort to violence to try to bring about some change, when in essence, all they are doing is pursuing another vague "idea" that they have hatched or had injected into their head.

 

Patriotism et al don't seem much different from territorialism, property, which all seem like logical variations on the basic idea that you should do more to secure your future than getting through a day and watching your back. I'd say that that's almost too old to really consider an idea, since even squirrels seem to get it (even if they don't put it into practice very well).

However, in the case of your abortion thing, I think that has more to do with social instincts, the desire to make life better FOR OTHERS (presumably based on the idea that either they'll do you a good turn, or that the group as a whole will benefit and so consequently will every member), and the whole lives of the many, lives of the few thing. It seems likely a slightly younger idea, but still very ancient.

 

Guess we need some way to decide what qualifies as an idea.

 

Not really. If anything we need a way to establish what has a negative impact, regardless of whether it comes from a sophisticated idea or an animal impulse. But I think we're heading into the realm of reductionism again, as if knowing the root cause of all this unrest will unable us to undo the "damage".

 

It wont.
My original point (and really I was just wondering outloud) was if ideas and the evolution of the human mind actually increased our susceptibility to committing violent acts.
Personally, I think it does. I think people have more reason to be violent today than ever before, precisely because of all these higher ideals that people are so willing to fight for.
You kind of dissected my examples, stripping them of their "idea" status.
It's almost as if you would consider any idea to have some root in instinct, and I'm not sure I can buy that.

 

I think the vast majority of culture is just a mutation of instinct. Ideas put us in a position where we can behave like animals, acting on those instincts stronger, louder, bigger, faster, but for the most part being too lazy to bother.

The high ideals... I dunno, it seems like it's the people with the low ideals that have a major detrimental effect on any society.

 

so essentially youre asking if it is detrimental to offer people personal autonomy and if yes should we still offer it simply because it seems logical?


its a question for the ages my friend...