World events

You imply that secularism and the wish to live in a secular society belongs only to the educated elite, is merely a personal affair, and that reason, marching ever forward despite the difficult road ahead, will never get a foothold over un-reason? I pay you the credit in assuming that's not what you really meant.

I do not believe in any kind of telos in history. I think that is a heritage of Christianity passed on by Hegel and Marx.
I also do believe that it is not in nature of man to lead a live guided predominately by reason. History gives no clue to the contrary.
There is advancement in science and technology. But that science and technology will prove to be the ultimate redeemer of humankind, that I don't believe.

How many percent of humankind do you think really have internalised the theory of evolution? More than 100 years have passed since Darwin and religious fanaticism is a greater global threat than ever. But I grand you, should humankind manage to survive the 21st century, there might be hope after all.
Till then I'll side with Epikuros and Nietzsche. And now be kind, romantic melancholy is forever the trademark of my nation, Gothic "apocalypsism" is part of that.

I certainly hope you are right.

I actually agree with Volker here. No matter what the advancement is, the internalisation doesn't happen that much. Religious fanatics can perfectly use social media and all that stuff that gives them momentum, without actually having to consider what advanced technology is behind these social media. They may even reject the theory behind the practical tools they use so well. This hypocrisy, as it should be called, could be I think explained as one of ways of coping with cognitive dissonance.... or is just pure stupidity and lack of awareness (though quite thought-out stupidity, mind you).

Reason doesn't always prevail. Consider a point made soon after World War II (by "soon" I mean 10-15 years, though some of the arguments came up later). A point often entertained by generally-seen humanities (from sociology to philosophy, though they're intertwined in this case.... even theology) is that the Holocaust was a direct descendant of the Enlightement.

It would be easy to reject, if it was only John Paul II who made this point. But take a step back. Sociologists who co-created that theory are actually very left-wing (Max Horkheimer, T. W. Adorno, Zygmunt Bauman), to the point of being actually proper Marxists. From a psychological point, this was also an interpretation of Carl Gustav Jung. I remember when somebody here (you, Steven, I think) ridiculed a Christian girl when she refuted a point by an atheist by saying "you're too rational". That's kinda the point Jung is making when lamenting (like many symbol theorists after him!) the loss of religious symbolism also as a direct influence on what happened in World War II. I have to say, that it might have been not so radical and not as strong as the overtly theological concept proposed by John Paul II in his final work, but the seeds are there.

Science is hard to internalise. I think the problem is that what you say, Steven, is a bit missing Volker's point in the discussion, as scientific discovery rarely leads to quite moral choices. What moral lesson comes out of Darwin's theory? Or, in fact heliocentric theory? You'd ask what it has to do with morality. Considering the backlash Copernicus (himself a religious man!) got, you should see that it had a lot. Sure, theology is not a real science. But the geocentric system had a moral interpretation. It's not just that we were self-centered in terms of seeing everything by direct observation. There was more to it. The Earth wasn't just the center of the universe, which you could see as a reason of pride. It was the lowest point of the universe, the sublunar world, as they would put it in the Middle Ages, which was the morally repugnant part of it (so Heaven is way above and so on). That's quite possible to internalise. Making Sun the center, made Earth equal with other planets, which also means that the moral point was basically missing from the cosmology. Any importance? Sure, yes.

Creationism? We're the children of God, so we better behave accordingly. Evolution? What's the moral lesson from that? Should there be any? That's not the point of science, you would say. I'd agree, obviously, I'd agree. Science should be morally neutral, unless, considering philosophy as a legitimate academic field that it is, we are researching ethics. But the internalisation, the point Volker makes is valid. You usually don't "take discovery in" (maybe you personally do or other scientists, but the regular Joe doesn't need to know quantum physics to be able to use his cell phones). That's why un-reason (the irrational bits, even metaphysics, religion or spirituality) has to find a common ground with reason. We will never be perfectly rational beings.

To make my point a bit more nuanced. I'm not ever saying that science is immoral. It's amoral in it's etymological sense, that is it is not moral, as in not concerned with morality at all.

Interesting thoughts? I beg to differ.
I have many issues with many of the items you state above, Pawel (mostly the Holocaust being a direct descendant of the Enlightenment...which is a point often stated by those unable to understand the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy, and frankly is simply ridiculous as in EVERY case you state the underlying thinking was "man dominates nature, therefore man will dominate man". That's it. You will remember the point was also made against the French Revolution (or better La Terreur) and the USSR. But interestingly never by the same usual suspects against advances in medicine or the giant steps we make in solving the world food problem).

Anyway, the whole thing is really VERY simply summarised:your main contention is that without religion there are no morals in society because science itself is amoral.

That, Pawel, is horribly incorrect.

Morals are not derived from science (and, as you quite rightly state, they SHOULDN'T be.
But why on earth should religion have a part in this?
Morality can be derived from any number of sources, but most importantly they come from social interaction, our 'Contrat Social'(which we enter into when we live in groups), and the law (the latter of which could very well be argued to be scientific, but that's not the point now).

The wonderful thing about this -in wry contrast to religion- is that the morals derived from these sources are flexible.
They change with new insights, new thoughts, new ideas and feelings (which is VERY in line with the ideals in the Enlightenment). Homosexuality, once punishable by death, is now acceptable through large parts of the world. Women voting, once a ridiculous notion, is considered nothing but normal. And so on.

We CAN be perfectly rational beings.
We MUST be perfectly rational beings to survive. To understand and work in our environment and our universe.
That doesn't negate our emotions (at all!), but these should be governed and judged by reason in societal confines (simplistic example: an act in anger should be answered in law. Not by another act of anger.)
But that is utterly separate and apart from your point about morality.

I know, I know.
Just wanted to get my foot in the door.

Here's what rationality sounds like on a piano.

A bad example perhaps. Pawel's point, I think, is that we should accommodate irrationality simply because we're (partly) irrational. White lies might serve a beneficial purpose, and in fact you could argue that it's rational to tell a white lie -- but irrationality as far as I can tell doesn't serve any purpose other than pandering to false beliefs. Embracing irrationality is, I would say, a different matter. A matter of recognising it and acting accordingly where possible. (Love can and often does lead one to act irrationally, but that doesn't mean love is irrational.)

I think 'embrace' is fine, because irrationality is such an important part of our humanity. So many good things come from it in art and culture. It has a negative side too, of course, but so does rationality (a 'rule rider' would be a good example). A reason person knows how to balance the two, but also being able to "let himself go" to irrationality once in a while.

But, erm, yes... US politics. That shit is whack, yo.

But that is a theoretical absolute. An extrapolation with more grounds in dystopic science fiction than any kind of reality (aside from the fact that no one argues for a passionless, emotionless society or government. If that were even humanly possible (which it is not)).

Sadly states governed by purposed religion are and have been a reality throghout history.
And almost without fail an absolute horror.

Hm. Interesting point. (And I mean really interesting.) I'm afraid I don't know nearly enough about Scandinavian countries. I'd like to ask Thor to comment on this. Thor?

Well...
First of all I seek a well founded system of ethics. I don't favour pragmatic ethics.
In order to establish a system of ethics I find it necessary to make a categorical distinction between human beings and everything else that is living. You will need a concept of human dignity so that you can determine a basic set of human rights.
So what is the source of human dignity? Is it self-awareness as Singer seems to say? I don't think so because I reject the consequences of that concept. Is it his being born in the likeness of God? I don't think so either. I believe (as Kant does), it is the gift of reason and the ability of moral judgement.
So what is the source of that ability? And in a world of competing concepts of morality, how do we know, what path to follow? Kant says there is an internal law that can be determined by reason and that gives us guidance. He ultimately links it back to God. Scholars debate the necessity of this. I believe that we indeed have an inherit knowledge, a moral sense, we instinctively know beyond cultural borders, what's right or wrong.
I do believe that we need the idea of a uplink that connects us to what is Divine, the absolute, the ultimate truth of Being. I'm speaking of the Divine in the most abstract sense. I don't support any kind of projection. I don't think there is a "Universal Other" that confronts me. But there is something.
I don't think of metaphysics as a mystical netherworld. The Divine is a theoretical point, that I focus my thinking on, a point, almost in the mathematical sense. There is no Divine Person, no act of creation, no telos.
Yet I do find it amazing, that this universe includes the possibility (not the goal) of self aware and moral life. In a way, through us the universe gets aware of itself. (Hegel). Maybe awareness is inherit in the fabrics of the universe on a much more fundamental level than we think. (John Wheeler) I have a tendency towards pantheism as many people in the early age of enlightenment had, before theism took over.
I'll now have a beer.

But it isn't. It's a social construct.

But it isn't. Morality has no added value for (personal) survival.

Maybe. But MUCH more likely is that it's an outcome of the antagonistic confrontation of the self and the uncontrollable and not immediately-explainable (early man witnessing an earthquake. Or even a thunderstorm).

I do not follow your logic. Why?

...like every other totalitarian regime ever since the inception of the concept of state. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I think you may have misunderstood Kracauer there: he argued for realism as the truth, because aesthetics could be abused for, let's say, "propaganda purposes" (by necessity I am takinga massive shortcut here. His point was more convoluted.Nevertheless that is pretty much the long and short of it). I utterly disagree with him, by the way, if only because the whole concept of "evil aesthetics" is WAY too close to that of "entartete Kunst" for me for comfort, but in the context of this discussion the point seems to have no bearing?

But it isn't. And they won't.
I refer to my earlier post: your references seem more borne out of dystopian scifi than anything else!

HERE we find common ground. The search for truth should never be abandoned. It is what will set us free, in the end. (Whatever that end may be).