The Enlightenment promise to eradicate religion with knowledge is widely misunderstood. People think it means that there are specific true propositions that falsify religion once learned. But, that is a different claim, namely the eradication of religion with truth. The Enlightenment promised no such thing.
Instead, the Enlightenment promise is actually a promise to brainwash us: washing out our belief in religious claims by overloading our minds with different mental constructs, instead of by using truth. People don’t realize this because they subconsciously substitute “truth” for “knowledge” when they think about the Enlightenment. (FYI, David Stove has shown how this bait and switch technique is rife throughout modern philosophy, with such philosophers as Popper and his disciples, Berkeley and the idealists, and Darwinists. See Against the Idols of the Age for more information.)
This also means that we cannot converse with religious extremists. They are extremists because they think their religious beliefs are true. We are not because we think religion and truth are two different categories. Religious beliefs are related to infinite values, whereas our rejection of the possibility of religious truth means all our values are finite. People are motivated in proportion to their value system. Therefore, it is impossible for us to have the same drive as religious extremists.
Since victory ultimately comes down to willpower, our choice is either to eradicate all religious extremists, or submit to them. In the globalized world, the former is impossible. Therefore, religious extremists will win in the end.
In the globalized world, the former is impossible.
A… let’s say, close friend of mine, has extremists among her immediate family. They are poor, because any accumulated surplus is flushed down the religion-hole, and live in filth because they sincerely believe that the cockroaches will kneel and obey, or stop existing, if only their delusions could be sufficiently purified. They have produced several offspring, but no loyal heirs, no descendants.
Look at these people, and then tell me with a straight face that they’ll rule the world someday.
The question, if you ask me, is not how to deal with that demographic, or the demagogues who exploit them, but how to prevent some spilled coffee from staining the countertop. Metaphorically speaking.
Religion is rapidly on the rise around the world. See Algeria and France for an example of what happens to a secularized society when resisting religious extremists.
So, if an extremist is both stronger and reproduces better than a non-extremist, I’m pretty sure the extremist will win.
Hmmm. My impression is that religion is on the rise in some places, and declining in other places. And that a generation from now, it is likely that religion will be in decline where it is rising now, and on the rise where it now declines.
See Algeria and France for an example of what happens to a secularized society when resisting religious extremists.
Two excellent examples supporting my fluctuation viewpoint. Two hundred twenty years ago in France, the ‘extremists’ were the secularists. Algeria’s first post-revolutionary government was ultra-secularist, a la Ataturk. Of course that led to a religious reaction.
So, if an extremist is both stronger and reproduces better than a non-extremist, I’m pretty sure the extremist will win.
Raw reproduction rate is relatively unimportant in cultural evolution. You need to not only reproduce, but reproduce “in kind”. Rapidly reproducing subcultures tend to have high attrition rates. Orthodox Jews tend to become secular rather than the reverse. Amish children leave the farm and the faith. It is starting to happen to the Hutterites too. And it is definitely happening to Muslim immigrant populations in Europe.
In fact, the universality of this phenomenon is almost spooky. Maybe it is a side-effect of large family sizes. Kids can’t wait to grow up and try out something totally different. By a simple evolutionary psychology argument, we might expect this to be a universal human characteristic.
PS. I realize this comment is long on assertion, but short on documentation. But then, so was yours. If we continue the conversation, we should both try to do better. :)
(blink) Religion is a more powerful force in today’s world than, say, five hundred years ago? Secularism has lost ground relative to then? Really?
That’s a surprising claim; I’d like to see it backed up with an argument.
Conversely, if you aren’t claiming that, I’d recommend thinking about why it isn’t true, as it suggests that theorizing that religion will always win out over secularism is missing something critical.
The Enlightenment promise to eradicate religion with knowledge is widely misunderstood. People think it means that there are specific true propositions that falsify religion once learned. But, that is a different claim, namely the eradication of religion with truth. The Enlightenment promised no such thing.
Instead, the Enlightenment promise is actually a promise to brainwash us: washing out our belief in religious claims by overloading our minds with different mental constructs, instead of by using truth. People don’t realize this because they subconsciously substitute “truth” for “knowledge” when they think about the Enlightenment. (FYI, David Stove has shown how this bait and switch technique is rife throughout modern philosophy, with such philosophers as Popper and his disciples, Berkeley and the idealists, and Darwinists. See Against the Idols of the Age for more information.)
This also means that we cannot converse with religious extremists. They are extremists because they think their religious beliefs are true. We are not because we think religion and truth are two different categories. Religious beliefs are related to infinite values, whereas our rejection of the possibility of religious truth means all our values are finite. People are motivated in proportion to their value system. Therefore, it is impossible for us to have the same drive as religious extremists.
Since victory ultimately comes down to willpower, our choice is either to eradicate all religious extremists, or submit to them. In the globalized world, the former is impossible. Therefore, religious extremists will win in the end.
A… let’s say, close friend of mine, has extremists among her immediate family. They are poor, because any accumulated surplus is flushed down the religion-hole, and live in filth because they sincerely believe that the cockroaches will kneel and obey, or stop existing, if only their delusions could be sufficiently purified. They have produced several offspring, but no loyal heirs, no descendants.
Look at these people, and then tell me with a straight face that they’ll rule the world someday.
The question, if you ask me, is not how to deal with that demographic, or the demagogues who exploit them, but how to prevent some spilled coffee from staining the countertop. Metaphorically speaking.
Religion is rapidly on the rise around the world. See Algeria and France for an example of what happens to a secularized society when resisting religious extremists.
So, if an extremist is both stronger and reproduces better than a non-extremist, I’m pretty sure the extremist will win.
Hmmm. My impression is that religion is on the rise in some places, and declining in other places. And that a generation from now, it is likely that religion will be in decline where it is rising now, and on the rise where it now declines.
Two excellent examples supporting my fluctuation viewpoint. Two hundred twenty years ago in France, the ‘extremists’ were the secularists. Algeria’s first post-revolutionary government was ultra-secularist, a la Ataturk. Of course that led to a religious reaction.
Raw reproduction rate is relatively unimportant in cultural evolution. You need to not only reproduce, but reproduce “in kind”. Rapidly reproducing subcultures tend to have high attrition rates. Orthodox Jews tend to become secular rather than the reverse. Amish children leave the farm and the faith. It is starting to happen to the Hutterites too. And it is definitely happening to Muslim immigrant populations in Europe.
In fact, the universality of this phenomenon is almost spooky. Maybe it is a side-effect of large family sizes. Kids can’t wait to grow up and try out something totally different. By a simple evolutionary psychology argument, we might expect this to be a universal human characteristic.
PS. I realize this comment is long on assertion, but short on documentation. But then, so was yours. If we continue the conversation, we should both try to do better. :)
(blink) Religion is a more powerful force in today’s world than, say, five hundred years ago? Secularism has lost ground relative to then? Really?
That’s a surprising claim; I’d like to see it backed up with an argument.
Conversely, if you aren’t claiming that, I’d recommend thinking about why it isn’t true, as it suggests that theorizing that religion will always win out over secularism is missing something critical.
Reproduces better, sure, but stronger in what sense?