Razib at Gene Expression has a nuanced and well supported argument about the proportion of religion-supporters versus the proportion of religiosity in various European and Asian cultures. I strongly recommend it.
One of his claims is that the "default" state of humans is a kind of religiosity; I think I agree with him. Humans have all kinds of default "wild type" programs in their psyche and cognition which in a high density population will tend to fall out as religion. Does this mean that atheism is doomed? Or that secularism (which is a different thing) is doomed? I think there will be more atheists than before simply because any increase over nearly none is an increase in absolute terms, but I doubt we will ever see Lennon's society without religion.
But secularism - social organisations in which religion does not have undue privileges in setting the policy and law - is, I think, something that not only should be expanded, but can be.
- Log in to post comments
Imagine... You were right! Would be nice I guess.
The Baldwin Effect could perhaps rid us of religion in the long run, if it does have some form of natural basis. But of course, in the long run we're all dead, and I doubt that civilisation will last long enough for such a change to occur.
I'm not in disagreement about expanding secularism, I am unsure about the meaning of "...undue privilige..." relating to religion.
I'm sure that most everyone disagrees about what undue means in this context (probably ranges from 0% involvement and/or consideration to 100% acceptance), but wouldn't its priviliges simply depend on how elected officials feel about it in relation to an issue?
I also find it difficult to imagine how you could legislate away religious input without infringing personal liberties or the idea that each vote is of equal worth (I do know that in practice votes aren't of equal worth but that comes about because of constituancy boundaries and that peronal liberties aren't absolutes).
"Due privilege" is proportional to the representation, limited by the fact that the majority can't impose its will on minorities. So if a Catholic movement strives to infringe on abortion rights, that is undue privilege. But if it seeks to contribute to public debate and has no more influence than its proportional size, I call that due influence.
I don't want to legislate away religious input. But I don't want to lose my own input because religion has a louder voice.
Thank you, that makes sense to me.
Recently I have heard that rise and fall of thoughts of an insane person, is extremely rapid and that itself is the cause for the insanity. Comments please
You have the wrong site for that question.