This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think I agree that religion can offer group selection benefits to a society and that this likely has been relevant in history.
Some of it also may have just been by chance as well, humans like a good story and maybe some of these religions are just very successful memes that do a good job at lighting up our neurons in a way that reproduces itself well. We should be careful to not fully confuse evolutionary fitness on the memetic landscape with fitness on the landscape of intergroup competition.
But it’s definitely true that it’s a useful lens. How else do we explain for example that once a man came out of a cave with a prophetic vision, and within one generation a group of desert nomads have conquered half of the known world, and that the territory they originally conquered still maintains their religion and often too their language some 1500 years later. That was a highly successful cultural meme which was the main driver leading a backwater ethnic group to huge social and linguistic power.
But if we accept this conclusion then we can also argue that secular societies are incredibly evolutionarily fit in the landscape of the modern world. And I believe this to be true. The intergroup competitive landscape is not what it was in the pre-modern world. If a modern secular country were to become deeply religious, there may be consequences in the level of their decision making which puts them at a disadvantage relative to other countries. Even if you have trouble accepting that conclusion, if we’re working from the thesis that a societies’ worldview determines evolutionary outcomes at the scale of the group, were confronted with the fact that it’s the secular countries which lead the world and that “your society having one religion they all believe” is currently inversely correlated with measures of human development, as well as with geopolitical power.
If we’re using an evolutionary lens to explain these things (which I think is quite useful and a fun way to look at history), we might also acknowledge that sometimes the evolutionary landscape itself shifts and favors certain adaptations over others. I’m waiting for any non-diverse mono-religious society to rise to global prominence to prove this thesis wrong, but I have trouble even imagining such a thing occurring in the modern world. I just don’t think it’s one of the favored adaptations for our current landscape.
I wouldn't get so ahead of ourselves. Societies have only been secular for the last 60 years or so - depending on how you define it, was 1950s American society (not just government) truly 'secular'? - while religious societies have been around since, well, since the dawn of history. The contemporary secular society is really a flash in the pan compared to the entirely of human history. Yes, I know that you could make some argument that the speed of history is accelerating or whatever, but it's still important to consider that the secular society is still in relative infancy. Any negative consequences of mass but societal changes will usually have some lag time. Maybe the broad decline we're seeing across the West is in part a consequence of the secularisation of society.
In addition to this, it also may be the case that widespread secularism in the first place is a consequence of the removal of environmental/selection pressures. In evolution, there's an idea that once selection pressures are removed, this no longer creates pressure that maintains the traits that were previously adaptive, leading to decay of traits down to the level that selection is operating. Most mutations degrade functioning instead of promoting it, and without selection pressures to weed out these destructive mutations they can accumulate and cause phenotypic loss.
Perhaps there has been a version of this occurring on the social level in that the technological advances in the West have led to relaxed selection pressure on these societies and their norms. It's an idea I've been playing with for a while that abundance and lack of competition has allowed for the fostering of historically unique social practices which can emerge only under a condition of relaxed selection. In other words, only the societies that don't have much to worry about and possess such a decisive advantage that few others can realistically compete with them can actually sustain a secular society (and not without creating problems of internal strife in the process).
This reconciles pretty well with the following observations that 1: secularism is a very recent and localised phenomenon whereas religion was absolutely ubiquitous for the vast majority of human history (and the more organised, moralising religions developed independently many times), 2: evidence exists to suggest that religion has pro-social effects, 3: the key scientific and technological advances that catapulted Western societies into being a world power were made long before they were secular, and 4: the adoption of secularism seems to correlate with the "broad decline" you've mentioned.
Could I have a definition of religion here? I think I could agree with some and disagree with others.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Secular liberal states are relatively young and for most of their history held strong religious assumptions. Truly irreligious societies are especially young and are already facing evolutionary challenges (more religious people have more kids).
I hope you're right but I'm not gonna raise the banner of victory yet. As long-lived as Islam, secularism and liberalism are not.
This would imply that strongly religious modern countries are irrational (or rather: more irrational than secular states), which is debatable.
Also: secular societies also make bad decisions due to being bad at understanding religious societies - which are still the majority. American social engineering difficulties in Afghanistan come to mind (one minor example was a well-meaning American putting an ecumenical selection of religious verses on a football...that devout Muslims were then expected to kick*).
Or hell, they can make bad (or at least costly) decisions due to their own ideological concerns.
Even if I were to grant that secularism (and liberalism) was a good solution to the internal problems facing religiously divided European states, I do wonder if it is a good idea for more homogeneous states to abandon their cultural core, for a variety of reasons. If a nation is already strongly religious, how much does it gain?
* Keep in mind: devout Muslims will not even hold the Qur'an without performing ritual cleansing first.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link