The steep climb of knowledge, the arduous and lonely journey

aww, sorry babe <3

Jesus...

There is a large class element to Burke's complaint. At the time, (250 years ago) the British Empire was in it's second century of colonizing North America. The colonies had been assigned to wealthy English investors (the people sending their sons to university to be corrupted) who set about populating what they viewed as "wasteland" with people who they viewed as next to worthless--the British poor.

The wretched refuse of Britain's (and others') teeming shores" weren't University-educated-philosopher-corrupted-atheists. If they weren't believers, they were pretty much solely responsible for their fallen state. Throughout the 16th and 17th century and beyond, the ruling classes had been ranting about the presumed evils of the poorest people: wicked, lustful, lazy, slovenly, disobedient, uncooperative, stupid, and so on. Once here, they turned out to at least be uncooperative. They weren't unbelievers, for the most part. They partook of such spiritual resources as were available to them -- whether that was Calvinism, Methodism, Shakerism, or Mormonism.

If there are more corrupted and immoral people now than in the past, I don't think we can blame that on the academy.

More likely, the collapse of the old time religion and the supposedly upright and moral masses of the past was/is due to paradigm shattering events like WWI and WWII, the Great Depression, The Pill, prosperity, mass media, etc. The watershed decade in American church attendance was 1960-1970. You probably are familiar with the stats, but it is difficult to grasp just how extensive the exodus was. Many millions of people left their churches, never to return.

Whether there are more corrupted and immoral people now than in the past seems doubtful to me. What is counted as immoral has changed (and I know you use a fairly severe standard to judge immorality and virtue) and I find that few people have thrown all virtue into the toilet. People have certainly not become less annoying, less stupid, and stuff like that.

Students might not be saints, but they show up and study for tests.

Only that now they have overtaken the Academia — Agustino

Check out this chart:


What should immediately come to critical thinkers is the question, "does correlation imply causation"? Are atheists deliberately taking over "academia", getting jobs as professors while preventing religious people from getting in? Or maybe there is a stronger correlation between non-religious types and the wealth and intelligence required to get into school, get the higher degree and take up teaching as an occupation.

There have been many debates over whether the apparent correlation between atheism and intelligence was due to "higher intelligence leads to atheism", or "atheism leads to higher intelligence", or "those environmental constraints that lead to atheism also lead to better education ... and respect for intellectual, scientific and academic pursuits".

I've found that a significant number of my professors were religious, and even got into philosophy because it fit in with their general interest in religious traditions and reasoning. I remember I had a class which was studying the role and contribution of African Americans, (easy elective class), who kept inviting the class to her Pentecostal church. I found it interesting the contrast with the subject we were studying and the history of how Christians, up until recently, defended slavery and segregation. I figure it wasn't wise to kill the messenger for the content of the message, but wondered how people reconcile such extremes of the same ideology. Also, I've found that the students in universities tend to think fairly independently from professors and parents. If a kid goes to college and becomes and atheist, do you think it is because of the morality of their professors, their friends or the fault of their parents -- or is it just the natural tendency for youth to reject and reinvent themselves, at least until they become parents too.

I saw some sociological/psychological studies, (but you can't trust them -- look at the chart), which say that extreme religious piety is often used as a cover or counter-balance for immorality, and nonreligious people need to counter-balance their social role with an exaggerated moral stance. It is a huge thread on its own -- but you should be able to apply this model to societies around the world. Societies or countries which are the least religious should be the most moral, and the least religious the least moral, but this doesn't seem to work out that way:



If that were true, then you want to live in safety and morality, you should move to Africa or some countries in the Middle East, and steer clear of Western Europe. My guess is that the correlation is more complicated, and probably a side-effect of the influence about how a society associates morality with religion.

There is a large class element to Burke's complaint — Bitter Crank

Right. Burke opposed slavery, Burke opposed colonial barbarity and injustice, Burke opposed the imposition of Christianity over other peoples, and desired their culture and religions to be respected. He also opposed the indoctrination of the masses by "philosophes" in France, and sought to combat vice and immorality of any kind everywhere he could. Immorality originates from the ruling class and the intellectuals, not from the poor - the poor just follow.

More likely, the collapse of the old time religion and the supposedly upright and moral masses — Bitter Crank

This occurred in continental Europe prior to the world wars. The French Revolution already saw much of this.

Whether there are more corrupted and immoral people now than in the past seems doubtful to me. — Bitter Crank

The immorality from continental Europe has definitely spread to the Anglophone world.

What should immediately come to critical thinkers is the question, "does correlation imply causation"? — swstephe

Probably not. What it reflects rather is the cultural decadence of certain geographical regions. The US is much higher than Western Europe still - why? - because they were largely unaffected by the corrupt Academia until after WWII, when many many Marxist professors, and other radicals fled from Europe to the US, and took positions there. Whereas Western Europe is so low, because since the French Revolution intellectuals have continuously thrown stones at tradition and promoted disobedience. Not to mention the corrupting influence of communism. Also notice that if we look at just Europe, we see a very weak negative correlation between wealth and religiosity. Religiosity in fact seems to sit around the same value, regardless of wealth. Switch to other continents, and again the same feature appears. Cultural degradation is a phenomenon of people's mentality and consciousness, which is necessarily geographical and has little to do with wealth or intelligence for that matter.

There have been many debates over whether the apparent correlation between atheism and intelligence was due to "higher intelligence leads to atheism", or "atheism leads to higher intelligence", or "those environmental constraints that lead to atheism also lead to better education ... and respect for intellectual, scientific and academic pursuits". — swstephe

Rather it is because the culture is dominated by secular progressives (90% of social sciences are dominated by secular progressives), and don't forget that morality doesn't have to do so much with intelligence as it does with an innate moral sense. So people may very well be very intelligent while lacking a strong moral sense. This will be worsened by the fact that the surrounding society does not encourage them to develop it.

Students might not be saints, but they show up and study for tests. — Hoo

Sure but that's nothing compared to what they did in the past. Ludwig Wittgenstein built his own flying plane as a mechanical engineer in University. Let me see a student today do that... not in a million years. Because education isn't rigorous enough. If it was properly rigorous, there would just be no time for partying, getting drunk, etc. It would just be impossible. Taking tests is a joke. Tests are artificial. You can't do anything of value out there in the world by taking tests. What they should do is actually and properly train you for example to be a doctor. Someone who goes to medical school should stay there long enough that once they have that diploma, they can go from door to door treating people. What happens now is that he gets that diploma very fast, and then is a servant in a bureaucratic system for many many years, until he can finally go knocking on people's doors to treat them. It's not rigorous enough.

I'm not a humanist or a liberal or a secularist, so I have little sympathy for the current signs of good breeding in the world of thought. In my wetter moments I tend to think in terms of a mysterian hard polytheism. But it is hard to have sympathy for monarchy and snake oil as if that were the only alternative. Disillusionment is preferable to panic here.

But it is hard to have sympathy for monarchy and snake oil as if that were the only alternative. Disillusionment is preferable to panic here. — The Great Whatever

It's not. There's totalitarianism on one side (think ISIS or North Korea), secular progressivism (decadence) on the other, and conservatism in the middle. Your position, the mysterian hard polytheism - that's alright for an individual, but not for society. Society needs law and order in order to allow people the freedom to, for example, follow mysterian hard polytheism without disturbing public order, and harming the lives of others.

You speak about Hellas Reborn - well if you want Hellas Reborn then you have to accept the culture which made Hellas possible in the first place. It was possible to have different schools of philosophy competing with each other in the market place only because there was respect for traditions, respect for morality, and respect for order. Now there is no respect for any of these, and your Hellas remains but a dream, never to materialise, without the conditions which made it possible.

I'm not sure what society needs, and I haven't given it too much thought because I don't think it's my problem, but whatever you mean by conservatism, I imagine it's historically tied to coercive hierarchy, ecclesiasticism, war, and taxation. I doubt those things are much good for anyone. What is better, I don't know – my best guess is, first family, and second, culture, not subculture or counterculture, which is about all we have right now, but real culture, which includes traditions inculcating beauty, splendor, taste, thought and pride. These are not things that warlords and kings and churches produce, or anything else I imagine Burke has on offer. All I am saying is that disapproval of the current state of things shouldn't lead to a hysterical panic looking for anything reactionary to oppose it.

whatever you mean by conservatism, I imagine it's historically tied to coercive hierarchy, ecclesiasticism, war, and taxation. I doubt those things are much good for anyone. What is better, I don't know – my best guess is, first family, and second, culture, not subculture or counterculture, which is about all we have right now, but real culture, which includes traditions inculcating beauty, splendor, taste, thought and pride. These are not things that warlords and kings and churches produce, or anything else I imagine Burke has on offer. — The Great Whatever

Conservatism is tied to social order, which does require hierarchy, but not an immutable hierarchy. It is tied to promotion of culture and tradition - natural morality - not a specific religion, but rather all religions (Burke approved for example of Islam, Hinduism, and other non-Christian religions, and was fine to see them present in society). It has nothing to do with war or taxation for that matter (I see nothing wrong with a left-wing conservative for example). I think Burke's vision would be much in line with what you describe overall, apart from pride, where Burke would want humility, which really means knowledge of the limitations of oneself and not narrative transformation of those into virtues, as they do today. We see many actors especially treat their sexual lust as a virtue - they tell stories about in in their biographies, and wear it on their foreheads with pride. Under a conservative society all religions would flourish, but there will be humility and respect of others, and mutual companionship around shared values - the natural morality of which I talked of.

Alright. I just wonder about what's hiding in the 'social order,' and why sexual appetite is supposedly such a problem.

Social order means respect for spirituality and religion (not one particular religion but any), promotion of community based life and care for others, respect for teachers (whether they are priests or philosophers), promotion of interest in and respect of natural morality, general family stability, respect and promotion of beauty, community and environment.

Sexual appetite in itself is not a problem. What is a problem is the moment when unrestrained sexual appetite harms other people (from a social point of view) or when it harms yourself. For example - unrestrained sexual appetite in a married couple will lead to jealousy, anger and hatred - a terrible set of emotions. These emotions lead inevitably to instability, in this case of the family unit, not to mention the harm done to the persons involved, including very likely the children. Why? Because people naturally want to feel special to their loved one, and this threatens that. If people are to be interested in beauty, then one of the most beautiful things they will be interested in is love - but if they live in a society which promotes unrestrained sexual appetite, their families will never be stable, nor will the partners be devoted to caring for and respecting each other. Today 40% of children are born out of wedlock, 50% of marriages include infidelity, divorce rate is greater than 50% (and by the way, 50 years ago, these numbers were 5%, 10%, and 15%). These are very important problems we face, and no one is talking about them. A large share of our economic problems - for example, the poverty faced by black communities - is the result of the fact that among the blacks for example 70% of children are born out of wedlock. So we create the problems through our decadence, and then try to fix them through our economy. This is insane - we have to go to the root. How can we have families when people do not show loyalty, trust, care, and love one for the other?

Sex in non-comitted relationships, while not as big a problem as what is mentioned above, still remains an issue for the following reasons: (1) it is unlikely that the participants can experience a pleasure greater than that achievable by masturbation as there is no love involved, or intimacy from which such pleasure could originate, (2) it encourages a habit of using others as a means to obtain a selfish end, therefore it is contrary to morality and care, (3) it creates future problems in committed relationships as people again want to feel special, and having had many sexual partners before diminishes from this feeling, (4) having a habit of looking at others as a means to achieve your selfish ends will prevent you from entering into a loving relationship and looking at a person in a different way, (5) it encourages slavery towards external sources for controlling personal feelings, (6) it keeps one subject to one's own sexual desire, as opposed to its master.

Committed relationships also have their dangers. One should not become dependent on the beloved for example, not being able to live in equanimity without them (which is one of the things that Lucretius and Aristippus warned about). Nor should one depend on sex in order to make their relationship work. All this requires mastery over one's sexuality, and thus involves all other stages mentioned before.

There's totalitarianism on one side (think ISIS or North Korea), secular progressivism (decadence) on the other, and conservatism in the middle. — Agustino

Your sort of conservatism (reactionary) is not in the middle. It is starkly to the right of the centre.

My sort of conservatism isn't reactionary - nowhere near close to people like Julius Evola, Nick Land, or even Benito Mussollini, all of whom have accepted the label of "reactionary". The difference between my conservatism and theirs is that mine is based on the rule of law and morality, and practical concerns for traditions and religion - theirs is based on authoritarianism - which means doing whatever the authority requests regardless of how it fits with tradition or morality. I don't believe in that.

I believe in principles, education and order. Not in despotism of those who have power. Contrary to the political movements of which you are most familiar with (New Left, Marxism, Neo-Conservatism, Reactionaries, Alt-Right) my concern is with order and goodness, and NOT with power. Those on the left are obsessed by power - how can women get more power, how can gays get more power, etc. I don't care about power. Those on the right are also obsessed about power - how can the aristocracy maintain its power, how can dominance be maintained over society, etc. I'm not concerned with any of that. I'm concerned with what is good for society, and what is good for man - because as Plato put it, society is just man writ large.

My sort of conservatism isn't reactionary - nowhere near close to people like Julius Evola, Nick Land, or even Benito Mussollini, all of whom have accepted the label of "reactionary". The difference between my conservatism and theirs is that mine is based on the rule of law and morality, and practical concerns for traditions and religion - theirs is based on authoritarianism - which means doing whatever the authority requests regardless of how it fits with tradition or morality. — Agustino

Are you being serious? Comparing your sort of conservatism to more extreme sorts doesn't make your sort any less reactionary.

You do realise that in this very discussion, you're harking back to Burke's views of 250 years ago in which he is harking back even further into the past?

Your views are reactionary whether you care to admit it or not. You fit the description. And given these aspects, your views are not reflective of the centre ground or popular opinion.

Perhaps you should join the Amish. Heck, maybe even TGW will go along with you. He can keep his extra gods under the mattress.

Joking aside, all I see here is a desire to make the world in your own image so you can feel more comfortable in it. Join the club. We'd all like the world to reflect our particular ideals. There's no morality in that. It's more the drive for preservation writ large.

To a secularist atheist like myself, for example, all this talk about sex just reflects your desire that others should have less of it. And it doesn't take much looking under the psychological blankets to hypothesize why that might be the case. So, in order to get anywhere with all this, you'd have to present a more convincing set of arguments - in particular to the satisfied sexually promiscuous modern male - as to why the pleasure he gets from his lifestyle is somehow bad for him and why he'd be better off under a repressive conservative order in which some form of religious ideology would be compulsory.

To those arguments you did present, you're likely to get responses along the following lines:

For example - unrestrained sexual appetite in a married couple will lead to jealousy, anger and hatred - a terrible set of emotions. — Agustino

Solution: Don't get married.

but if they live in a society which promotes unrestrained sexual appetite, their families will never be stable, nor will the partners be devoted to caring for and respecting each other. — Agustino

Solution: Don't have kids

Sex in non-comitted relationships, while not as big a problem as what is mentioned above, still remains an issue for the following reasons: (1) it is unlikely that the participants can experience a pleasure greater than that achievable by masturbation as there is no love involved, or intimacy from which such pleasure could originate — Agustino

This is obviously false. And probably every man reading this - other than you - knows that. If it weren't false, men would just masturbate. Why go to all the trouble of seducing women if equivalent pleasure can be achieved through DIY?

(2) it encourages a habit of using others as a means to obtain a selfish end, therefore it is contrary to morality and care, (3) it creates future problems in committed relationships as people again want to feel special, and having had many sexual partners before diminishes from this feeling, (4) having a habit of looking at others as a means to achieve your selfish ends will prevent you from entering into a loving relationship and looking at a person in a different way, — Agustino

There is some validity in all this, but romantic love presents its own problems too. Think of all the heartache, pain and even violence, love and love unrequited cause. It's not clear that we wouldn't be better off without it.

(5) it encourages slavery towards external sources for controlling personal feelings, (6) it keeps one subject to one's own sexual desire, as opposed to its master. — Agustino

The alternative, making one's sexuality a slave to ideological forces, hardly seems more palatable or psychologically healthy. Just ask a Catholic priest.

All of this is not to say I'm a great fan of modern life, or especially antithetical to alternatives, or unsympathetic to those who present them. But again, I see your alternative as so tied to your particular personality as to be utterly alien to those of us who don't share your worldview.

Are you being serious? Comparing your sort of conservatism to more extreme sorts doesn't make your sort any less reactionary. — Sapientia

There are a series of tenets that all those who have been classified as reactionaries adhere to, that I don't. I'm just informing you that it is intellectually dishonest to label me a reactionary. Among those tenets that a reactionary would agree with that I don't is authoritarianism - whether this is authoritarianism of corporations, or of the Church, or of anyone. I am not concerned with the power structure of society. There is a reason why in intellectual history conservatives like me and Burke are not labelled "reactionary", while someone like de Maistre, even in his life was labelled "reactionary".

Joking aside, all I see here is a desire to make the world in your own image so you can feel more comfortable in it. Join the club. We'd all like the world to reflect our particular ideals. There's no morality in that. It's more the drive for preservation writ large. — Baden

That is because, following Nietzsche, all that you see in morality is another tool to dominate others. To have power. You see in morality a power structure. Your consciousness is so focused on power structures and sees nothing beyond. I don't see morality as just a power structure, or as a way to remake the world. I see morality as something that I myself struggle to approach - I struggle to be a moral person, and I fail many times, but nevertheless I struggle towards it. Why? Because that's what is excellent in a person, that's the only way we can enjoy life and truly grow and thrive. And it's not something that will give me power over others - if what I wanted was power, then I could've picked a better tool, rather than pick what is probably the worst out of the entire available arsenal. I used to be a progressive long ago in my very young days - but I gave it up, and I gave up all the popularity and admiration that came with it because those things are not worth having. It's not worth selling your soul to gain the world, because if your soul is missing, then nothing else even matters.

To a secularist atheist like myself, for example, all this talk about sex just reflects your desire that others should have less of it. — Baden

No I clearly desire for them to have a lot of it, that's why I think it's a good. I am saddened that they sacrifice love and intimacy for the equivalent of masturbation though. They are missing a lot.

In particular, why the pleasure he gets from his lifestyle is somehow bad for him — Baden

I listed quite a few reasons I believe :) . it's up to each to read them and consider the matter honestly for themselves, and in consultation with what others have thought before them, including their traditions.

Solution: Don't get married. — Baden

Solution: Don't have kids — Baden

Marriage and kids are objective goods that people ought not to be deprived of in order to satisfy the selfishness of some.

This is just obviously false, and probably every man reading this know that. If it weren't false, men would just masturbate. Why go to all the trouble of seducing women if equivalent pleasure can be achieved through DIY? — Baden

For the simple reason that the real source of their pleasure is not physical orgasm, but the dark spiritual pleasure they get from having power and dominating and using another human being. That's why they do it. They get pleasure out of feeling powerful - I don't think this is moral or noble. If you think that's morality, then I can't do anything about it. And why do they choose this over the spiritual pleasure of love? Because love is difficult, and you only have Faith to hang onto. At any moment it can be gone. So they prefer to renounce it - renounce the ardous journey - and instead run towards the only escape they have from uncertainty - POWER.

There is some validity in all this, but romantic love presents its own problems too. Think of all the heartache, pain and even violence, love and love unrequited cause. It's not clear that we wouldn't be better off without it. — Baden

I agree. That's why I insist first on sexual mastery and then on love. One cannot love in the true sense unless he first masters these emotions. I've experienced this from both sides. When you are still a slave to your sexual desire, you feel so shattered and broken when your beloved leaves you - your whole world is destroyed and even you give up on yourself. But when you have mastered sexual desire - then when your beloved leaves, you cling by that narrow thread of Faith, and an unmovable centre is created, which keeps you anchored and content. Not happy - but not hopeless either. Capable to live without the beloved as well.

The alternative, making one's sexuality a slave to ideological forces hardly seems more palatable or psychologically healthy. Just ask a Catholic priest. — Baden

It depends which priest - most priests are good people, there are some who have indeed molested children and the like. But I don't lump all of them in one category, afterall I doubt you'd be for lumping all Muslims into the category of terrorists, just because of the existence of ISIS. Priests face the same problems as the rest of us. They too struggle against their sexuality - some of them start priesthood too early and are not yet ready for the journey. Some of them were never meant to be priests. And so forth.

But it is possible for men to be free of their sexual lust, if that's what you're asking for.

Thanks for expanding on this. I'm curious: Do you think it's at all possible to remain an atheist and achieve happiness, or do you think faith in some religion is necessary?

The word "reactionary" primarily denotes views critical of modernity and progressivism and favours a return to the status quo ante. It is also a word associated with a certain set of characteristics, some of which are characteristic of your own views.

But moving on, if you don't agree with authoritarianism, then why did you choose to target secular progressivism, and why did you contrast this with just conservatism (in which the term "secular" is noticeably absent)? The alternative to secularism is religious authoritarianism, where one or more religious group has the authority to meddle in state affairs.

Thanks for expanding on this. Curious. Do you think it's possible to remain an atheist and achieve happiness, or do you think faith in some religion is necessary? — Baden

Ok no worries. I think it depends on what is meant by atheist. See I claim to believe in God now. But for quite a long time I identified as an atheist, and still I advocated the same positions on sexuality, and other elements of life. Recently - let's say the past 2 years - I've spent a lot of time reading and studying the past - especially Ancient Greek culture, as well as Christian tradition. This changed the way I perceive the God issue. I'm not concerned with the question of existence. The question "Does God exist?" means nothing to me. First I see issue with what does it even mean for God to exist? We never quite clarify. Second of all, is belief in X, whatever that X is, just claiming that I believe in X? I don't think so. I think belief is acting as if that belief is true. Therefore does God exist is answered by "are you virtuous? or not?" - someone who is virtuous and lives with love in their heart, care for their fellow human beings, and strives for excellence - such a person is a devout believer in God, even if he calls himself an atheist because what it means to believe in God is precisely to be virtuous. This is most excellently illustrated by Socrates.

Second of all, I've grown to appreciate tradition (including religion), and its role in teaching morality and love to the common man. Sure it isn't anywhere near close to perfect - and it has been abused many times. But it's still, in my opinion, the only vehicle that can teach morality to the mass of people. And in the end - the purpose of life is to live the truth, not to know the truth, and so if everyone needs to go through a long journey to reach the truth, and read and study the philosophers, life is indeed very mean - most people will be old by the time they know the truth, where's the time to live it as well? I would have much rather preferred to be born and have lived as a peasant somewhere far from the world of learning, just with the simple things of life, a wife, a family, children, animals, community, and religion that would have kept all of us together and united.

To answer your question: yes I believe someone can call themselves an atheist and say God doesn't exist and still achieve happiness. I would just say they haven't understood what it means for God to exist :)

I would add Baden that ultimately it's as Kierkegaard states an aesthetic choice - belief in God. We all make the choice, not through words, but through our actions. In the face of the anxieties of life, you can choose virtue and morality - or you can choose power. You can escape by faith, or you can escape by power. And it's a choice precisely because there is no intellectual reason to choose virtue over power, or power over virtue - that's why in the end analysis it's an appeal to your moral imagination.

The word "reactionary" primarily denotes views critical of modernity and progressivism and favours a return to the status quo ante. — Sapientia

I didn't say I want to return to the pope being both king and spiritual leader though.

It is also a word associated with a certain set of characteristics, some of which are characteristic of your own views. — Sapientia

Yes - some of them are the same. Not all of them, and my views fit better with a traditional form of conservatism.

But moving on, if you don't agree with authoritarianism, then why did you choose to target secular progressivism, and why did you contrast this with just conservatism (in which the term "secularism" is noticeably absent)? — Sapientia

Because secular progressives use secularism as a way to destroy and attack tradition and morality, which I am defending.

The alternative to secularism is religious authoritarianism, where one or more religious group has the authority to meddle in state affairs. — Sapientia

Depends what you understand by secularism. I don't understand by secularism a disrespect of religion, a disrespect of tradition and a disrespect of morality. I think the secular state should work together with all major religions present in the country to form a community which is friendly to the believers, and not antagonistic. I think Muslim communities in the UK for example should be allowed to encourage their people to dress according to their traditions, and they should be protected from having those traditions mocked in schools, university, etc. (with the exception of violence, that should not be tolerated). Same applies to Christianity and the other religions present. What I see the secular progressive as understanding by secularism is what the French revolutionary understood - a way to change the power structure of society, destroy tradition and put in place of natural morality, a new invented morality. I think government leaders should be religious in the sense of valuing morality and tradition, and setting up examples to follow. For example a Christian Prime Minister, who talks about his faith and at the same time respects the right of Muslims AND ENCOURAGES them to have different religious traditions. All religions ultimately share the same core moral values - for ex. both Christianity and Islam and Buddhism say people should dress decently. From then on, each has different traditions regarding dressing. But each of those traditions respects that core element of decency. So I believe people should appreciate their traditions and honor their ancestors.

The focus should not be this savage attempt to convert anyone and everyone to your own religion. Much rather we need an umbrella under which all religions (including atheism) can thrive - because all religions share the same fundamental values, they merely have different traditions. This umbrella I believe is conservatism. Religious - but not partisan to one religion.

Alas, poor Burke. He could be perceptive, but his creepy infatuation with Marie Antoinette, so extravagantly expressed, makes him appear, ultimately, to be a ridiculous figure.

As for this bit, Aristophanes did this sort of thing much better, but Aristophanes had a sense of humor and it's unclear whether Burke did. This complaint has a long, long history. As a result, I think it's more tedious than insightful.

I didn't say I want to return to the pope being both king and spiritual leader though. — Agustino

I know, but you've said other things which fit that description. In this discussion, for example, you imply that you want to return to a time before atheism was as widespread and accepted amongst young minds as it is today, and since it has been in modern times. And you speak out against it with the use of slanderous and emotive language ("polluted", "odious", "contemptible", "immoral", "vice", "decadence", etc.), sometimes accompanied with little-to-no substance, as in the opening post.

Yes - some of them are the same. Not all of them, and my views fit better with a traditional form of conservatism. — Agustino

Some, but perhaps not all, and that last part is arguable.

Because secular progressives use secularism as a way to destroy and attack tradition and morality, which I am defending. — Agustino

I'm not going to accept that accusation without good reason, and I don't believe you'll be able to provide it.

Rather, they attack certain traditions - those which they believe do more harm than good - and what some consider to be constitutive of morality - which may well be utterly wrongheaded.

Again, I'll point out that you don't have the authority to the exclusive use of the term "morality" as applicable only to those views which you happen to agree with. You should say instead that they don't share your view on morality, and you find that objectionable. A little humility wouldn't go amiss. Especially for someone so keen to maintain virtue and avoid vice.

Depends what you understand by secularism. I don't understand by secularism a disrespect of religion, a disrespect of tradition and a disrespect of morality. — Agustino

Neither do I. But whether or not secularism entails the above would very much depend on what is meant by respect of religion, respect of tradition and respect of morality. Your understanding might differ considerably to what I'd expect that to entail.

I think the secular state should work together with all major religions present in the country to form a community which is friendly to the believers, and not antagonistic. — Agustino

As a generality, I'm inclined to agree, but as an absolute, I'd take issue. It's about freedom of expression. And if some are free to express an objectionable religious belief, then others should be free to object.

I think Muslim communities in the UK for example should be allowed to encourage their people to dress according to their traditions, and they should be protected from having those traditions mocked in schools, university, etc. (with the exception of violence, that should not be tolerated). Same applies to Christianity and the other religions present. — Agustino

Sure, that's all very agreeable, and I can only think of a few possible objections, which would be a rare encounter, such as religious garments which conceal the face being worn in certain public professions.

What I see the secular progressive as understanding by secularism is what the French revolutionary understood - a way to change the power structure of society, destroy tradition and put in place of natural morality, a new invented morality. — Agustino

Well, that's certainly not an impartial or charitable way of seeing it.

I think government leaders should be religious in the sense of valuing morality and tradition, and setting up examples to follow. — Agustino

No, they shouldn't necessarily be religious - which doesn't by any means rule out valuing morality and tradition. In fact, it's entirely possible to have a religious government leader who doesn't in some ways respect morality or tradition. And, furthermore, respecting what you conceive of as morality, and respecting tradition, isn't necessarily a good thing.

I think that it's ill-considered to make blanket statements like that. What about harmful traditions?

For example a Christian Prime Minister, who talks about his faith and at the same time respects the right of Muslims AND ENCOURAGES them to have different religious traditions. — Agustino

Or an atheist Prime Minister who promotes the good to be found both within various religions and outside of them.

But whether the Prime Minister belongs to any religion, or what particular religion that might be, if any, should not be important; especially in comparison to the attitude which should be promoted, namely religious toleration - albeit within reason.

All religions ultimately share the same core moral values - for ex. both Christianity and Islam and Buddhism say people should dress decently. — Agustino

For a core moral value, that is remarkably trivial.

The focus should not be this savage attempt to convert anyone and everyone to your own religion. — Agustino

Sure, but this appears to have drifted far from our original discussion and the original topic. We were talking about secularism, remember? You seemed to be against it, yet here you seem to be arguing in it's favour.

Much rather we need an umbrella under which all religions (including atheism) can thrive - because all religions share the same fundamental values, they merely have different traditions. — Agustino

Atheism isn't a religion. I'm not sure whether that was just a comical mishap on your part or whether you genuinely meant it, but either way, atheism isn't a religion.

This umbrella I believe is conservatism. Religious - but not partisan to one religion. — Agustino

I don't know how you jump from what seems to be essentially an endorsement of religious toleration - which isn't incompatible with atheism or secularism or progressivism - to conservatism or religion or non-secularism or anti-atheism.

I don't know how you jump from what seems to be essentially an endorsement of religious toleration - which isn't incompatible with atheism or secularism or progressivism - to conservatism or religion or non-secularism or anti-atheism. — Sapientia

I'm also curious about this, Agustino. Can you point to an example of a country with the system of government that most closely fits your ideal?

I would add Baden that ultimately it's as Kierkegaard states an aesthetic choice - belief in God. We all make the choice, not through words, but through our actions. In the face of the anxieties of life, you can choose virtue and morality - or you can choose power. You can escape by faith, or you can escape by power. And it's a choice precisely because there is no intellectual reason to choose virtue over power, or power over virtue - that's why in the end analysis it's an appeal to your moral imagination. — Agustino

The Kierkegaard reference is salient here, I agree. I would say though that the moral imagination is largely a product of, and constrained by (sensibly I would contend) the moral environment. Don't ask me to be Jesus when there are Romans around.

I'm not sure what society needs, and I haven't given it too much thought because I don't think it's my problem — The Great Whatever

Do you accept that this is the bystander effect?

I know, but you've said other things which fit that description. In this discussion, for example, you imply that you want to return to a time before atheism was as widespread and accepted amongst young minds as it is today, and since it has been in modern times. And you speak out against it with the use of slanderous and emotive language ("polluted", "odious", "contemptible", "immoral", "vice", "decadence", etc.), sometimes accompanied with little-to-no substance, as in the opening post. — Sapientia

I speak against a certain kind of atheism which is popular. I have little to quarrel with the pious atheism of Epicurus for example. I have something against modern atheism which is used as a justification for lack of restraint, for attacking tradition, for demanding radical change, and for inciting people to rebellion. In summary, I have something against that which threatens order and stability, because chaos harms everybody. Instead of slowly looking for ways to reform society to eliminate the problems while minimising the difficulties generated, it hurries with a solution that is most often worse than what it appears to cure.

Rather, they attack certain traditions - those which they believe do more harm than good - and what some consider to be constitutive of morality - which may well be utterly wrongheaded. — Sapientia

I'm not concerned with what intellectuals may claim they do. I'm concerned with the effect their actions have in practice, on the thinking, attitudes and beliefs of the common man in the street. What I see is that many people have become intolerant of religion, and disrespectful towards people who are religious. I'm using these terms as I understand them. A moral person by my understanding is religious even if they are atheists. And I'm talking about the common man here. And you can hear it in their discourse. They talk disrespectfully to and about moral people, and I don't think this is good either for them or for society, as it discourages something which is necessary for happiness - morality.

Again, I'll point out that you don't have the authority to the exclusive use of the term "morality" as applicable only to those views which you happen to agree with. You should say instead that they don't share your view on morality, and you find that objectionable. A little humility wouldn't go amiss. Especially for someone so keen to maintain virtue and avoid vice. — Sapientia

This is an abstraction so I am not sure what specific thing you're referring to. I think morality is something universal (hence my usage of natural morality), which can be summarised by the virtues, including humility, yes. The example I gave you before is decency. All religions promote decency - including by the way the atheism of Epicurus or Hume. Now the religious traditions surrounding this are different, yes. A Muslim friend wants his wife to wear a hijab. Humility for me in this case is understanding that ultimately he aims at the same virtue I aim at, decency, but achieves it using a different way than I would. So I congratulate him, and commend him for encouraging his wife to uphold their traditions and respect decency, even though the way he does this isn't the same way I would. I am humble about my tradition and don't think it superior to another's. The most common manifestation of humility though is being aware of one's vices and limitations and not creating a narrative to justify them. Most of the time though we see the opposite - you see someone like Amy Schumer for example coming and saying how easily she got a man to have sex with her - that's a story she makes to justify a vice as a virtue - that's not humility, that's pride. That shouldn't be praised or sustained, but it should be attacked and labelled for what it is. On the other hand, false humility is when someone refuses to accept merit for a virtue that he or she does in fact possess. I'm being neither prideful nor humble now - I'm not saying I am virtuous and you're not or anything of that sort, and if I have implied that please forgive me. I am defending morality - whether or not I uphold it or not is besides this point.

As a generality, I'm inclined to agree, but as an absolute, I'd take issue. It's about freedom of expression. And if some are free to express an objectionable religious belief, then others should be free to object. — Sapientia

It depends on whether their religious belief has anything to do with you, or it just has to do with their own religious community in such a society.

Well, that's certainly not an impartial or charitable way of seeing it. — Sapientia

In regards to progressive intellectuals maybe - in regards to public manifestations of progressivism by the common man, then I think it's quite on point.

No, they shouldn't necessarily be religious - which doesn't by any means rule out valuing morality and tradition. In fact, it's entirely possible to have a religious government leader who doesn't in some ways respect morality or tradition — Sapientia

Ok under your definitions. And for the latter yes - but this isn't good usually.

I think that it's ill-considered to make blanket statements like that. What about harmful traditions? — Sapientia

They should gradually be replaced.

Or an atheist Prime Minister who promotes the good to be found both within various religions and outside of them. — Sapientia

Atheist under your definition isn't really atheist. David Cameron is an atheist under my definition - probably under yours he's a believer just because he talks about his Christian faith, and calls the UK a Christian nation.

For a core moral value, that is remarkably trivial. — Sapientia

Yes but it's part of that core. There are others, some of which aren't so trivial - love, courage, respect, patience, humility, temperance, kindness, charity, chastity, decency, etc.

You seemed to be against it, yet here you seem to be arguing in it's favour. — Sapientia

Nope - there's two atheisms - one let's call it pious atheism (think about Epicurus, or even that CONSERVATIVE David Hume), and the other one impious atheism. In the former atheism is just a personal belief about the existence of a deity. In the latter it is a justification for permissible moral behaviour, with the intent of overthrowing tradition. I don't accept the latter as moral, to make this clear.

I'm also curious about this, Agustino. Can you point to an example of a country with the system of government that most closely fits your ideal? — Baden

None. All previous systems of government of the sort I am talking about have been regional and geographical, generally governing a majority of people which shared the same language, customs, traditions and religion. It is only in today's world, that with the introduction of the internet, globalisation and migration of people that we have societies where there are multiple religions which interact frequently, on a day to day basis together. My proposal is the conservative response to this change of circumstances in order to prevent the destruction of traditions and morality which is currently underway, precisely because of the presence of alternatives, causing people to have lost faith in any one particular religion. That's why we need an umbrella - to hold all religions under it - a meta-religion formed of the natural morality (virtues) that all religions share in, which permits for each religion to still nevertheless develop according to its own traditions and customs, and which as I see it, is the only thing that can bring about a cultural revival. This allows individual people to explore their ancestral roots and respect them, all the while feeling part of the larger community which includes different traditions.

I would say though that the moral imagination is largely a product of, and constrained by (sensibly I would contend) the moral environment. Don't ask me to be Jesus when there are Romans around. — Baden

You have to do a calculation in that case. Is it worth it to die in the fashion of Jesus himself or of Socrates to teach a valuable lesson to your brothers and sisters in moral courage and resolution in opposing evil, and the triumph of the human spirit? Or is it worth saving yourself by lying for example, in order that you may protect your family from being killed as well?