Sure, those guys are a symptom. But I'm not using wooly (?) spiritual terms, I'm trying to approach it morally, because that's implicitly what we're all doing when we address this situation at all. Apparently we all agree that this matters. That's what I consider a spiritual dimension to the discussion. Call it metaphysical if you like. This is why it's important to ask how Christian concepts are affecting the situation; it goes back to my question about whether those concepts can be translated and borne by a humanistic approach, or if they can't be cut off from their religious roots.

The West's pillaging of the world by didn't begin the 20th century — TheWillowOfDarkness

And this is exactly an example of this problem. It's well known how hypocritical the church has been in history, but calling them out is only a valid claim if you accept the principles that Christianity espouses. Calling the church out on it's own moral terms without offering an alternative way that does credence to those moral precepts you're using to make your critique is not an argument.

I'm not calling out the Church on its own moral terms. My point is a description of what was done when Christian tradition dominated society.

Wayfarer's argument is based on the premise that our society has become worse with respect to seeking profit, destroying other people, damaging the environment since Christian tradition was abandoned, as if Christian tradition prevent these excesses. By what's happened, this is clearly a falsehood.

The point is not that someone is being hypocritical or immoral where others are not, it is that Christian tradition did not have the protective effect Wayfarer ascribes to it. The way he thinks it's better in this respect is nothing more than an illusion.

It's not the tradition that matters. Greed and power act regardless of tradition. It's always a question of our actions, not whether we are Christians or materialists. In short, the concepts and actions Wayfarer ascribes (and doesn't ascribe) to Christianity aren't just Christian.

Actual scientists stopped being that - in terms of operative metaphysics - about a century ago. — apokrisis

Perhaps, but the culture hasn't caught up yet. The underlying assumption of most departments of anglo-american analytical philosophy are predominantly materialist. Recall the reaction to Thomas Nagel's critique, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly Wrong. One reviewer said he was set upon by 'a Darwinist lynch mob' in response. I think Darwinism per se is generally materialist which is one of the reasons this 'third way' movement is emerging.

I think it is important to respect this actual shift in scientific thought — apokrisis

That's why I said 'materialism is on the wane'. You yourself might have been a materialist a couple of generations ago, but the times they are a'changing.

However dig into the ontology of modern physics, and it seems as immaterial as it gets. You are dealing with mathematical forms imposed on pure possibility - constraints on actions. — apokrisis

I read Tao of Physics in 1978, and I've been to Science and Non-duality three times. I notice that Frithjof Capra has a new title, The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision:

Over the past thirty years, a new systemic conception of life has emerged at the forefront of science. New emphasis has been given to complexity, networks, and patterns of organisation, leading to a novel kind of 'systemic' thinking. This volume integrates the ideas, models, and theories underlying the systems view of life into a single coherent framework.

I would say the illegitimate response was Romanticism - or at least that aspect of Romanticism that tried to retrieve a transcendent metaphysics. — apokrisis

I know that you react against what you designate as 'transcendent metaphysics' but I don't know if you actually understand what it is you're criticizing. Tell you what - there's a kind of half-way house, if you like. Have you heard of the Lindisfarne Association? I think they're no longer in business, but their alumni includes a number of people whom I think you might know - like Stewart Kaufmann and Evan Thompson (whose father started it.) Some of their other associates include Joan Halifax whose a Zen roshi.

And to attack what is going on in woolly spiritual terms just ain't going to work. Marx tried it. The hippies tried it. The new agers tried it. Wishful thinking just doesn't scale. — apokrisis

On the contrary, the new left and the counter-culture have been highly influential in the very kinds of developments that you often cite. You need to learn who the friends and foes really are!

There's no inherent problem with 'the transcendent' once you learn to accept it's intrinsic unknowability. A lot of esoteric philosophy is concerned with coming to terms with that, and it's an essential ability. That is often couched in riddles and aphorisms - 'he that knows it, knows it not' - but it's necessary to have an intuitive sense of the limitations of knowledge.

So in broad terms, what I think has happened to Western culture is that it has been hijacked by a hostile force

— Wayfarer

I agree with the severity of that claim, but I'm not sure that's it's an actual premeditated act of metaphysical violence like your language suggests. I'm cautious about any language that suggests "they" have done this or that, or have this or that agenda. — Noble Dust

I think the historical roots are fairly evident, and it does involve actual violence. I mean, Western history is not without violence, and at least some of the conflict was over ideas. At least some of these ideological conflicts are referred to as 'culture wars', after all.

There's a couple of important books that you might find helpful. One is an old title, published 1948, called Ideas have Consequences, by Richard Weaver, who was an English professor. It's (perhaps unfortunately) become a staple of the US conservative movement, but it does have some important ideas in it - specifically about what he sees as the collapse Western metaphysics:

Like Macbeth, Western man made an evil decision, which has become the efficient and final cause of other evil decisions. Have we forgotten our encounter with the witches on the heath? It occurred in the late fourteenth century, and what the witches said to the protagonist of this drama was that man could realize himself more fully if he would only abandon his belief in the existence of transcendentals. The powers of darkness were working subtly, as always, and they couched this proposition in the seemingly innocent form of an attack upon universals. The defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture; from this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence. — Richard Weaver

I trace back to around then, the loss of the understanding of the hierarchical nature of being and so, no recognition of, or provision for, higher truth. It's there in Eriugena, but gone in Scotus, about 500 years later. The consequence is a kind of flatland, where reality is conceived in purely physicalist or at least numerically-quantifiable terms.

Another is much more recent, The Theological Origins of Modernity, M A Gillespie. Important book, in my view.

Materialism is not without its strengths - it is after all the philosophy of scientists and engineers. Analyse the problem, break it down to its fundamental parts, and understand how they work together. It has lead to amazing powers which never would have been developed, had Aristoteleanism and traditionalism retained its primacy. So in that sense, materialism is indispensable. Where it becomes a problem, is when it wishes to displace any understanding of higher truth - when it seeks to become a religion in its own right, which is what I think has happened in Western culture.

Incidentally, Sri Aurobindo, who some have referred to as the Hegel of India, has this to say about materialism:

Admit - for it is true, - that this age of which materialism was the portentous offspring and in which it had figured first as petulant rebel and aggressive thinker, then as a grave and strenuous preceptor of mankind, has been by no means a period of mere error, calamity and degeneration, but rather a most powerful creative epoch of humanity. Examine impartially its results. Not only has it immensely widened and filled in the knowledge of the race and accustomed it to a great patience of research, scrupulosity, accuracy, - if it has done that only in one large sphere of enquiry, it has still prepared for the extension of the same curiosity, intellectual rectitude, power for knowledge, to other and higher fields, - not only has it with an unexampled force and richness of invention brought and put into our hands, for much evil, but also for much good, discoveries, instruments, practical powers, conquests, conveniences which, however we may declare their insufficiency for our highest interests, yet few of us would care to relinquish, but it has also, paradoxical as that might at first seem, strengthened man's idealism.

I don't want to forget that - it is part of the paradox of the current age.

I would say it's​ religion or the transcedent itself which is the problem, a self-inflicted wound of one's own expectations. To be "bigger than politics" (or bigger than recreation. Or bigger than your own wisdom) was a lie all along. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I would say that it is a fact that we become 'bigger' than our former selves. We are not at 14 who we are at 40. I will agree to something like a self-inflicted wound, but this sore is a rose just as this dog is a god. We expand (in my view) because there is fire at the center of us. Imagination is "nonbeing" that haunts "being." The future possesses us like a demon, commanding that we carve the present into its shape. And we were born for this. It is our ecstasy to crystallize the dream-goo.

We are only finite. Nothing about our lives has the desired stability because it always being replaced, even when the new is similar. Our world is emergence or creation, not tradition. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Tradition is nothing but slavery and confusion until we've twisted its proteins into our own.

As far as us being finite goes, I'll have to disagree. As soon as we become conscious of an assumption or a role, that assumption and that role become optional. Consciousness is a restless violence. It loosens the fixed and churns the necessary into the arbitrary. This is the "freedom" that is our essence one might say, knowing quite well that we aren't all wired to be turned on by it. Others have their own pet metaphors, which I (jokingly) call spiritual bodies, by which I mean "final vocabularies" or the varying basic systems of mythological-poetic investments-reasons that are more or less our sanity and self-esteem in a pluralistic society.

My point is a description of what was done when Christian tradition dominated society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So why are you giving this description? It's the age old critique of the church, so perhaps I assumed you were calling hypocrisy because of the content. But I'm not sure how saying you were describing said hypocrisy gets you off the hook. In other words, bringing up moral failing within Christianity seems to beg the question. How can you describe a moral failing of a group with specific morals without using that same set of morals to make the judgement? Under what moral conditions are you making your description, exactly? And then my previous questions follow, again:

Calling the church out on it's own moral terms without offering an alternative way that does credence to those moral precepts you're using to make your critique is not an argument. — Noble Dust

I'll read Wayfarer's comments myself and come to my own interpretations of them, thanks.

Spirituality will always be bigger. — Noble Dust

Maybe we can sum it up by contrasting Bach's music to some shrill post on Facebook. The lines of my favorite thinkers (and rarely and gloriously my own lines) take me to a different, but similarly transcendent place (more like fire than ice, but nothing I'd call Hell.)

"I'd rather hang out with the witches" echoes softly from the fringes with the resonance of none. Glob I'm a rebel.

I wanted purple eyes when I was a cub because of that movie with the witches with purple eyes, and no toes. I thought it was so cool.

If you're searching for evil, then you've found it, because I'm a criminal bear.

Growl growl.

I think the historical roots are fairly evident, and it does involve actual violence. I mean, Western history is not without violence, and at least some of the conflict was over ideas. At least some of these ideological conflicts are referred to as 'culture wars', after all. — Wayfarer

Of course I have to agree here; I think what I was more so getting at is that Western humanity itself as a whole is responsible, including the whole genealogy of Christianity, the Enlightenment, the death of God, nihilism, etc. etc. Or, not responsible, but...the cause of the effect we're seeing. You have to look past the "sides", the "other", and see humanity as a whole within the struggle (not an ignoble pursuit on a forum such as this, too). So there's not some atheistic or nihilist plot to destroy moral values...this seems to be the nuanced understanding of Nietzsche, for instance. The death of God is almost a lament.

Maybe we can sum it up by contrasting Bach's music to some shrill post on Facebook. — Ignignot

Indeed. We seem to have many ways of thinking in common, for apparently having differing worldviews.

I agree on the whole with your position here and everyone who has contributed has made good and interesting points, which help to set out our current position/predicament.
My question to you and the other contributors is where are we headed?
Also where should we head?

Spirituality, as far as I understand it answers these questions, the non-spiritual philosophies don't appear to address them, or where they do, it sounds fanciful.

My question to you and the other contributors is where are we headed?
Also where should we head? — Punshhh

I vacillate between the need for humanism to reincarnate God in some form (??), and the need for some new form of Christianity (a mystical form) to take hold. But Christianity taking hold never seems to work out well. But Christian morals, bereft of a religious context don't seem to hold up, which stirs doubt in me about the efficacy of any form of humanism whatsoever. But organized religion is equally destructive to mankind. And why? It's because there's no moral evolution. So then I vacillate between whether it's possible for us to incubate a moral evolution in humanity ourselves (the time being just not ripe yet), or whether we're helpless and simply waiting for divine action...other than that, pure nihilism seems like the only other tenable position. All secular attempts at ascribing meaning to life leave me chuckling bitterly. But, thanks in part to Wayfarer's contributions, I also see the wisdom in "not knowing", and the wisdom in seeking higher forms of reality. There's almost a poetic dichotomy between human "Not-Knowledge" and divine "All-Knowledge". What this actually means in pragmatic terms for humanity in a historical context is hard to say. The mystical path has always been esoteric, rather than exoteric. This also has always been a problem for me. If there really is an inner spiritual path that leads to enlightenment or salvation, then that means most people are not on it, and this bothers me.

One thing I tell my friends in real life when we end up in political discussions is that real politics take place on a personal level. My political influence is those around me; those in my immediate circle. My responsibility is to love them to the best of my ability; to carry out charity, equity, and any other political action, but on an individual level.

My question to you and the other contributors is where are we headed?
Also where should we head? — Punshhh

If only it were easy....

I would have hoped that green-left politics - critical of corporatism, committed to local-level economies - would provide an alternative, but overall I have been very dissappointed with the way green parties have evolved. They're 'parties of protest' who are far too caught up in social issues - well, here in Australia, anyway.

When the mainstream parties were actually trying to tackle climate change, I was hopeful that a more progressive agenda might be established, but it provoked a vicious backlash culminating in Australia dismantling a very successful, recently-introducted carbon tax. Besides, Trump is a nightmare for all progressive and environmental causes, generally. So things are very dissappointing at this time.

And there are huge challenges ahead for the global economy and environment. I can't help but believe that there is the possibility of global economic collapse, when capitalist economics faces up to the fact that the Earth really is a finite resource and the never-ending growth curve really is going to end.

I firmly DON'T believe that we're going to colonize other planets or conquer inter-stellar space. Earth is the only space craft we have and has to be managed as such. It's going to take an enormous change in mentality for that to happen. For example, the emerging billions - those who will be born in the next ten years - simply cannot consume the energy that Western individuals have been consuming in the last two or three generations. There's simply no way to sustain 'the Western lifestyle' on that scale.

So the world has to re-calibrate its expectations as to what constitutes a good and meaningful life. Endless consumption and meaningless entertainment is not it. But unfortunately the '1%' who are to all intents driving the process, are probably not going to concur.

But in any case, I'm still a believer in the role of technology, science and progress. It's just that the underlying political and economic philosophy has to change, and that is going to take a lot of doing. I think the world needs a movement which provides a way to integrate real spirituality in the sense of personal cultivation of the spirit of peace. Religion as such is all too 'pie in the sky', it's shackled to ancient creeds and dogmas. I don't know what an emerging spirituality looks like but it might be something like what David Brooks dubbed neural Buddhism some years back.

The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

I agree with your observation about the development of a moral evolution. I think that amongst the intelligentsia, that would include most posters on this forum, people have achieved a level of morality suitable for us to go forward with confidence. Unfortunately this group is a minority. I do think there are more, by far, good people in the world. But the not so good people do seem to create havoc and often get into positions of power etc. Also there is the socio economic, consumerist world we are accustomed to.
I appreciate your view of mysticism, I think that it's place is amongst a periphery of people who are suited to contemplation. A world of Mystics would, I think, look a bit like Lord of the Rings, so that is not a way forward.

Getting back to my question, where is humanity likely to be in say a hundred years, or five hundred years and with our intelligence, where should we be at those points?

So the world has to re-calibrate its expectations as to what constitutes a good and meaningful life. Endless consumption and meaningless entertainment is not it. But unfortunately the '1%' who are to all intents driving the process, are probably not going to concur.

Yes, I see two issues here, firstly where we should go from here, so as you say recalibrate, aiming for a good and meaningful life. Spirituality would indicate (in a knutshell) that this would be some kind of stable sustainable civilisation acting as a custodian of the biosphere.

Secondly, (and I think this is the difficult nut to crack) we as a people need to control ourselves as a civilisation and move forward as a coherent whole. It is easy to conclude that we need to mitigate for climate change, help the poor and impoverished, deal with the political problems around the world, develop and strengthen the United Nations etc etc. But putting this into practice is a monumental struggle, while there are people and groups of people who have other less constructive goals, which they are pursuing.

As I see it, we are at a crisis point, in which there are vast power structures metaphorically swaying around in the wind, occasionally clashing during a storm. Which could come crashing down like a house of cards. There is the repeated rising of confrontational and destructive human behaviour within every sphere of life, including religions. Are we at a tipping point? A point where either the vast weight of efforts of the constructive people finally manage to establish stability and constructive collaborations and civilisation settles down*. Or are we at a point where these civil wars continue to spread, economic collapse and a return to another dark age.

*not to mention the problems of over population and exploitation of resources, human want, etc.

I think that amongst the intelligentsia, that would include most posters on this forum, people have achieved a level of morality suitable for us to go forward with confidence. — Punshhh

Really?... :P

As someone who grew up in the church, there's something to be said for the man of simple faith. There's a pure childlike quality in some of the simplest of people who are below any level of intellectual fortitude. I remember spending a week serving at a home for adults with disabilities. You'd be hard-pressed to find a purer, simpler strand of the beauty of humanity.

I do think there are more, by far, good people in the world. But the not so good people do seem to create havoc and often get into positions of power etc. — Punshhh

My problem with this is this classic dichotomy of good people versus bad. I think it's part of the neurosis that binds us to a set level of moral stagnation. Trump is bad, Bernie is good, blah blah...this "us vs. them" mentality only fuels the separateness that gives birth to new forms of strife. The hard thing, the mystical thing, is to imagine oneself as...Trump, for instance. Or to imagine Trump as the neglected little child, an empty vessel waiting for parental love that never arrives.

I appreciate your view of mysticism, I think that it's place is amongst a periphery of people who are suited to contemplation. A world of Mystics would, I think, look a bit like Lord of the Rings, so that is not a way forward. — Punshhh

>:O Fair enough, although there are plenty of less mystical characters to be found there (I'm currently re-reading the series, as it happens). Samwise comes to mind, for instance, or any of the hobbits, except Frodo, who, after several re-readings now, is more and more annoyingly Elvish.

I don't mean to denigrate simple, pure, morally good folk, but they are not going to lead us through this troubling time.

I meant morally good, not good as opposed to evil.

Regarding The Lord of the Rings, the ring is an interesting thing, whoever posses it is compromised. Golem, my favourite character, is a good example.

I don't mean to denigrate simple, pure, morally good folk, but they are not going to lead us through this troubling time. — Punshhh

I didn't take it that you meant to denigrate those people; and you're right that they don't have the ability to lead, or at least not on a political level. But there's such profound wisdom in the parables that involve Jesus celebrating children. Children lead in their own way, sometimes. I guess I was just reacting to what I saw as a claim for intellectual prowess for it's own sake, something I'm probably overly-sensitive towards. As you were.

I meant morally good, not good as opposed to evil. — Punshhh

I don't comprehend.

Regarding The Lord of the Rings, the ring is an interesting thing, whoever posses it is compromised. Golem, my favourite character, is a good example. — Punshhh

Certainly. There are any number of allegories to pull out of the narrative, except Tolkien eschewed all allegory, on philosophical principle, despite his Catholic faith. He was more concerned with his concept of "sub-creation". From what I can tell, the idea is that art made by us humans is, very simply, a childlike mirroring of the art of the original Creator. It kind of just sounds like a cop-out for allegory, but I take it to mean that he felt he had sufficient permission to create an entire world based on artistic instinct, thanks to his faith in God, and from there, any allegorical comparisons were accidental, but naturally within theological bounds. He felt a freedom to create from instinct, despite his instinct being informed by his religious views. A rare, hard-to-find worldview among artists today. And not just within a religious context.

If there really is an inner spiritual path that leads to enlightenment or salvation, then that means most people are not on it, and this bothers me. — Noble Dust

I think it's the responsibility of those who can understand it to try and do so, and for anyone who is on it to help others.

there's something to be said for the man of simple faith. — Noble Dust

There are all kinds of people, and different ways in accordance with their disposition and capacity.

there's such profound wisdom in the parables that involve Jesus celebrating children — Noble Dust

I think children represent guilelessness and spontaneity, which are essential attributes for any seeker. But don't forget the saying, 'be as cunning as serpents but gentle as doves'.

Philosophy of the Individual in the West
'
Carl Schmitt asserted that "All significant concepts in the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts"

A few thoughts:

I notice that capitalistic societies have substituted the word 'citizen' with the word 'consumer' assuming their equivalent value. Companies study consumer behavior, and they develop & market products that people will consume. They make a profit and that is 'good', as long as these companies protect "consumer rights". Consumer rights and the rights of citizens have become conflated in our society, I think.

Is what is good for a citizen, also good for that person as a consumer. A citizen is a 'free agent', a 'moral agent', a consumer has choices, 'caveat emptor' applies it is the consumer's responsibility to inspect carefully prior to purchase. The consumer expects the market's providential behavior she expects to be satisfied, the citizen becomes reconciled with problematic aspects of reality.

But Christianity taking hold never seems to work out well. But Christian morals, bereft of a religious context don't seem to hold up, which stirs doubt in me about the efficacy of any form of humanism whatsoever. But organized religion is equally destructive to mankind. And why? It's because there's no moral evolution. — Noble Dust

The time of Christianity is past. There can be no such thing as a new Christianity because then it would not be Christianity at all, but a new form of religion. That's how evolution works, it builds on the successes of the past while dismissing the failures. But the new organization is a different "being", as it distinguishes itself from the old, with a rupture of discontinuity. The discontinuity is known in biology as death and extinction.

I do not believe that organized religion is destructive to mankind, because evolution is rooted in organization. This necessitates that any form of revolution against the organizations of the past, must itself be a form of organization. And there is no other form of moral organization other than a religious form of organization, as religion is the manifestation of moral organization. So we have in the past for example, the revolution of Jesus and his followers, as a revolt against the ancient Jewish religion. But this itself was an organized revolt, and it had to be, or else it would not have had the power to be successful. So out of that revolution came another organized religion, Christianity, and that was moral evolution.

It is false to claim that there is no such thing as moral evolution because Christianity is a very good example of this. Prior to Christianity the highest moral principles were to abstain from bad acts. Christianity introduced to western religion, the idea of engaging in the best, or highest act, which is the act of contemplation. This is the nature of free will, as described by St Augustine, to free oneself from the influences of temporal existence, in order to contemplate timeless principles. Engaging with such eternal truths leads one toward correct decisions.

The time of Christianity is past — Metaphysician Undercover

To the contrary, it's still the largest religion in the world.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

There can be no such thing as a new Christianity because then it would not be Christianity at all, but a new form of religion — Metaphysician Undercover

And again, from the schism of 1054, to the birth of protestantism, to the splintering of countless denominations, it's all the same religion. This seems obvious to me.

I do not believe that organized religion is destructive to mankind, because evolution is rooted in organization. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps destructive to mankind is a strong phrase.

It is false to claim that there is no such thing as moral evolution because Christianity is a very good example of this. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is a definite evolution of moral concepts, but I see no evidence of a moral evolution of the inner life of the individual or humanity as a whole. Humanity is not becoming more moral as history unfolds. Plus the evolution of moral concepts is parralel to technological and scientific evolution. The result is the appearance of an inner moral evolution of mankind (held up the most conspicuously by the new left), but the actual inner moral evolution isn't there. Look to the proliferation of fundamentalist tendencies like shaming, virtue-signaling and the suppression of free speech (all on the left) as evidence of this lack of moral evolution.

Your thoughts are all well-taken.

Carl Schmitt asserted that "All significant concepts in the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts" — Cavacava

Indeed - that is the theme of a book I mentioned previously, The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Allen Gillespie.

Max Weber was also brilliant on the interplay of theology, economics and society, especially in his famous Protestant Work Ethic.

Which leads me to mention the (what I see as) malign influence of Calvin. I have never studied Calvin in great depth and detail but I often wonder whether he was single-handedly the most significant figure in the decline of Christianity in Europe. After all his was a totally authoritarian model, in service of an authoritarian God, which brooked no disagreement or even individual judgement. I have heard him described as 'the Ayatollah of Geneva'.

This is all in keeping with the general thrust of the book mentioned above, which sees the scholastic tradition as rationalistic and accomodating of a range of understanding, confronted by the uncompromising nominalism of the Franciscans and others, all of whom depicted God's will as being utterly unknowable and completely sovereign.

the apparent rejection or disappearance of religion and theology in fact conceals the continuing relevance of theological issues and commitments for the modern age. Viewed from this perspective, the process of secularization or disenchantment [as described by Max Weber] that has come to be seen as identical with modernity was in fact something different than it seemed - not the crushing victory of reason over infamy, to use Voltaire’s famous term, not the long drawn out death of God that Nietzsche proclaimed, and not the evermore distant withdrawal of the deus absconditus Heidegger points to, but the gradual transference of divine attributes to human beings (an infinite human will), the natural world (universal mechanical causality), social forces (the general will, the hidden hand), and history (the idea of progress, dialectical development, the cunning of reason). …

That the de-emphasis, disappearance, and death of God should bring about a change in our understanding of man and nature is hardly surprising. Modernity … originates out of a series of attempts to construct a coherent metaphysic specialis on a nominalist foundation, to reconstitute something like the comprehensive summalogical account of scholastic realism. The successful completion of this project was rendered problematic by the real ontological differences between an infinite (and radically omnipotent) God and his finite creation (including both man and nature).

And again, from the schism of 1054, to the birth of protestantism, to the splintering of countless denominations, it's all the same religion. This seems obvious to me. — Noble Dust

Some people wonder why Americans are so religious. (They are compared to Europe, especially). I would say it is (at least to some extent) BECAUSE there has been so much splintering. Every time a group divides, it is re-energized. Ethnic connections to specific denominations has strengthened church activity (in the past, largely). So, there were German Lutherans, Norwegian Lutheran, Swedish Lutherans, Danish Lutherans, Latvian Lutherans, etc. Now, there are mostly Evangelical American Lutheran Church members, because the ethnic and language connections aren't so important anymore.

There was quite a bit of competition: Baptists vs. Methodists; Lutherans vs. Catholics; Presbyterians vs. Congregationalists, etc. and not just good-natured competition.

The churches were more integrated into the daily life of many Americans, providing educational, social, and spiritual services. This has, of course, decreased, along with many kinds of civic engagement (as in "bowling alone").

That's one country. Various varieties of religious experience are provided by Christian churches around the world. As a whole (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) the Church offers many flavors, even if the fundamental ingredients of the faith do not vary much from one denomination to another. This is an advantage (it might be a vulnerability too, but that's life.)

Events like the Reformation and Counter Reformation helped the entire western church adapt to modernity. (Not that every member, parish, or denomination has done super well adapting to modernity.)

Carl Schmitt asserted that "All significant concepts in the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts" — Cavacava

AT LAST!!! The occasion where one of my favorite quotes (since 1983) is appropriate: "Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics." Charles Peguy (a late 19th century early 20th century Frenchman).

The occasion where one of my favorite quotes (since 1983) is appropriate: "Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics." Charles Peguy (a late 19th century early 20th century Frenchman). — Bitter Crank

A splendid quote indeed, and quite true.

Various varieties of religious experience are provided by Christian churches around the world. As a whole (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) the Church offers many flavors, even if the fundamental ingredients of the faith do not vary much from one denomination to another. — Bitter Crank

The whole question of whether it's the same or different, is a big one. I bought a copy of a book called The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, Brad S. Gregory, as a follow up to the other book I mentioned above.

Gregory identifies the unintended consequences of the Reformation for the modern condition: a hyperpluralism of beliefs, intellectual disagreements that splinter into fractals of specialized discourse, the absence of a substantive common good, and the triumph of capitalism’s driver, consumerism.

That's all true, too, but it all becomes tedious. 'He who drinks of the water of which I speak will thirst no more'. Where is that water? It can't be that difficult to find.

I rather like the phlegmatic aphorism of the Vedic sages. '[Religious practices] are like the green stick you use to stoke a fire. When the fire is well alight, you throw the stick in.'

Some people wonder why Americans are so religious. (They are compared to Europe, especially). I would say it is (at least to some extent) BECAUSE there has been so much splintering. Every time a group divides, it is re-energized. — Bitter Crank

Hah. That's a very good point. The Anglican church in the UK is pretty relaxed about actual belief in God these days. The social service aspect is what counts. So mysticism ending in politics as you say. And the Anglican traditionalists are in Africa now, wondering what happened.

There is a definite evolution of moral concepts, but I see no evidence of a moral evolution of the inner life of the individual or humanity as a whole. — Noble Dust

"Moral" refers to the distinction between right and wrong in human actions. So if there is an evolution of moral concepts, then there is an evolution of the distinction between right and wrong in human actions, and by definition, this is moral evolution. However, I don't know what you mean by "moral evolution of the inner life of the individual". But as for humanity as a whole, if there is evolution in our moral concepts, then there is evolution in our ability to distinguish right and wrong in human actions, an therefore moral evolution.

The result is the appearance of an inner moral evolution of mankind (held up the most conspicuously by the new left), but the actual inner moral evolution isn't there. Look to the proliferation of fundamentalist tendencies like shaming, virtue-signaling and the suppression of free speech (all on the left) as evidence of this lack of moral evolution. — Noble Dust

Evolution is based in change. What leads toward the survival of the species we might call good change, and what leads toward the extinction of the species we might call bad change, if survival is what is designated as good. To give evidence that some moral principles may change for the worse is not evidence that there is no such thing as moral evolution, as evolution consists of changes for the worse as well as changes for the better.

"Moral" refers to the distinction between right and wrong in human actions. So if there is an evolution of moral concepts, then there is an evolution of the distinction between right and wrong in human actions, and by definition, this is moral evolution. However, I don't know what you mean by "moral evolution of the inner life of the individual". But as for humanity as a whole, if there is evolution in our moral concepts, then there is evolution in our ability to distinguish right and wrong in human actions, an therefore moral evolution. — Metaphysician Undercover

The difference is knowledge versus practice. This is where religious life comes into play. And I can't believe I'm saying that; I've been out of the church for over a year and am not one who practices a religion any longer. There is a difference between "knowing", or being able to "distinguish right and wrong" in a more and more nuanced way, versus applying that knowledge towards an everyday practice. You seem to assume that the two are interchangeable. This is actually classic Biblical wisdom; it's "head knowledge versus heart knowledge" (ugh, what a gross phrase, yet so true). Practice means consciously applying the actual concepts; things like charity, unconditional love, meditation. Every interaction in your life is an opportunity to put these moral concepts into practice. This is what I mean by "moral evolution of the inner life of the individual". What I mean is: There is not an evolution of more and more people applying the more and more nuanced moral concepts we have to their everyday practice. What we have instead is that the general knowledge of moral problems becomes more and more nuanced over time, but this has nothing to say about the actual application of that knowledge by individuals to their lives. In fact, if anything, the ever-increasing complexity of moral problems just serves to confound the average person, leaving them to fall back on whatever political or religious sentiment is convenient and sufficient enough to stay the tide of overwhelming moral dilemmas that our current world consists of. This is ultimately not about abstract philosophy; it's about personal practice. Morals always ultimately come down to this: the individual person. Conceptions of morality that don't revolve around the individual de-humanize the individual, which is to say that they de-humanize humanity itself.

Evolution is based in change. What leads toward the survival of the species we might call good change, and what leads toward the extinction of the species we might call bad change, if survival is what is designated as good. To give evidence that some moral principles may change for the worse is not evidence that there is no such thing as moral evolution, as evolution consists of changes for the worse as well as changes for the better. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a classic conflation of survival with moral good. Survival is a mechanism of material evolution; taking this mechanism and applying it to the realm of morals is a misapplication, and this is why: To assume that morals are a function of survival undermines evolution itself; so if evolution is based on change, then there will be a change from survival to something else. Morals are a function of that new form of change, and we live in that world now. Our evolution is no longer based on survival.