Is over-secularization a possibility? Part Two

Well I can safely say I did not quite come across clearly in Is over-secularization a possibility? Part One - so much so that I have to follow it up and clarify myself.  I'm not going to lie - it's a bit embarrassing, a bit like having to explain a joke after telling it for five minutes, except having a whacky sense of humour is no excuse here.

First off, I am in no way saying that there is no point to reasoning when it comes to ethics.  I have said time and time again just how banal that is.  What I am saying is that some personal opinion must exist, otherwise the reasoning is all for nothing. Reasoning is a map showing the way, but without any personal belief there is nowhere to go.

Secondly, what did/do I mean exactly by over-secularization? We can all agree that secularization is the separation of Church and State.  Now previously I said that it is the shift of legislation from a religious foundation to a logical and scientific one, which perhaps is not strictly true although I believe it must follow from the separation of Church and State the only other option being public opinion which would inevitably lead to legislatures correcting and re-correcting laws due to good arguments led against them, eventually resulting in a logical foundation anyway.  Whatever, it's not that vital, I'll retract that definition and replace with the more popular one.

But why exactly should a country secularize, and have its state separated from its religion?  The anti-theist outcry of "Religion is evil," is uneducated and quite frankly useless. The Nazis didn't think Hitler was evil, and the Church will never be evil to Catholic counties, so this accusation will inevitably fall on deaf ears.  The only reason - or at least the main reason- why a country would secularize is the acceptance that belief is a personal thing which anyone can choose for themselves.  Therefore, not everyone in the country will have the same religion and so the country must secularize to be accepting to all its citizens.

In doing so, the country takes a stance that what is universal to all people should be endorsed in a public space in favour of what is subjective to some - a stance I very much support, as I always have.  So far that is all secularization and it is fine and dandy.

Multiculturalism from a snail's point of view...
(as they slowly torture it with salt)

Here is where over-secularization might come into play - the placing of all universal value over all subjective value.  As I said in Part One, money has a value recognizable to all, so it is given more importance than personal values.  Same with fame and land and fashion and a hundred other things.  A country which takes secularization to this level effectively robs its citizens of individuality.
Now someone trying to show how I am full of bullshit might say that such a thing could never happen due to secularization unless people actually pushed for it.  But how true is that?  A necessary side-effect of secularization is that all beliefs and value-systems exist side by side in a country, forming a mass of sub-cultures.  In itself that is a brilliant thing, but how will value be communicated from one sub-culture to another?  Everyday we are bombarded by the media and new ways to stay connected with one another, not to mention advertisements which exist solely to display something's value.  In such an environment, value will be communicated by referring to something which holds a "universal" value, and that is where the over-secularization begins; just as we separated our laws from our beliefs we separate all aspects of our behaviour.

Is any of this grounds for halting secularization?  Of course not.  Does it mean that no objective ethics can/should exist?  Definitely not, the very thought abhors me!  What it means is that in a world where we are constantly told that science and logic must come before our personal beliefs, we mustn't completely abandon our personal beliefs in favour of things with a more widely accepted value.

So the question remains, where do we draw the line?  I deliberately left the question unanswered previously, and I learnt the hard way that where you don't give your own conclusions, people will make them on your behalf.

So here it is: The line should be drawn where secularization stops helping people get along with others and starts turning people into identical clones.  There is no reason why we can't have objective laws and ethics and not have subjective beliefs and values.  In fact, with no subjective beliefs and values the whole concept of objective laws and ethics becomes completely undermined, for they are there to enrich our lives, and in the absence of individuality we lose any claim of ownership to our own lives.

I hope I was clearer this time round.

Is over-secularization a possibility? Part One

Secularization. We're all familiar with this notion - the idea that society should move from having religious foundations to being purely based on a logical and scientific point of view.  While I am a staunch supporter of the separation of state from any form of religious institution, every point of view should be scrutinized, and secularization is no exception.

We are more commended for keeping this in our
pocket than placing it in someone else's

Of course the benefits of secularization are obvious and very, very important.  The forwarding of medicine and a fairer treatment of people from all walks of life are advantages which nobody should scoff at.  But can it be taken too far?

Hand-in-hand with secularization comes the notion that objective grounds common to all people are to be held on higher grounds than anyone's subjective individual beliefs and while science and legislation are much improved by this approach, too much of this good thing may be venomous.

When do we stop downplaying subjective beliefs?  Religion is of course the main target of secularization but it's not the only thing that's subjective.

The mentality of objective being more valuable than subjective can very easily - and not so accidentally - be extended to value monetary gain and normative behaviour over any value given to kindness, compassion, selflessness, dignity, valour, and really any virtue imaginable.

The natural sciences aren't the only objective things out their.  Finances, norms, laws, economics and business exist too.  Likewise, religion isn't the only subjective belief - so is any virtue.

Indeed, the world already has adopted secularization into these areas.  Immoral business deals are carried out everyday, personal styles are dictated by fashion magazines, success is measured by the size of one's house, car or income and not by how true he or she has stuck to his/her ideals.

It seems like all modern society is caught up in a global dick-measuring contest.  And the only worthwhile contributions to these contests are things with universally understood values.  We talk about successful people - but these successful people are successful by virtue of fame or wealth.

Who's the most commended?  The honest green grocer or underhanded supermarket chain?  The lying politician or sincere activist?  The popular celebrity or the heart-felt musician?

Whilst secularization is so beneficial to the sciences, might it be carried to the point that what we believe in has absolutely no value whatsoever?  That we only cherish what all people want?  How is that any different from the complete and utter death of individuality?

This post was far too serious, so here's a light bulb to make light of the situation.
.....Get it?.....Make light.....like a light bul- .... fuck it.

We must draw the line somewhere.  And to begin deciding where to draw the line we must recognize that secularization is not the be-all and end-all of all social improvement.  Just like any other belief, omitting secularization from our scrutiny will definitely do more harm than good.

Architects don't write fairy tales.

It's been a while since I touched on a topic which lies within the theistic area.  So I'll make my way over to that area and get right down to touching.

One of the strangest characteristics I find in any creator god which then sends a holy doctrine to mankind is how its thoughts on human behaviour reflect nothing of its mindframe as a creative being.

How does a god with an intellect so deep and magnificent as to design our universe with such intrinsic detail and sophisticated workings have such an unintellectual and downright braindead approach to ethical issues as to merely write down certain rules in stone (literally, in one famous case) and hand them out to the awaiting outstretched hands of certified prophets without so much as a measly elaboration?

Surely, the designer of such a splendid universe would not be so arbitrary in its ethos and have a full, well-designed proof for ever single one of its laws.  Why would a god withhold these proofs from us?  One cannot put it down to human ignorance - even if the entire manifesto was too complex for the human mind, a half-proof which derives the law from more basic principles could be given. 

Without a proper and deep analysis of these laws, several ethical issues remain unsolvable as they fall into grey areas which are unresolved due to unsophisticated way the laws were given out.  Knowledge of moral code is one thing, but an actual understanding allows for the solving of less ordinary problems, which are surely the most common type.

Furthermore, a proper elaboration would surely have been genius enough to shut - or at the very least leave ajar- the mouths of critics, skeptics and non-believers (like me).

So, without such an elaboration, it is a must that we investigate into ethical issues ourselves, and religious believers must not condemn other for this; rather they should join the investigations themselves, for if they truly believed they would think that in the long run their ethical codes would be proved, thus giving strong evidence to the existence of their god/s.

Alas, I fear that there are those who will read through all this intently, with the sole intention of not being affected by what I am saying.  And once they've done so, they will close the page without the slightest doubt of their beliefs, and feel this an accomplishment.

Preface.

Technology and philosophy are not so different from each other.

Technology is the manipulation of the physical world to create better devices to make humans' lives easier. The perfect device has never been made and its existence is dubious at best.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is the manipulation of concepts and ideas to make better theories about life to make humans' lives easier. Much like technology, the perfect theory has never been made, and its existence is dubious at best.

Those uncertain about just how valuable philosophy is may very well ask the same question about technology. Several claim that because philosophy has never reached a universally accepted and completely flawless theory it is a waste of time. Likewise, however, technology has never created the perfect device. Does this make technology a waste of time?

Indeed no. Technology constantly improves upon old devices or replaces them for better devices. The same is so in philosophy. New theories either build upon or replace old ones, but that does not mean that all philosophy is in vain. One cannot argue that we have come a long way from the ethics of the Dark Ages.

Nowadays the newest theories in philosophy exist to make life easier. Whether one uses the most suitable or the most cutting-edge theory is a different question, but the fact remains that he is using a theory much like one would use a device - to make a problem easier to solve.

It is unfortunate, however, that more people do not educate themselves in the field of philosophy, particularly in ethics, for it is very much like they are living in the 21st century but facing their problems with 11th century technology. Why shouldn't one equip oneself with the most advanced tools in facing life's problems?

Writing for everyone.

I am writing this for everybody to understand - and hopefully appreciate-why I do what I do. I will try to use a vocabulary which everyone can understand and to show the steps behind my reasoning as clearly as possible.

Today I shall be writing about ethics- the general rules which tell us about what we should and should not do in life.

Nowadays almost everyone has his or her own personal outlook on life- and therefore how one should live it. When one sees the vast amount of different opinions which exist it is very tempting to just jump straight to the conclusion that life- and therefore ethics- are different for everyone. This kind of reasoning is called "relativism" - the denial of there being any absolute and universal truth.

Now while it is true that as of yet there doesn't exist one fully complete proven ethical law- it can be shown how from the vast majority of different views one can quickly narrow it down to only a handful of possible choices.

Let us first begin to do so by proving that some absolute things must exist. This is VERY simple: just think about the phrase "Everything is relative." If you except it as true then you create a paradox because you have excepted an absolute truth while at the same time saying that absolute truths don't exist! Therefore some things must be absolute.

So now we know that some things are absolute and some things are relative. The relative things depended on other relative things which depended on other relative things etc etc etc until eventually the relative things will have to depend on the absolute things.

Therefore we can see that we do not have an infinite number of possible situations- only a limited number. Situation A differs from Situation B because of how they relate to an absolute thing- but since there is a limited number of absolute things and a limited number of how they relate to other things then there is a limited number of situations.

WAIT DON'T CLOSE YOUR WINDOW. OK, I admit that it isn't as simplistic as I promised- but things get simpler from here on. The summary of what we said till now is simple: There is a limited number of possible situations which all have something to do with an absolute truth. Now that is important because it means that if we can define what these absolute things are we can come up with a general rule for every possible situation- since they ALL relate to the same absolute things. See? Simple.


Now then. These situations all have something in common: a person is making a choice. So for our purposes we can forget for now about all the irrelevant pieces of a person- bones, organs, skin etc. I'm not saying you can live without them- but when considering the case of making a choice the important piece of a person is the choice-making bit. Now we have to understand how this bit works.

Well, overall, people make choices depending on their list of priorities. They weigh out what is important to them and make their choice based on that. This is were the relative piece comes in: because different things are important to different people.

BUT- importance is also a relative thing. The leftover lasagna is MUCH more important to a starving man than it is to a rich, well-fed man. So is there one specific thing we should give importance to?

On a personal level- not really. We all have our likes and dislikes- there isn't a general rule for that. But when you think about ethics things change. Because relative to ethics- things do have a different importance- and this time in general, not on a personal level.

For example: people are the very very very most important things in ethics- because they are the only conscious beings which can make an ethical choice. It doesn't take much brainpower to figure out that if people are the only things which have ethics- then they're the most important things in ethics.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL OTHER LIFE IS USELESS. I am simply saying that people have more importance than other living things when it comes to ethics. Therefore helping other people should be at the top of everybody's priority-list, and animals/nature/God/religion/money /etc. in second-place.

So now we have a rough sketch of what everybody's priority list should look like. But still some people might say that "helping other people" is relative too. Well, on a non-ethical level yes. But like I said before- in ethics we have to give number one importance to the choice-making ability of people. So helping other people essentially means making them more in control of their lives.

A quick summary of helping other people is promoting:

Peace
Freedom
Health
Morality

Therefore- we can see that even though we cannot (yet) come up with a full law for ALL ethics- we at least have these four guideline: peace, freedom, health, morality. And anything which goes against any one of these can be called utterly wrong without the need of going into relativism.

Therefore ANYONE, ANYWHERE, at ANY TIME can prove that racism, violence, abortion, imprisonment, torture, sexism and many other vices are all wrong. Nobody can ever say " Well it depends"

Hopefully I have managed to keep this clear and easy to follow for the everyday man-on-the-street. If not I sincerely apologise. I do hope, however, that those who understood my reasoning can see why I insist on philosophizing about ethics- with general laws about ethics we can be sure and determined when it comes to fighting against injustices all over the world.