[_8j50]

Let me ask you and the HN crowd this: Would it honestly be incorrect to blame secularism for this? If it inconveniences me, why should I care at all if my actions negatively affect absolutley anyone given my belief is that my existence has no purpose outside of what I conveniently define, life is meaningless outside of my self-defined meaning and there is no authority that can define what is a correct or incorrect way of living.

In other words, like you observed I also think the moral foundations are failing. Why should groups of people accept each other as equally created and endowed with equal rights? Why should young people be inconvenienced to maybe save lives of older people by wearing masks? Empathy? Life has no meaning, they're gonna die anyway. Why emphatize with others at all? Why not focus on whatever leads to the best experience in this life for each individual, where there are conflicts let the strongest win. Nature has no mercy on the weak.

Of course I don't believe any of that but am I wrong to think secularism plays a big role in the lack of empathy?

Now before anyone reaches for their pitchforks, I am not saying religion is the solution or somehow all those religious people supporting terrible people to advance their agenda don't exist. I am saying, what a society finds correct and acceptable sets the tone. Even religious people act secular when it is convenient because society is secular and the ones that want popularity over authenticity will always be mallable enough to adopt to what society thinks is normal (consider how the nazis claimed to be Christians and killed jews, their actions override their claims).

Let me rephrase a bit, foudnationally the social majority in america,despite all the terrible things that went on believed there is a purpose to life and you have to seek it. They also believed people have an origin and destination and that correct behavior in this life is critical, living incorrectly means failure in realizing the purpose of your existence or worse , regardless of popularity humans have limited and finite authority over other humans, that morality was not a suggestion but an implicit realization of the creator's will (or of the "universe" or whatever intelligent origin people believed in) ,a human's life is precious because it has meaning and purpose, and others' experience of pain morally bounds all other humans to apply emphatetic reasoning in their reaction.

I am not neccesarily saying lack of religion is the cause. I am asking, given the facts, is it far fetched to consider embracing of secular individualism as the root cause? And I don't mean by any end of the political spectrum(left/right). I mean across the board,anyone that effectively beliefs they define their own morality as they see it fit to benefit themselves. And as the saying goes "a thief thinks everyone else is also a thief", they have all these conspiracies that the media or the deepstate is out to get them because that's exactly what they would do to advance their self-centered ideology.

I am emploring you to critically consider that perhaps effective secualrim (even among those that don't claim to be secular) that puts individuals at the center of their own universe might be the cause.

Humans are interesting creatures, weirdly with the exception of the vocal minority, people that are secular by default have in my experience been very emphatetic, I am not sure if they will remain the same but I think initially most mentally healthy people want to stop the pain of others because they experienced pain themselves and they wanted someone to help them, therefore doing to others what you would want done to you is implicitly a correct way of living. I suspect secular-individualism contradicts that reasoning when helping others entails inconvenience or having to pay a sacrifice.

This is an important question because much of democracy and america assume the majority will have empathy for the minority (which is how slavery ended and civil rights laws that benefited the minority were passed).

Another contributor might be how rapid advance of technology might be the driver of self-centered ideologies that lack empathy. But I hope people continue to appreciate peace and be open to any truth.

[michaelchisari]

> am I wrong to think secularism plays a big role in the lack of empathy

America is by far the most religious country in the first world.

[pg_1234]

More specifically, if you compare America to every other western country (all of which seem to be doing better in this regard - i.e. citizens looking out for each other), what stands out is that American is far more religious.

It seems more likely that America's current level of religiousness is toxic, allowing people to be ass-holes as long as they pay lip service to a professed religious ideal.

You only have to look at western Europe to see that it is the secularists, who judge themselves by their actions rather than their words, who are the more decent people.

[Aeronwen]

>It seems more likely that America's current level of religiousness is toxic, allowing people to be ass-holes as long as they pay lip service to a professed religious ideal.

It's literally the religious freedom people colonized America to practice. People who considered being told to stop being assholes and imposing their religious ideal onto everyone else was religious oppression.

The level of toxicity hasn't increased, they just have internet access now.

[_8j50]

Maybe there is a better term, but what I meant was how despite claims of religion in practice if one is effectively and completely individualistic they are secular.

[pg_1234]

In a sense the religious folk are more dangerously individualistic.

While the secular folk make connections with other (real) humans, the religious folk connect with a fantasy ... their "community" is just an assumption that everyone does/should share their fantasy ... and they become pretty damn nasty when that delusion is threatened.

[_8j50]

Now that's objectively not right. Most charities anywhere from the red cross to community outreach programs in inner cities are religious in nature. You are trying to say what I said but you seem to be applying your own bias. Most die hard donald trump supporters don't even claim to be heavily religious for example. My point was secularists sometimes act as religious people should and vice versa but at the root of it individualism is to blame. I am suggesting secularism naturally leads to individualism but so does insincere or ill motivated religion. You are talking at the individual level but I was suggesting at a national level.

Individually people are diffrent and surprising but when a divided nation embraces secularism it leads to individualism which eliminates diplomatic and civil compromises that maintain a stable society.

Why are other western nations not this way? I am not sure they're as immune as you think. Not having similar diversity and division might be a factor but with the US, foreign actors have actively flamed divisions and encouraged individualistic and tribalist ideologies through social media. The US has plenty of divisions, a culture war and plenty of catalysts. But this all was true in the cold war and in the 90s, what changed now in my observation is the country switched from something like maybe a quarter secularists to a popular majority secularists.

You should also beware, statistically plenty of people might claim a religion because they were raised that way, they are not saying they actively practice,they are saying that's their tribe. Big difference.

Britain is exhibitih mildet but similar issues as the US if you would care for a comparison.

[cmurf]

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Who were the Danbury Baptists worried about? The Danbury Congregationalists.

Secularism is the only ethical standard by which religions coexist.

[_8j50]

I disagree. While it is clear that no single faith can be favored in a democracy , acknowlesgement of a creator and an authority beyond humans is crucial. Up until the 20th century the US congress held church services at the capitol hill for example. Government has no bussiness meddling in religion and vice versa but just as religion must acknowledge government's limited authority, government must also acknowledge that all people are created equal and govenment's authority is not an absolute rule over people and that people are properties of their creator (whoever they believe that is) not properties of government (as they are in completely secular regimes such as China and NK).

Ethics itself means nothing without a legitimate moral authority so how can secularism lead to ethics? Either you accept a higher power exists and by that logic define ethics that allows coexistence between religions or you embrace secularism and tell religion there is no higher authority other than government and their religion is subject to an authority that rejects the absolute moral authority religion embraces. In other words you are expecting religion to self contradict in order to comply with secularism,which defeats the whole point of coexistence.

[ilaksh]

I think that people do sometimes underestimate the valuable ethical effects of religious institutions in society. So I will give you that.

But I disagree in general with that you are saying because religion, individualism, and other issues you talk about are not actually bound together the way that you claim.

For example, there are plenty of people who are strongly individualistic in their worldview but also highly religious.

And there are secular worldviews that de-emphasize individualism or include strong community-oriented morals.

Also you try to pin this on technology, but actually technocratic thought is very popular and is a very socialist ideology (in fact I think too much so, but that is a different question).

[Yetanfou]

Secularism - or rather the declining role of theistic religions - seems to have given rise to a number of problems which the likes of "Gott ist tod" Jung seem to have had premonitions of. It now seems that the hole left behind by "traditional" religions is being filled with other belief systems which are just as irrational as the ones they replaced but which have not been cleared of their warts and bumps by a few centuries of use. The meteoric rise of 'wokeism' (for lack of a better word) is a good example of such, the movement has all the tenets of a religion together with the fervour of a cult. Given a few centuries of being battered by opponents and different cultures it would end up resembling a "traditional" religion - probably something like a non-theistic Catholicism with its complex structures, martyrs, saints, catechism and above all hierarchy. I don't think it will survive that long though since it is far too divisive and does not provide redemption.

I still have hopes that the gains of the enlightenment can be presented in such as way as to fill that hole left by the decline of religion - the "belief" in the scientific method, the sanctity of the individual, the concept of "natural rights" which form the basis of the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and more. Maybe I'm foolhardy, maybe this is my own replacement for traditional religion but given the alternatives - the results of which have become very visible in recent months - I'll just keep on believing.