Does our secular system make us equal?

[charles brough]

Are we equal? What is equal to something else, anything? Or is eveything different or of unequal worth, value or importance?

 

Are we endowed with this equality value? If so, what is it?

[mooeypoo]

Who, where, what type of equality, and in which society. Who's "We"? This is an international forum We have people from quite a diverse range of the world... you should be a bit more specific.

 

Also, your question is very vague. What do you mean "are we equal?" in what? Obviously, we're not "all" equal biologically and there isn't any debate on it, either***. Are we socially equal? Debatable; if you ask this from a political point of view, you'd probably get a resounding "no", but with little agreement as to where,exactly, this inequality lies.

 

I think you should be more specific. Is this a philosophical question about equality in general and what it means, or is this something more specific?

 

~mooey

 

*** NOTE: Before you go all up in arms, ScienceForum readers, I just re-read myself and noticed this might come off differently than what I meant. This "biological inequality" I speak of has nothing to do with race; I was refering to the biological differences between men and women. Please don't take my words out of context also, sorry it might sound different than what I meant. Must clarify.

[charles brough]

Who, where, what type of equality, and in which society. Who's "We"? This is an international forum We have people from quite a diverse range of the world... you should be a bit more specific.

 

Also, your question is very vague. What do you mean "are we equal?" in what? Obviously, we're not "all" equal biologically and there isn't any debate on it, either***. Are we socially equal? Debatable; if you ask this from a political point of view, you'd probably get a resounding "no", but with little agreement as to where,exactly, this inequality lies.

 

I think you should be more specific. Is this a philosophical question about equality in general and what it means, or is this something more specific?

 

~mooey

 

*** NOTE: Before you go all up in arms, ScienceForum readers, I just re-read myself and noticed this might come off differently than what I meant. This "biological inequality" I speak of has nothing to do with race; I was refering to the biological differences between men and women. Please don't take my words out of context also, sorry it might sound different than what I meant. Must clarify.

thanks for raising the question. I am referring to the US Consitution and the Bill of Rights which are main features of the Secular ideology that the US has been spreading all over the globe.

 

In the US, the dogma of everyone is equal and has "an inalienal right" to equal justice, etc. So, we make the point here that the individual, sexes, the races, cultures, nations, religions, etc. are all equal. We are encouraged to "praise diversity" so that anything else is considered to be "politically incorrect."

[randomc]

So you're asking: should we assume that all people have equal rights? History suggests the danger innot doing so is that it leads to sub-populations dehumanising other sub-populations, often with rather nasty consequences. So whether it actually makes us equal or not, the assumption at least limits some of the worst stuff.

[charles brough]

So you're asking: should we assume that all people have equal rights? History suggests the danger innot doing so is that it leads to sub-populations dehumanising other sub-populations, often with rather nasty consequences. So whether it actually makes us equal or not, the assumption at least limits some of the worst stuff.

 

Oh, I agree totally. What I think is that we have emphasized it for so long that it has become extreme and distorted and is leading to absurdly impractical changes in our society. Humanism can be over-done. Everything is capable of being carried to extreme. Yet if I be specific on these points, I seem cruel and/bigoted because even skeptics are ruled by their secullar ideology.

[jeskill]

Oh, I agree totally. What I think is that we have emphasized it for so long that it has become extreme and distorted and is leading to absurdly impractical changes in our society. Humanism can be over-done. Everything is capable of being carried to extreme. Yet if I be specific on these points, I seem cruel and/bigoted because even skeptics are ruled by their secullar ideology.

 

It might be useful if you described which types of equality you value and which you don't. This website might help.

[john5746]

thanks for raising the question. I am referring to the US Consitution and the Bill of Rights which are main features of the Secular ideology that the US has been spreading all over the globe.

 

In the US, the dogma of everyone is equal and has "an inalienal right" to equal justice, etc. So, we make the point here that the individual, sexes, the races, cultures, nations, religions, etc. are all equal. We are encouraged to "praise diversity" so that anything else is considered to be "politically incorrect."

 

Well, the Bill of Rights doesn't say we are all equal, just that we all have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would rather have it stated that these rights are provided/protected by the citizenry because we all enjoy them, rather than imply if comes from a god, but whatever. Of course we are born with different abilities and access to different resources, etc.

 

I agree with you that tolerating intolerance, for example can be awful. I think almost everyone believes that certain cultures and beliefs are superior to others. The difficulty is in application. So, while we may not approve of dictators, certain aspects of China or treatment of minorities in certain areas, that doesn't mean we should feel superior to the people under those systems, discredit all aspects of the culture or rush in and bomb the problems away.

[charles brough]

It might be useful if you described which types of equality you value and which you don't. This website might help.

The reference is a good one! What could I add to that? My personal feelings are not at issue anyway. What I hoped to do with this thread was to get across the idea that our secular system is an ideology and that, like all ideologies, it has a limited life span. As it has often been stated here by the rest, what is important is a limited number of rights and to treat all individuals with consideration. I personally agree. On the other hand, I also recognize, for example, why women have asserted themselves and gained more influence in our society. It is something that has developed in all previous civilizations when they become ideologically too divided. The same thing can be observed in other primates. The women become assertive when the group and its leadership become weak and lead to a feeling of insecurity in them because of their maternal concern for the welfare of the young.

 

So, we idealize it with the Bill of Rights and support it. However, being a response to stress, it is not an ideal state when prolonged. It is not natural to be instituionalized into our ideology. When there are movies about violent women heroines, it is as if we encourage women to take over the male role and leads us in the direction of women in army combat positions. What is normal is for men to protect women, not the other way around. To distort our innate drives by ideology like this adds increasing stress to society and that, in turn, causes a rise in medical problems and an ever more expensive medical burden.

 

Like all subjects in science, this is a science subject and my personal feelings are not an issue. There are many more examples in which the cause can be explained and the danger it leads to when and if it goes beyond basic human nature. I explain them in "The Last Civilization."

 

brough

[jeskill]

The reference is a good one! What could I add to that? My personal feelings are not at issue anyway. What I hoped to do with this thread was to get across the idea that our secular system is an ideology and that, like all ideologies, it has a limited life span. As it has often been stated here by the rest, what is important is a limited number of rights and to treat all individuals with consideration. I personally agree. On the other hand, I also recognize, for example, why women have asserted themselves and gained more influence in our society. It is something that has developed in all previous civilizations when they become ideologically too divided. The same thing can be observed in other primates. The women become assertive when the group and its leadership become weak and lead to a feeling of insecurity in them because of their maternal concern for the welfare of the young.

 

I feel like to really tackle this, we have to separate the concepts of morals/values from the concept of ideology. In my mind, they are two different things. Everyone has morals and values, which I loosely think of as rules that govern interactions between people. Ideology is a belief that, not only are a certain set of morals and values absolutely correct, but that there is only one system which will allow us to live in a moral and ethical way. For example, I value the concept that every human should have equal opportunity to live a free life. That doesn't mean I believe everyone is 'equal". Moreover, it doesn't mean I ascribe to a particular ideology that tells us how our institutions should be set up so that we have equality. My opinions on the latter are highly influenced by evidence: what works and what doesn't?

 

So, I guess I'm saying that I don't necessarily believe that a secular system is completely ideological. Yes, there are a set of morals and values inherent in a secular system, but it's possible for to change the institutional structure surrounding these morals and values if evidence suggests the institutional structure is inadequate. And indeed, that seems to happen.

 

On a related note, I'm also confused as to how you could have a non-secular system that wasn't ideological.

 

So, we idealize it with the Bill of Rights and support it. However, being a response to stress, it is not an ideal state when prolonged. It is not natural to be instituionalized into our ideology. When there are movies about violent women heroines, it is as if we encourage women to take over the male role and leads us in the direction of women in army combat positions. What is normal is for men to protect women, not the other way around. To distort our innate drives by ideology like this adds increasing stress to society and that, in turn, causes a rise in medical problems and an ever more expensive medical burden.

 

Funny, I see the prevalent ideology in popular culture as, "only pretty and sexy women matter", not as "women should act like men".

 

How sure are you that the act of men protecting women is innate (i.e. coded in the genes), and not a learned response to societal cues? Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?

[charles brough]

I feel like to really tackle this, we have to separate the concepts of morals/values from the concept of ideology. In my mind, they are two different things. Everyone has morals and values, which I loosely think of as rules that govern interactions between people. Ideology is a belief that, not only are a certain set of morals and values absolutely correct, but that there is only one system which will allow us to live in a moral and ethical way. For example, I value the concept that every human should have equal opportunity to live a free life. That doesn't mean I believe everyone is 'equal". Moreover, it doesn't mean I ascribe to a particular ideology that tells us how our institutions should be set up so that we have equality. My opinions on the latter are highly influenced by evidence: what works and what doesn't?

 

So, I guess I'm saying that I don't necessarily believe that a secular system is completely ideological. Yes, there are a set of morals and values inherent in a secular system, but it's possible for to change the institutional structure surrounding these morals and values if evidence suggests the institutional structure is inadequate. And indeed, that seems to happen.

 

On a related note, I'm also confused as to how you could have a non-secular system that wasn't ideological.

 

I note your reasoning. In my work on social evolution ("The Last Civilization"), I had to give all important terms only one specific meaning as is done in all the "hard" sciences. Since we evolved as small group primates and need ideology to bring us a sense of community when we formed into larger groups, (and now into nations and "societies" i.e., groups of nations bonded together by a common religion such as Islam), the nature of what it takes to bond us together becomes important. My functional use of terms is not used in rationalized social theory. I try to avoid the term for old-ideology, "religiion" because what it is used to mean is vague and confuses the subject.

 

Thus, I use the term "ideology" as a general term for everything people believe since all is belief and there is no absolute knowledge. We are actually, instead, seeking a more accurate picture (or ideology) of ourselves and the world around us. That's what science does. However, since some ideologies last for thousands of years, I had to find out what has enabled them to do that. I finally concluded that they were skilled in explaining to the faithful "the meaning of life" by providing some sort of answers to meaning-of-life questions. Thus, belief systems that differ on the main explanation tend to bind people into seperate societies. Examples are Christendom (the West), Islam and East Asian Marxism. In other words, all ideologies that bind people into societies that occupy space on the planet (we are territiorial beings) are the same type of ideology. What the public calls "religion" is only old and hence less accurate such systems.

 

The point is that Secular Humanism is an ideology of ideals such as liberty, individualism, rights, etc. that gradually formed in the last five hundred years. All the great civilizations have had a secular age. The Roman one was Hellenistic. Hindu and Chinese ones were the original Buddhist. And characteristic of secular ideologies is that they spring from and adapt to the religion-society from which they came. They tend to refine the old faith's moral standards, but the whole secular ideology depends upon the underlying older faith to survive. It can never replace them.

 

I agree with you that we have an innate social-behavioral nature. Ideologies only shape or "refine" it. Your concept of what is central to the heart of morals being secular rights is an example of the way our social moral nature is shaped by our secular humanist ideology.

 

One poster earlier wrongly concluded that I was against the secular and hence must believe in the old myths and superstition. I only see this as a subject that needs objective clearity in order to tell really what is going on and what lies ahead. It is not personal with me. I do not think a lot differently. There is no other available ideology superior to Secular Humanism now.

 

 

Funny, I see the prevalent ideology in popular culture as, "only pretty and sexy women matter", not as "women should act like men". How sure are you that the act of men protecting women is innate (i.e. coded in the genes), and not a learned response to societal cues? Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?

 

:D

Seriously, however, a feeling that is natural to men is not the ideal and ideology that has caused us to bring forth more women's rights.

 

Why did we go to war in Islam and go over there to fight and risk death as well as waste our resources if it was not to protect our women and children? Alpha male chimps agrssively patrol their territory to guard it. It is of little importance whether they find the genes or epigentic configuration that is responsible for our primate, even mammal, nature. Its widespread existence is a valid generalization and should be referred to as an "instinct" with the proviso that all instinct in higher mammals is subject to some "cultural" (ideological) influence and even modification.