How is secularity working out?

[pancreasman]

Not really because the article really doesn't define why the things they picked are 'moral issues' to begin with or why they selected that criteria. What do they mean by 'militaristic'? Are we talking about maintaining a strong military presence, that can be used to project military power to all areas of the world and/or use such power as a means to 'show concern' to a trouble spot? Many countries depend upon the US military strength to protect them, in that same fashion. Why don't the countries of Europe spend as much as the US does on the military? Why when the US has already pledged to do it for you? This is something that some people seem to forget and try to pretend it is a 'moral issue' when they ignore the deeper picture of the reason for it. If the US started to let these countries fend for themselves, do you think their military spending would need to rise to make up for the loss of US presence? This is just one of the problems with the criteria they selected. How far should 'tolerance' go? Why is being 'more tolerant' a better thing? Why is being 'less nationalistic' a better thing? The article does not explain why any of these issues are really 'moral' issues to begin with. It just assumes they are and expects their readers to agree with them.



And there is the problem, the criteria is not set or agreed upon, so why should the conclusion be trusted?



I'm not dismissing all of sociology at all, but pointing out a critical thing. It is not based on near as many facts as math, physics, chemistry, or biology. Look at the criteria they selected, what makes these issues more important than other issues? What makes these issues 'moral' issues to start with? How did they select the people they looked at? If these questions can't be answered, why should we take the 'study' seriously?

So, at best, you're saying we have no clue how secular people compare to religious people. At least we agree that we CANNOT say that secular people are less likely to be moral than their religious neighbours, right?

[lilpixieofterror]

So, at best, you're saying we have no clue how secular people compare to religious people. At least we agree that we CANNOT say that secular people are less likely to be moral than their religious neighbours, right?

All depends on how you measure them up. This is what we need to know first; what are these measurements and why are they important moral issues?

[Epoetker]

So, at best, you're saying we have no clue how secular people compare to religious people. At least we agree that we CANNOT say that secular people are less likely to be moral than their religious neighbours, right?

Previously, we had no clue why you were insisting on the 'secular' and 'religious' categories given their poor and incoherent match to reality as experienced by most of us. Now we CAN say that they were meant to (badly) force a conclusion. It's pointless, and incoherent, leads nowhere, educates nobody. So I will force my own:

All else being equal, Christians will always observably and consistently be more moral, more honest, more fair, and more worthy to rule and to serve in a civilized society than non-Christian people, in direct proportion to how seriously they believe the truth of Christianity and follow its precepts. To the extent that they are not, it will be to the extent that they follow the Spirit of the Age. When a secularist of peerless intellectual quality says this:

Actually, there are few things that would please me more than seeing my daughter become a Christian. If only because it would mean she was not a worshiper of Beyonce, or something worse. I know all too well, however, that it is not in my power to raise her as one.

and this:

(I also except those, several of of whom I know, who grew up as rationalists but have made a rational decision to convert to orthodox religions, the mustier and more arbitrary the better - generally because the alternative more and more proclaims itself, per Chesterton, not nothing, still less Reason, but the Whore of Babylon in full professional attire. To these friends, Babylon-worship, essentially idolatrous (and speaking to Maimonides' point that idol-worship is self-worship) seems unsatisfying for a grownup, but utterly unacceptable for his children. But still - these people are not genuinely religious, though their kids will be.)

that is what we call a vote of no confidence in secularity, at the very least of the atheist persuasion. I suppose I could also start pulling from Roissy or Voltaire, but the testimony of the great men is highly consistent on this point, especially when it comes time to instruct those they love most, and whom they have the closest personal stake in.