Breakdown of society in the west?

[Bells]

1. Is the family unit really being "eradicated" in the West?

I don't think it is being eradicated. I think it is being redefined. The concept of the "family unit" which in the past had included a mother, father and children is now but one aspect of what we term the "family unit".

2. Why is it important to take the "concept of marriage" seriously?

Marriage as a concept is a relationship between two people and thus, should be taken seriously. But the concept of a "marriage" is no longer restricted to a couple exchanging vows. Relationships where a couple (of whatever gender) decide to live together as though marriage should also be taken seriously.

3. Is a high divorce rate bad? Why?

It is bad in the sense that couples are no longer willing to try to work things out to a certain extent. But the flip side of that coin is that people can now end destructive and/or abusive relationships a lot more easily. I think we are still enamoured with the idea of a wedding, but not a marriage. I have seen so many couples get married and pour their all into the wedding itself with little thought of what it actually means. The marriage is seen as an afterthought, as though everything is easy once you return from the honeymoon. The same applies to couples who move in together with little thought of how the relationship will work and how the dynamics of the relationship has changed.

4. What's wrong with children being born "out of wedlock"?

Nothing at all. Children are born "out of wedlock" all the time and are in stable and loving families. People seem to have the mistaken belief that every child born out of wedlock are born into single parent families, who have little to no contact with one parent (primarily the father) and allowed to run wild with little to no care.

5. Do any of these things really lead to "unstable upbringings"?

A child born in wedlock, in a family unit that is abusive or destructive will have a more unstable upbringing than a child born to a single loving parent or to a loving couple who are not married. Children learn about forming relationships from their parent(s) and those around them.

Many hold the view that parents should remain together in unhappy or abusive relationships because of the children. Having known and seen the results of such a line of thought, I have come to the conclusion that it creates a more unstable home environment for the children and the children end up, to put it bluntly, more screwed up as a result. I know of many people who have come from such home environments and every single one of them are emotionally unstable and are unable to form and continue relationships in their lives.

6. Is there really "no moral order" in the West? What kind of moral order would you like to see?

"Moral order" is something that can only be defined by the individual. For example, some might deem it moral or just to beat and rape one's wife, but the majority would disagree and as a result, such actions are now illegal.

7. Is it possible to seriously "meet up with family and friends, go to weddings, have get togethers, meet up and discuss issues" in the absence of religion, or not?

Of course it is. I am an atheist and see my family and friends all the time. We go to weddings, have get togethers and meet up and discuss issues that are important to us.

To give a perfect example, when we lost our home and a fair few of our belongings in the storms and mudslide that ravaged our suburb, I rang my mother in a fairly hysterical state a few hours later (we had to run for our lives at 2am and I didn't want to freak our parents at that time of the night) and within an hour, an army of our family and friends had converged with trailers and everything imaginable to try to salvage what could be salvaged from the house itself. Half of who are not religious and are in fact atheists. Hell, we were saved by neighbours we had never even met before but lived a fair way up the street who saw the mudslide come down the street and rushed to our aid at 2am and they took us in for the rest of the night. Several of our neighbours came to our aid that night and immediately after as well.. many of whom combed the streets and local creek bed behind our house and salvaged a lot of our son's toys that had been washed away. When immediately after the first storm, the drinking water had become contaminated, people from around the neighbourhood went to the army water stations (the army had brought in drinking water at set up stations in various streets) and brought the rest of us who were unable to leave due to damage to our vehicles, cartons of water. Food was shared between neighbours and people we had never met before. Immediately after the first storm that decimated our suburb, neighbours rushed from door to door to make sure everyone was alright.. We had people who lived a few streets down the road come knocking on our door to ask us if we needed help clearing away the debris. After the mudslide a few days later, everyone and anyone came the next day with shovels to help clear the mud out of the house.. many of whom we had never met before. To say that family and friend togetherness and community spirit can only occur in religious circles is, to me anyway, a tad ignorant.

8. Does religion "tackle social issues" better than secularism?

It can and it can not. Social issues like rape and refusing to give a rape victim a morning after pill is not handling it better than secularism. Religion is and should remain a personal affair, not imposed on the society at large without their consent.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Children are born "out of wedlock" all the time and are in stable and loving families. People seem to have the mistaken belief that every child born out of wedlock are born into single parent families, who have little to no contact with one parent (primarily the father) and allowed to run wild with little to no care.

On what basis do you say that belief is mistaken? Does every illegitimate child have little contact with the father, live in poverty, get poor grades, do drugs, commit crimes, and just in general "run wild"? Of course not. But the statistics show that all of those things are much, much more likely among illegitimate children.

A child born in wedlock, in a family unit that is abusive or destructive will have a more unstable upbringing than a child born to a single loving parent or to a loving couple who are not married. Children learn about forming relationships from their parent(s) and those around them.

True, but an illegitimate child is much more likely to suffer abuse than one born into an intact family.

Many hold the view that parents should remain together in unhappy or abusive relationships because of the children. Having known and seen the results of such a line of thought, I have come to the conclusion that it creates a more unstable home environment for the children and the children end up, to put it bluntly, more screwed up as a result.

That's an old self serving myth parents who want a divorce use to justify themselves. But it's bogus. In truth, what you said is only true in a very small number of marriages. For the vast majority of couples, the children are way better off if the parents stay together. The negative effects of divorce on children are extensive and long lasting.

Divorce Myth 6: When parents don't get along, children are better off if their parents divorce than if they stay together.

Fact: A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents' marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children's well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high-conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce — and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type — the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce.

Furthermore:

Divorce Myth 3: Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly.

Fact: Divorce increases the risk of interpersonal problems in children. There is evidence, both from small qualitative studies and from large-scale, long-term empirical studies, that many of these problems are long lasting. In fact, they may even become worse in adulthood.

http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html

 

[S.A.M.]

You know, I've noticed many atheist children born to religious parents continue the cultural traditions of their parents because that is how they were "brainwashed". I'd be interested to know if children of atheist parents continue those same behaviour patterns into the next generation. Does being brought up atheist make a difference?

Anyone here?

 

[Tiassa]

Er ... um ....

In truth, S.A.M., I don't understand the question. Perhaps what I would presume as an example is different from what you mean.

Little help on this one, please?

 

[draqon]

hey Tiassa read my post 14 explanation, please.

 

[Bells]

You know, I've noticed many atheist children born to religious parents continue the cultural traditions of their parents because that is how they were "brainwashed". I'd be interested to know if children of atheist parents continue those same behaviour patterns into the next generation. Does being brought up atheist make a difference?

Anyone here?

Do you mean cultural traditions or religious traditions?

Culture will be passed down regardless of religious affiliation. Like Tiassa, I find your question a tad confusing.

 

[Tiassa]

Well ....

hey Tiassa read my post 14 explanation, please.

Ah. Yes. My apologies. I read it yesterday, but ran into some trouble with my reply; I'm not sure in what way I intend to question it. Even now, I'm not sure.

The first part I intend to leave be. That belief is yours, and I don't intend to argue it.

The other, though—

Because our children are reflections of our beliefs in life that will make life most aspiring and give it meaning...We instill our beliefs in life through our children success in life, and this reflects biologically at best fit child to pass their genes again and again.

—finds two points of contention. And I haven't decided what to do with either. Nonetheless:

• "Because our children are reflections of our beliefs in life that will make life most aspiring and give it meaning" — The investment of the self in the justification strikes me as problematic. I haven't settled on an expression of the problem, though.

• "We instill our beliefs in life through our children success in life, and this reflects biologically at best fit child to pass their genes again and again" — The words "best fit" stick out there. I don't want to nitpick grammar, really. But I'm having some trouble understanding the sentence. As a result, I'm not sure how to address what seems potentially presumptuous.​

 

[draqon]

• "Because our children are reflections of our beliefs in life that will make life most aspiring and give it meaning" — The investment of the self in the justification strikes me as problematic. I haven't settled on an expression of the problem, though.
​

egoism, perhaps is what bothering you about this?​

 

[draqon]

• "We instill our beliefs in life through our children success in life, and this reflects biologically at best fit child to pass their genes again and again" — The words "best fit" stick out there. I don't want to nitpick grammar, really. But I'm having some trouble understanding the sentence. As a result, I'm not sure how to address what seems potentially presumptuous.[/indent]

They way I see it is like this. This life we live, tests our strength of belief in it. Those who do not wish to live or who do not believe in life well enough, die out.

Now, since our belief in life allow us to live, what we believe in ourselves is what allows us to live the most of the life, to be the most successful in this life. If we pass on the actions we take, the memories we have learned of, the tricks in this life to our children...we are passing on our beliefs in life to them of success in this life, to make them the most successful. Why our children? Because our children are biologically closest to ourselves, our bodies and are most likely to understand how we lived this lives, and thus will learn of how we lead life the best, and therefore express this belief in life as the closest match to how we express our belief in life.

 

[Tiassa]

To a certain degree

egoism, perhaps is what bothering you about this?

To a certain degree. But the problem I'm having is in assessing the relationship between the ego and the species. Self-interest is a vital part of our natural selection. Still, though, I'm having trouble seeing the evolutionary value of self-satisfaction in this context. And, when we get down to it, perpetuation of species is what reproduction accomplishes.

 

[Tiassa]

A sermon on competition

If we pass on the actions we take, the memories we have learned of, the tricks in this life to our children...we are passing on our beliefs in life to them of success in this life, to make them the most successful.

What makes for a healthy community? After all, humans are social creatures; at the dawn of time, only circumstance forced us to come together. While nature has never entirely selected out those humans of solitary inclination, they exist in a different context today, shaped and stimulated by society.

What if the tricks of this life, those that we pass to our children, are only of temporary success? My father, for instance, taught me certain principles of capitalism, thinking that he would educate me for success. Those principles are, if not dead, at least in remission today. What thrived in his time is choked and gasping in mine. And, sadly, the principles of what we call capitalism in the United States today evolved from those he taught me.

Indeed, a business operating according to the thrift, prudence, and relationship to community he prescribed would have been wiped out in the late '80s and on through the first part of this decade. Many, in fact, have. For the time being, those principles have failed.

Yet the new principles, also, seem to be failing. My father's brand of capitalism would never have run us into the wall the economy hit in September. To the other, though, his brand of capitalism would have stifled the growth of the 1990s. Not by taxes, but by its prudence; it would not have taken the risks of that decade unless it failed to foresee the outcome. The only way for this to come about would be if the system could not foresee the obvious. There came a day in 2002 when my father walked into the house where I was living and, as I stumbled down the stairs, still half asleep, said, "I owe you an apology." I couldn't figure out what he was talking about. Had he just run over my cat, or something? And he explained that he had recently started to feel badly about a number of the fights we had when I was younger. Those capitalist principles ran at odds with everything else I was being taught by family and community. So we fought. We argued furiously. He condemned my sense of community in a desperate effort to, as he saw it, teach me to be successful in this life. And, speaking of the scandals of Enron and how many other firms with bad books, he shook his head and said, "I didn't know. I never thought people would act like this." It was the culmination of about seven years of reorganizing his beliefs, a process that started when his business partners locked him out in favor of nepotism; they sent the guy who designed their most successful products packing in order to secure control for an affable but incompetent son. He never saw it coming. He never believed that "real" businessmen would act that way. But over the next several years, he was shocked to find that capitalists were, indeed, bloodthirsty.

Will what we know today hold true tomorrow? Are we certain that the tricks we learned in life will apply in our children's lives?

Sometimes I think it is more important to pass on our ignorance insofar as we help our children understand the limits of what we see and know. I'm not sure where that fits into this part of the discussion, but to return to a point of departure, I would assert that:

• The purpose of the family in the context of the broader human endeavor is to serve as an organizational structure for the perpetuation of the species.

• We pass on what we have learned because it is all we can do to perpetuate the species. In evolutionary terms, we cannot leave our children stupid. All of our sentimentality, the love and hope, when viewed through the dispassionate eye of nature, strives to keep our species in existence.

• The measure by which moral values are degrading would be expressed in terms of function and efficacy. What do the values achieve? Are they successful to that end? And where does that outcome lead?​

Thus, neither raunchy music nor homosexual parents suggest a degradation of moral values. That millions of people smoke pot speaks nothing of our moral values. Rather, we might wonder at the fact that our society depends on consumption, requires poverty and deprivation, and invests so much of its thoughts and efforts into superficial arguments—about music, gays, marijuana, fashion, consumption, wealth, &c.—instead of those things that demonstrably have advanced the human endeavor, such as justice and, yes, luxury. In the end, the evolutionary goal of a self-aware species such as humanity is to insulate itself against nature. Taken to the extreme, imagine if someday humanity manages to get off this rock, spread itself through the Universe. Imagine that no single cataclysm or epidemic can extinct us. Imagine that we manage to persist until the end of time, the end of the Universe, the end of this cycle. Religiously, perhaps we might then see the face of God. More intellectually, we will have persisted through the entirety of the Universe as we understand it. Is there a multiverse? Can we transcend the boundaries of this Universe? What else is the goal of evolution but the perpetuity of a species? We will persist. We will evolve. We will protect our lineage—whatever it becomes—throughout the whole of time. To exist as long as there is existence: that, if there is any genuine purpose of life, is the goal to which all our efforts strive, whether we acknowledge it or not.

And, yeah, sometimes in the face of that it seemed pointless to get up and haul my ass down to an insurance company each day to filter through stacks of mail and figure out what has to go where first. I can't imagine feeling much different had I written policies, or tinkered with the numbers to minimize the payout on a claim. The answer to the Camusite absurdity lies beyond the reach of any one life. So in the meantime, we push the rock up the hill, watch it roll back down again. And as we walk along to retrieve it and begin the struggle anew, if we catch ourselves smiling—if Sisyphus is happy—we will, at least, have that.

Anyway, that's why I asked in the first place.

 

[francois]

There are a lot more ways for a system to be broken than there are ways for a system to be functional. As society changes more and at a quicker rate, the probability of it changing to a state that is functional decreases drastically. In evolution, it's comparable to the probability of a microchange being adaptive versus the probability of a macrochange being adaptive. With macrochanges, it's much less probable. As society changes quicker and quicker, there's nowhere to go but broken.

 

[Baron Max]

What makes for a healthy community? After all, humans are social creatures; at the dawn of time, only circumstance forced us to come together.

A healthy community? It's one in which each member of that community knows personally each and every other member. When the community becomes so large that members don't personally know the others, the community will fail to be a community ...it will become a collection of strangers who are thus given the opportunity to act individually without regard to the other members. Once cohesion is lost, a form of anarchy will begin to take shape in the form of greediness, selfishness and egocentricism. Criminals will see opportunity in anonymity, and the cycle will begin.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

A healthy community? It's one in which each member of that community knows personally each and every other member. When the community becomes so large that members don't personally know the others, the community will fail to be a community ...it will become a collection of strangers who are thus given the opportunity to act individually without regard to the other members. Once cohesion is lost, a form of anarchy will begin to take shape in the form of greediness, selfishness and egocentricism. Criminals will see opportunity in anonymity, and the cycle will begin.

Greed, selfishness, and egocentrism exist even in communities where everyone knows everyone else. And criminals, in general, have never failed to seek opportunity in privacy. Anonymity helps, but isn't a prerequisite.

I'm curious, though: Have you some objection to acting individually without regard to other members of society?

 

[S.A.M.]

In truth, S.A.M., I don't understand the question. Perhaps what I would presume as an example is different from what you mean.

Little help on this one, please?

Do you mean cultural traditions or religious traditions?

Culture will be passed down regardless of religious affiliation. Like Tiassa, I find your question a tad confusing.

I mean, how does the practice of those things associated with religion change when the parent is an atheist? I presume a religious parent might do things a tad differently than an athiest parent might. What happens in the third generation? What do the children of atheist parents follow? How does the change trickle through? I ask because I don't know any atheists who are from an atheist family.

For example, I assume things like baptism and first holy communion will be skipped. Are they replaced by other, secular customs? What about weddings? Do the atheists forego the grand wedding that churches are inundated with? How about Easter, Christmas, Thanksgiving? What happens to all these rituals in the third generation? [offspring of athiests who are offspring of theists)

Also, for those whose grandparents were regular church goers, what is this replaced with?

 

[Tiassa]

Jesus Incognito, and other notes

I mean, how does the practice of those things associated with religion change when the parent is an atheist? I presume a religious parent might do things a tad differently than an athiest parent might. What happens in the third generation? What do the children of atheist parents follow? How does the change trickle through? I ask because I don't know any atheists who are from an atheist family.

You probably do know some, just not intimately enough to realize it. Not every atheist is an evangelical crybaby.

For example, I assume things like baptism and first holy communion will be skipped. Are they replaced by other, secular customs? What about weddings? Do the atheists forego the grand wedding that churches are inundated with? How about Easter, Christmas, Thanksgiving? What happens to all these rituals in the third generation? [offspring of athiests who are offspring of theists)

An interesting question that I think will be answered more generally in the near future.

Things like baptism and holy communion are ritualistic, and, at least in American culture, largely devoid of significant utility. American culture lacks any substantial rites of passage. I mean, maybe we find a tribal youth's first hunt a bit savage in our modern context, but there is something more tangible about those sorts of rites of passage than getting a driver's license, or being Saran-wrapped to a barstool while your friends pour tequila down your throat.

What are American rites of passage?

• "The Talk"
• Religious confirmation
• Driver's license
• First sexual intercourse
• High school graduation
• First legal drink/first legal drink with parents
• Frat hazing
• College graduation
• First "real" job
• (First) Marriage
• Birth of first child​

The celebrations of these events aren't ritualistically significant the same way as purifying, painting, arming up, and then hunting down a wild animal with the other adults in the tribe. I might look to a Jew and ask about the mitzvah, but in the American context, other cultural influences seem to mitigate the significance. It's like a bit from a Family Guy episode, when the kid is shocked because Peter has somehow managed to run over a clown in midtown Manhattan with a boat. The father says, "Quit crying! You're a man, now!" But the Jews I've known have been much like their Gentile counterparts. Just as superficial, just as mature or immature as the next. I would imagine that the fact of the mitzvah would stick with a Jew longer and more significantly than my own Lutheran confirmation, but that passage into "adulthood" is largely rhetorical these days. At least, for the Lutherans.

You know, it used to be ... well, not exactly uncommon for a father to take his son into town on his eighteenth or nineteenth birthday and buy the kid a hooker. Dangerous today, perhaps, and not exactly the healthiest psychological inheritance, but, yeah, I can see how that would have stuck in a young man's mind.

That said, I tried for years to duck out of Christmas, not because I was an atheist, but because I wasn't a Christian. Good fucking luck. And since I didn't wait until my parents were dead before reproducing, my daughter is learning about all sorts of stupid things like the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Jesus. Hopefully, I will do better than my parents' generation when those days of reckoning come.

I think each atheist will respond to cultural influences and the price of alienation in his or her own way. I see no problem with answering my daughter, "Christmas is just something silly people do because they need to find an excuse to be nice to each other." And in that context, have a blast. People give me presents, there are good concerts (I missed The Squirrels' X-mas X-travaganza this year, unfortunately), and frequent excuses for drunkenness and gluttony. All in the name of peace on Earth. Oh, and keeping our retail sector afloat.

In the meantime, all the Jesus stuff is for the Jesus freaks. Seriously, I was allegedly raised Christian (I call it "Holiday Christianity") insofar as I went to church on certain holy days (Christmas Eve, Easter and, later, Pentecost), am a confirmed Lutheran, and enjoyed my three years at a Jesuit school (despite the Christians). But my mother isn't a holy roller. Her sister, on the other hand, was the one focused on the Jesus aspect of Christmas. What can I say? Missouri Synod.

And think of it this way: Instead of making any sort of case about it, my daughter's maternal grandparents—with her mother's acquiescence—taught my daughter to call it "The Program", so that I wouldn't know they were taking her to church. I mean, really. Whatever feeds their victim complex, I guess. But the whole thing becomes a joke when faith is wrapped in a veil of lies.

Look at the culture. Therein lies the key. A solstice party? Hey, great. And, no, it doesn't necessarily have to be a pagan thing, either. How far can a rabbit go into the woods? Only halfway, then he's coming back out. Pardon us if we celebrate the fact that the days will be getting longer for a while. Up above the forty-fifth, people start to get strange in the winter.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm so my question would be better addressed to your daughter a few years hence. Though I did miss the grandparental influence, so it would have to be her children, rather than she, who could give an accurate response.

So the religious experience is so scarce in the US even in theists?

From my own memories of my friends [both Catholic but married to non Christians], the church going is very regular from parent to child to grandchild. The baptism, communion, wedding are all very Christian. So are birthdays and all festivals, with Lent, Easter and Christmas being balanced between the religious and the secular. Priestly visits [Fr. A. is a frequent at an evening cuppa], confessions and the mandatory mass is performed with religious attention to duty.

There is very little focus on sin or hellfire, with more attention given to joy and charity. Religion is pleasurable and shared. I went for mass too, several times. It was nice.

 

[Tiassa]

Black yucky stuff, and other notes

So the religious experience is so scarce in the US even in theists?

I would go so far as to say that, albeit with some exceptions, American religion is either superficial or neurotic-at-best. Sometimes both at once.

Don't get me wrong, though. I adore the Society of Friends. If I believed in the myth, that's where I'd probably find a home for my faith.

From my own memories of my friends [both Catholic but married to non Christians], the church going is very regular from parent to child to grandchild. The baptism, communion, wedding are all very Christian. So are birthdays and all festivals, with Lent, Easter and Christmas being balanced between the religious and the secular. Priestly visits [Fr. A. is a frequent at an evening cuppa], confessions and the mandatory mass is performed with religious attention to duty.

This has to do with social organization in any given subculture. Most of the regular churchgoers I've known over the years—in fact, nearly all—stick with rote responses to philosophical inquiry. Spiritual or psychological reward measured internally will give a different result than any comparison to the broader state and function of society.

There is very little focus on sin or hellfire, with more attention given to joy and charity. Religion is pleasurable and shared. I went for mass too, several times. It was nice.

My mother is a bit like that. She apparently goes to church these days, and says it's more for the sense of community than anything else. On the one hand, I can understand and accept that. To the other, the last time she got us inside a church on Christmas Eve, it was at some "nondenominational" church called New Alliance. Their Christmas pageant featured a grandmother explaining to a five year-old that we need Christ because, "We are all born full of black, yucky stuff," and only Jesus can make us clean. That was the last straw. In truth, I recall a service some years ago—Episcopal, maybe; I doubt it was Lutheran—that included incense and garish priestly vestments and was, at least, reverent. I can appreciate that, but I don't believe it, so it was merely theater, and scads better than the black yucky stuff. (An hour wasted is better than ninety minutes spent being offended at every turn.)

I'll fight tooth and nail to make sure my daughter doesn't learn to hate herself that way.

 

[Baron Max]

Greed, selfishness, and egocentrism exist even in communities where everyone knows everyone else. And criminals, in general, have never failed to seek opportunity in privacy. Anonymity helps, but isn't a prerequisite.

All of that is true, Tiassa, but acting on those feelings is much more difficult when everyone knows you personally. And thus, crime in such small towns is almost unheard of.

I'm curious, though: Have you some objection to acting individually without regard to other members of society?

Tiassa, I'm a compassionate, tolerant, loving, understanding individual ...to do something completely selfish and/or without regard for others involved or in the area would be totally abhorrent to me.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

I'll fight tooth and nail to make sure my daughter doesn't learn to hate herself that way.

So ...what does that mean? That you're trying to indoctrinate her against any and all religions and religious beliefs?

Why don't you let her learn about things like that on her own? If you influence her in any way, it seems to me that all you're doing is exactly what you claim to hate in religions ...."forcing" their beliefs onto others.

What's going on here, Tiassa? Is this just you saying "I'm right, goddammit, and you're gonna' listen and obey, you little bitch!" Is that it?

Baron Max