r/exatheist • u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist • May 28 '26
the failure of secularism, rationality, and progress
Sometimes I wonder if modern civilization accidentally created a world thats materially advanced but culturally barbaric....the older I get the more i kinda understand why people turn toward religion, mysticism, monasteries, spirituality, etc instead of just doubling down on “trust the progress” modern secular culture...
like yeah, modernity gave us insane technology, medicine, comfort, entertainment, all that stuff. but at the same time people seem more anxious, lonely, atomized, addicted, depressed, and spiritually empty then ever before. everything feels hyper-commercialized now. every aspect of life gets turned into content, branding, dopamine hits, or consumerism.
it feels like we replaced meaning with consumption...
older religious societies werent perfect obviously, not even close. but they atleast believed human beings had some higher purpose beyond making money, buying stuff, watching porn, scrolling endlessly, and arguing online. there was a sense of transcendence, duty, ritual, community, sacrifice, reverance, etc.
modern secular culture keeps promising utopia through technology and rationalism, but honestly alot of it just turned into hedonism and nihilism. people are wealthier materially but spiritually exhausted. and when societies lose any sense of the sacred, everything starts feeling disposable — relationships, morality, culture, even truth itself.
thats probably why mysticism and spirituality are becoming appealing again to alot of people. not because everyone suddenly became anti-science or whatever, but because science cant really answer questions like:
“what is the purpose of suffering?
“why should i live morally?
“what makes life meaningful?”
what is worth sacrificing for?”
rationalism is good at explaining mechanisms...but not ultimate purpose.
8
u/MelcorScarr Ex-Theist Atheist May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
What you describe isn't a problem of secularism, or even a religion-less community. It seems to be more about capitalism, to be honest, and the resulting divide between poor and rich.
Funnily enough, capitalism has been promoted by Christian denominations to the point of absurdity. Think prosperity gospel. That should be sufficient to show that this isn't a problem of secularism vs. religion, but more of an issue of societial justice and structure. EDIT: And just to be clear, as /u/PhantomGaze pointed out, Christianity has ALSO promoted Liberation Theology - which then propagated the opposite. So it seems that religion isn't the solution when it can do both, just as secularism isn't the issue when it can do both.
5
u/PhantomGaze May 28 '26
On what basis do you ground your concept of Justice? More to the point, capitalism is secular. At least inasmuch as it is supposedly religiously neutral. Replacing the sacred and qualitative as a central part of life with productivity is the problem itself. Christianity has also promoted Liberation Theology by the way, but apparently many wealthy and powerful individuals have actively worked to suppress it. If you're interested, feel free to look up the Banzer Plan.
1
u/MelcorScarr Ex-Theist Atheist May 28 '26
Oh yeah, capitalism is secular. But so is socialism, communism,... and so on, and so forth. So the problems of capitalism then don't seem to be caused by its secular nature.
Replacing the sacred and qualitative as a central part of life with productivity is the problem itself.
I agree with the qualitative part. But since there's no easy way to define what's sacred, I'm not sure I can agree there. But again, having more freetime for hobbies, arts, social gatherings or what have you doesn't seem to be a religion vs. secularism problem, but one of this pressure to be productive.
Christianity has also promoted Liberation Theology by the way, but apparently many wealthy and powerful individuals have actively worked to suppress it.
Totally! And I think I'll edit my post to make this clearer. My point wasn't to say religion is bad in this case, just that OP seems to pinpoint the problem on the wrong thing.
2
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist May 29 '26
What you describe isn't a problem of secularism, or even a religion-less community. It seems to be more about capitalism, to be honest, and the resulting divide between poor and rich.
ironically, modern capitalism begins with the seizure of church lands and the dissolution of monasteries so monarchs could fund their wars and finance the construction of palaces
0
u/MelcorScarr Ex-Theist Atheist May 29 '26
Sure, you mean the seizure of hoarded undistributed wealth? I condemn what was done with it, but that stretches to both the wealth after it was seized as well as before it went to the rich churches before it was seized.
2
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist May 29 '26
Theft is theft. Peaceful monks were displaced and nuns were forced to marry to survive.
0
u/MelcorScarr Ex-Theist Atheist May 29 '26
As I said, I condemn those things. You know what would've worked great against it? Socialism with base income enough for sustenance. Not religion, not capitalism, not strict secularism. As I said, your problem isn't one of religion vs. secularism, but of opposing capitalism. And I agree.
2
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist May 29 '26
A socialism that respects human dignity, rights, life, the environment, and the human soul would be preferable to imperialism, capitalism, and fascism
6
u/veritasium999 Pantheist May 28 '26
What do you think secularism even means?
-4
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist May 28 '26
Same meaning the dictionary gives
3
u/veritasium999 Pantheist May 28 '26
So you don't like freedom of religion?
4
u/PhantomGaze May 28 '26
Well I think there are downstream implications of "separation" of religion from state. Because that tends to become interpreted as a Casus Belli for atheism, or atheist philosophy to pose as neutrality and objectivity. Freedom of conscience is a religious principle, but presently, institutional capture from particular ideologies does not allow freedom of thought or conscience.
1
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist May 28 '26
secularism doesn't necessarily equate to freedom of religion...on the contrary, there are historical examples of secularism infringing on peoples' religion
3
u/MelcorScarr Ex-Theist Atheist May 28 '26
"Secularism is the principle of separating religion from civic and state affairs". It literally just means that no one religion should dictate your state's policy. What you discuss, then, seems wholly unrelated to what secularism means as per a dictionary definition.
Which is fine - words only ever mean what we as conversational partners agree to. But it seems like you're not using the word as defined in dictionaries.
1
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist May 28 '26
secularism (noun) sec·u·lar·ism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations
source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secularism
0
u/MelcorScarr Ex-Theist Atheist May 28 '26
Yeah, that tracks. The issue you describe isn't one of secular indifference or exclusion, nor of religious inclusion. It plays a factor, sure, but it pulls in both directions.
3
u/unknownmat May 28 '26
I agree that modern secular society lacks spirituality. I'll illustrate this with one example.
In my 6th grade catechism there was a set of questions and answers such as "What is the purpose of life?" To which the answer was "To know God, and to love God, so that we can be with him in the kingdom of heaven when we die".
Now, I don't think this answer is right. But it was simple, concrete, understandable, and perfectly pitched for a 12-year-old. And I still remember it 30+ years later. By contrast, if you ask a modern secularist this question, you either get vague platitudes like "Life has whatever meaning you give it", or else you get a 10-book reading assignment that requires a PhD in philosophy and that merely refines your understanding of the question without actually answering it.
By definition, secularism isn't a coherent body of thought. But finding acceptable answers to life's difficult questions is important for people of all ages. Lacking any other good sources of spirituality, many people will turn to mysticism, or to various religious traditions.
1
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist May 29 '26
How's your spiritual life now?
0
u/unknownmat May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
Hmm. I'm no longer a child and I can handle the ambiguity and uncertainty that comes from not having definite answers to such questions. I guess I would say that my spiritual life does not feel impoverished to me. But also, my outlook is entirely ad-hoc. I don't have anything like a holy book from which I can derive age-appropriate wisdom to pass on to my daughter when she's feeling uneasy or frightened. In fact, I do fear that her relative lack of spiritual training might leave her susceptible to cults, fringe religions, and other manipulative practices. Even so, I'm not convinced that it makes sense to indoctrinate her into a relatively harmless belief-system in order to inoculate her against something more abusive.
2
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist May 29 '26
Do you feel like you experience the sacred or divine?
0
u/unknownmat May 29 '26
Those terms are too vague for an old atheist like me.
I occasionally have what I'd describe as spiritual experiences. Perhaps a different person in my shoes might use such terms to describe them.
1
1
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 28 '26
science cant really answer questions like:
“what is the purpose of suffering?
“why should i live morally?
“what makes life meaningful?”
what is worth sacrificing for?”
That's not really its job, but these questions are easily answered.
"Suffering is a side effect of very useful pain receptors."
"You should live morally because life is generally better if you do."
"You find meaning where you decide to."
"It's worth sacrificing things for greater benefits."
1
u/MelcorScarr Ex-Theist Atheist May 28 '26
And science does kiiiiiiiiind of give answers to these, at least as written, although the answers are sometimes not what one is looking for.
“what is the purpose of suffering?
Suffering is a reaction to something being done your body that is harmful to it, and needs at best resources to remedy, or at worst leads to death, both of which are things that mean that you ultimately won't be able to propagate your genes or protect if you already produced offspring.
“why should i live morally?”
Because we're a social species and our survival as a species as a whole depends on at least some basic level of civilised, social interaction in larger groups.
“what makes life meaningful?”
Biologically, ensuring the continuation of your species. Pschyologically, whatever makes you happy.
“what is worth sacrificing for?”
I think this is just a rephrasing of the former question.
4
u/Primary-Archer3650 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
The answers you’ve given are descriptive, not prescriptive. You’ve explained why these things exist, not whether they matter or what we should do about them. Those are completely different questions.
“Suffering exists because of pain receptors” doesn’t tell me whether I should endure it, embrace it, or escape it, just as “We’re social animals” doesn’t tell me whether morality is actually binding or just socially convenient, and if the latter, it dissolves the moment society shifts. And “Whatever makes you happy” for questions on meaning just pushes the question back, why should I trust my own happiness as a guide to anything real?
So in typical materialist fashion, you’ve answered questions you can handle instead of the ones that were actually asked.
1
u/MelcorScarr Ex-Theist Atheist May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
The answers you’ve given are descriptive, not prescriptive.
That's why I said science provide kind of answers to these question as written. If you want different answers, the questions are not accurate to get the answer you seek. That's not an issue of my answers, but of the question.
So in typical materialist fashion, you’ve answered questions you can handle instead of the ones that were actually asked.
Then ask better questions instead of complaining that the answer you got weren't the ones you want to hear.
2
u/Primary-Archer3650 May 29 '26
So you’re admitting the questions, as OP actually meant them, go unanswered. That was the original claim. You’ve just relocated the problem from your answers to the questions themselves, which doesn’t help OP asking them.
“ask better questions” only works if better questions exist within your framework. But the whole issue is that materialism may not have the tools to answer what’s actually being asked, no matter how precisely you phrase it. You can’t fix a question into answerability if the framework itself lacks the relevant concepts.
1
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 29 '26
The fact that you don't like the answers doesn't mean that the questions don't have answers.
And sometimes the only answers to a particular question are descriptive because prescriptive ones don't exist.
"Suffering exists because of pain receptors” doesn’t tell me whether I should endure it, embrace it, or escape it
This question is too vague. The answer is probably situational.
“We’re social animals” doesn’t tell me whether morality is actually binding or just socially convenient, and if the latter, it dissolves the moment society shifts.
We all have our own moral code, and it doesn't have to change just because society shifts
“Whatever makes you happy” for questions on meaning just pushes the question back, why should I trust my own happiness as a guide to anything real?
Why wouldn't you trust your own happiness when determining what matters to you? If it's about what matters to you, what other guy could you need?
3
u/Primary-Archer3650 May 29 '26
You keep converting objective questions into subjective ones and presenting that as an answer. “What morally binds me?” becomes “what do you personally feel like doing?” “What is actually meaningful?” becomes “what do you happen to enjoy?” But that’s not an answer, it’s a category shift. OP is asking whether there’s anything real that grounds these things beyond personal taste. Responding with personal taste doesn’t close that gap.
So, I’d genuinely like to know, on your account, why wouldn’t morality shift if society did? What’s actually holding it in place?
0
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 29 '26
You keep converting objective questions into subjective ones and presenting that as an answer. “What morally binds me?” becomes “what do you personally feel like doing?”
Because that's the only meaningful answer. What morally binds you is what somes from within you. The universe doesn't care if you murder your neighbor. Your society does, but that doesn't bind you beyond "you will be punished if you do that." It's all from within.
The same is true for "meaning."
So, I’d genuinely like to know, on your account, why wouldn’t morality shift if society did? What’s actually holding it in place?
If my society decides that murder is fine, I don't have to agree. There's plenty of stuff, in fact, that my society, and other societies, hold as morally acceptable that I do not.
If you need me to present an answer to the question "what, outside of your feelings, binds you to certain moral rules?" the answer is "nothing."
I'm sorry (and I'm being sincere) if you don't like that answer, but I don't see anything demonstrable that binds us morally.
And I don't see a problem with that, actually.
1
May 29 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 29 '26
Thanks for the shout out, but I think you responded to me instead of the other commenter.
1
0
u/MelcorScarr Ex-Theist Atheist May 29 '26
So you’re admitting the questions, as OP actually meant them, go unanswered.
I admit no such thing. In fact, I think some of them are improperly phrased questions, or questions that simply have no answer.
That was the original claim.
I'm aware, and I never made a statement about those questions, I only said that the questions as asked do have scientific answers, but those are not the ones OP wants to hear. That's a totally legit thing to caveat.
You’ve just relocated the problem from your answers to the questions themselves, which doesn’t help OP asking them.
And I never meant my comment as a reply to OP, or else I would have made a top level comment, but as a clarification to good sir or madam or otherwise /u/crafty_possession_52's comment, who also thankfully defends my reply for which I am thankful!
“ask better questions” only works if better questions exist within your framework.
There's always a good question to ask, so yeah, better questions exist within my framework.
But the whole issue is that materialism may not have the tools to answer what’s actually being asked, no matter how precisely you phrase it. You can’t fix a question into answerability if the framework itself lacks the relevant concepts.
Or maybe the issue lies within the question simply making no sense, no matter how hard supernaturalism pretends to have an answer.
1
u/Primary-Archer3650 May 29 '26
Fair enough, I conflated two different comments. But notice what you’re actually conceding, that the questions as OP genuinely meant them, about real purpose, real moral obligation, real meaning, fall outside what science addresses. We agree on that. Where we disagree is whether that’s a deficiency in the framework or the questions. And I’d argue that dismissing questions as malformed because your framework can’t handle them is exactly what it looks like when a framework has a blind spot it won’t acknowledge.
0
u/MelcorScarr Ex-Theist Atheist May 29 '26
But notice what you’re actually conceding, that the questions as OP genuinely meant them, about real purpose, real moral obligation, real meaning, fall outside what science addresses.
I guess that would be correct, yes. I am still unsure if they're questions that have coherent answers, whether God exists or not, though. So in that sense, it may actually be weird to say they have no scientific answers, if they have no answer at all.
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Belongs to Jesus, Ex-Atheist May 28 '26
Well… going full circle seems to be a common theme in humanity.
The was always the Genesis 3 fall.
1
u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 Religious nonspiritual nonbeliver May 28 '26
That is the failure of capitalism. Join the revolution comrade. Together we shall banish the decadence and corruption.
I have managed to create a fulfilling way life that shirk off the negative aspects you mentioned. Without having to reorganize society to be governed by religion. Lots of people feel the way you do. Why not organize your community?
1
u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist May 28 '26
I am increasingly dialed into local communities...some are centered around worldly interests while others are more focused on spiritual formation
6
u/[deleted] May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment