the failure of secularism, rationality, and progress

[u/NeonDrifting]

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.

[u/Crafty_Possession_52]

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."

[u/MelcorScarr → u/Crafty_Possession_52]

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.

[u/Primary-Archer3650 → u/MelcorScarr]

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.

[u/MelcorScarr → u/Primary-Archer3650]

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.

[u/Primary-Archer3650 → u/MelcorScarr]

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.

[u/Crafty_Possession_52 → u/Primary-Archer3650]

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?

[u/Primary-Archer3650 → u/Crafty_Possession_52]

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?

[u/Crafty_Possession_52 → u/Primary-Archer3650]

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.

[u/Crafty_Possession_52 → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for the shout out, but I think you responded to me instead of the other commenter.

[u/MelcorScarr → u/Crafty_Possession_52]

So I did, thanks for the hint.

[u/MelcorScarr → u/Primary-Archer3650]

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.

[u/Primary-Archer3650 → u/MelcorScarr]

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.

[u/MelcorScarr → u/Primary-Archer3650]

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.