No marks for cryptic titles! 
Sorry for my long post. I’m tired; it rambles. I hope I don’t suffer poster’s remorse tomorrow morning.
I am out of my depth here (historical analysis is completely outside my ken, as are most historical facts), but I’ll try to throw in a few thoughts. I didn’t read everything yet, but in what I did read, nothing struck me as truly outrageous except the suggestion that the pattern is evidence of god (although maybe not very good evidence). I think that stretches the definition of evidence to the breaking point. Many people dream of flying: it can’t be a coincidence. It might be something in our brain biology or our culture, but it is also evidence that people might be able to fly or, in the past, were able to fly. It isn’t good evidence, but it is some kind of evidence. Well, maybe. But it isn’t any kind of *useful* evidence, whatever I mean by that (and I’m not sure what I mean by that, yet).
I will assume it is true that this pattern does exist: altruistic social changes proposed by reformers (who are also religious) are nearly always accompanied by proposals for major changes to the predominant religious dogma. Others can debate that if they wish – for me it would be a dry, historical argument, way beyond my practical knowledge. Watch out for selection bias and classification errors!
One simple explanation: Theist reformers will express revised ethics in the cloak of religion because of the predominant belief, in the populations being reformed, that religion is what drives their ethical framework.
Another simple explanation which overlaps with the previous one: Theist reformers, and those he tries to reform, can’t or won’t separate the social ethics from the religion. They are inseparably intermixed, so any deep reforms will almost certainly cut into both.
A religious person will propose social changes in the context of religion - it is part of their fundamental world view, it is part of how they experience the world, and we can expect religion will be part of that change. You express surprise that reformers take on the additional burden of reforming religious dogma, but I could look at it this way: why are you surprised that someone trying to make big changes would shy away from making big changes? Their intent *is* to make big changes. They aren’t happy with the current muddy mixture of ethics and religious dogma – they want to change both. It might not be what you would do, but there is nothing illogical about it. If they tried to make only small changes, they probably wouldn’t make your list.
Atheism is a "non view" ... it is just an absence of a particular belief. It is not an ethical philosophy. It is NOT how atheists fundamentally experience the world, any more than they have a “non-vampire” experience of the world. An atheist proposing social change would not need to couch that change in some kind of "atheist meta-ethic" any more than he would have to explain it in terms of "non-belief-in-vampires meta-ethic". The atheist cannot use religious dogma since he doesn’t believe it, he doesn’t use his atheism since it is irrelevant, and he won’t win many supporters if his ethics are prefaced with “Since there is no God...”
Let me throw out some other, overlapping explanations for the pattern. The question to ask is not "Would any of these explanations apply to all the reformers?", but instead ask "For each reformer, could one or more of these apply?"
Sorry for my long post. I’m tired; it rambles. I hope I don’t suffer poster’s remorse tomorrow morning.
I am out of my depth here (historical analysis is completely outside my ken, as are most historical facts), but I’ll try to throw in a few thoughts. I didn’t read everything yet, but in what I did read, nothing struck me as truly outrageous except the suggestion that the pattern is evidence of god (although maybe not very good evidence). I think that stretches the definition of evidence to the breaking point. Many people dream of flying: it can’t be a coincidence. It might be something in our brain biology or our culture, but it is also evidence that people might be able to fly or, in the past, were able to fly. It isn’t good evidence, but it is some kind of evidence. Well, maybe. But it isn’t any kind of *useful* evidence, whatever I mean by that (and I’m not sure what I mean by that, yet).
I will assume it is true that this pattern does exist: altruistic social changes proposed by reformers (who are also religious) are nearly always accompanied by proposals for major changes to the predominant religious dogma. Others can debate that if they wish – for me it would be a dry, historical argument, way beyond my practical knowledge. Watch out for selection bias and classification errors!
One simple explanation: Theist reformers will express revised ethics in the cloak of religion because of the predominant belief, in the populations being reformed, that religion is what drives their ethical framework.
Another simple explanation which overlaps with the previous one: Theist reformers, and those he tries to reform, can’t or won’t separate the social ethics from the religion. They are inseparably intermixed, so any deep reforms will almost certainly cut into both.
A religious person will propose social changes in the context of religion - it is part of their fundamental world view, it is part of how they experience the world, and we can expect religion will be part of that change. You express surprise that reformers take on the additional burden of reforming religious dogma, but I could look at it this way: why are you surprised that someone trying to make big changes would shy away from making big changes? Their intent *is* to make big changes. They aren’t happy with the current muddy mixture of ethics and religious dogma – they want to change both. It might not be what you would do, but there is nothing illogical about it. If they tried to make only small changes, they probably wouldn’t make your list.
Atheism is a "non view" ... it is just an absence of a particular belief. It is not an ethical philosophy. It is NOT how atheists fundamentally experience the world, any more than they have a “non-vampire” experience of the world. An atheist proposing social change would not need to couch that change in some kind of "atheist meta-ethic" any more than he would have to explain it in terms of "non-belief-in-vampires meta-ethic". The atheist cannot use religious dogma since he doesn’t believe it, he doesn’t use his atheism since it is irrelevant, and he won’t win many supporters if his ethics are prefaced with “Since there is no God...”
Let me throw out some other, overlapping explanations for the pattern. The question to ask is not "Would any of these explanations apply to all the reformers?", but instead ask "For each reformer, could one or more of these apply?"
- Non-divine external forces: some combination of (overlapping) institutional, historical, social, cultural, and political pressures makes reformers present their ideas in a religious context.
- People are mostly religious, so most social changes are brought about by people with a religious agenda.
- People with the power and standing in their community to actually implement (or even propose) social changes are even more religious, so they will have a deeper religious agenda.
- People are mostly religious, so the relatively small number of atheist-based reforms from which to draw conclusions is just too small to do so.
- The idea of divine inspiration has a long history and tradition - it lends authority, silences critics, and it strokes the ego. It is an effective tool; only a fool would fail to use it.
- The inevitable pressure, conflicts, and self-doubts that reformers must inevitably experience gives them a kind of cognitive dissonance. Seeking to resolve that, the brain invents a culturally significant justification from a “higher authority”.
- Reformers are inherently narcissists or egoists, and they get great personal satisfaction in the idea of getting others to follow their own personal belief.
- Reformers enjoy power. What is more powerful than coopting the religious foundations of the masses? What a thrill!
- A religious leader would be unlikely to acknowledge any contributions from atheists, for obvious reasons.
- People who want to sell new ideas to the masses, who are mostly religious, need to also supply a religious context.
- People genuinely or cynically provide a religious context to give their ideas the appearance of greater authority.
- Reformers have used the lessons of previously successful reforms and followed the same pattern.
- Religious reformers don’t separate ethics and religious – they just try to fix “all that stuff”.
- Religious dogma is inherently unlikable and burdensome, and since its success can never be measured, and its rewards never experienced, it is ultimately unsatisfying, even though its adherents would deny that. So it is constantly being reshaped as people try to find something better. It is not surprising this would happen during other reforms.
- Atheism is generally reviled and mocked. In order for the largely religious masses to accept changes, they expect the source of those changes to be based in religion, and they are not likely to embrace a new religious-free set of ethics.
- Atheists tend to be more practical and results-oriented since they aren't interested in fictional, higher authorities. They tend not to worry about the vague, abstract hand-waving of "meta-ethics/religion" and instead focus on the brass tacks of implementing useful, practical changes. They steer clear of meta-ethics which might only cloud the issues. The meta-ethics, if any, are implicit in the reforms themselves.
- The relative numbers of theist and atheist ground-breakers is consistent with the relative numbers of those groups that are in authoritative positions to let them be effective ground-breakers. The division is statistically consistent, or the sampling is biased, or the sample is too small to draw conclusions. There is no evidence of a pattern, or the pattern is exactly what we expect, with no further explanation needed.
- The significant contributions from atheists are hard to historically identify or trace since they must ultimately percolate up to a religious leader, who would get the credit. Otherwise, the changes would go nowhere.
- You can’t separate a theist's social ethics from his religion – they are too intertwined (consider gay marriage in the USA as an example). You can’t divide them to fit a pattern that presupposes they are separable.
Last edited:
