Social Change in the 21st century · Social Order

Discussions on what a truly Multi-Cultural Society would look like.

Islam and all other religious groups would have to say “a healthy society is more important than our rules”, or else they cannot expect to live in the same area as those who believe that healthy society is the most important. They can believe what they want, but the rules of society must provide the underpinnings of a healthy society.

Do you personally feel that your religious beliefs should trump that of “principles for a healthy society”?

I grew up with fundamentalist teachings, where those teachings were more important than ANYTHING ELSE, and this cannot be the direction our society heads in the future… it would be the end of our society.

I have asked many of my Christian friends if they are experiencing “abundant life”, and none of them can answer it positively. But in fact, the Christian way of life is “experiencing what they have been taught”, or else it is simply a social group, which works too, but it wouldn’t be an excuse to point fingers at someone saying they are being miserable because they don’t see things the way i do.

Gary Squires: I was curious as to how JP could be both a scientist and a theist. In search of understanding I joined the Jordan Peterson Biblical Studies discussion group. I guess you know this, but it was both revealing and alarming to me how far people are prepared to go in denying reality in support of their faith based beliefs. Many still deny evolution, the age of the world/universe etc. Ultimately I got kicked out for pointing out that JP has said he doesn’t take the Bible literally.

I suspect you and i are having the same problem with this.

1.) We need to have a value system to order society.

2.) If that value system is derived from one religious tradition only (as the background of the North American white societies), then it will create barriers to smoothly integrating a multicultural society.

3.) i had high hopes that Jordan Peterson would head a group this multi-cultural family could call home.

4.) Because he has headed off in a direction of “Christian values are the best”, then he will alienate all those who disagree with this point of view….and truly it IS one point of view.

5.) Simply the fact that “Eurocentrism” grew out of the Christian tradition, with its colonization mentality shows that there are serious flaws in the way Christian concepts have been employed.

6.) One of the main issues in the world today, is how the “Christian” nations have mistreated, abused, suppressed, and even removed other ethnic cultures. How can strongly re-instituting that tradition be anything but a further wound on the worlds various traditions and peoples.

I have been kicked out of innumerable groups for respectfully asking questions. You can be guaranteed that being kicked out of a group means you have questioned areas that their doctrines disallow them to ask.

(You touched their vulnerable place)

I don’t know actually. I do see the direction that Jordan Peterson is headed, but i have seen the same error in “jump of faith” in so many who first realize that there is an aware system behind everything that exists, and then suddenly jump to attaching it back to Christian dogma. I would love to know what reason Mr. Peterson has for repeating this same shift as such as C.S. Lewis etc…. This is not a troll comment, i believe that the values and concepts that have risen from Christianity are perfect basis for social values, but to jump from there back into a Christian based social order likely “ain’t going to happen”….. It is possible to build a workable social system with values like the Ten Commandments, but those are the same social values in other societies in many ways. I once was a Christian, but have outgrown the outdated dogma that all the older religions built, due to the times in which they were formed. It is time to use science and social values to build a value system that works for everyone, It is time to move beyond chasm theology,🤠🪶

Gary Squires:
I don’t know if JP actually ‘believes’, even in an ‘aware system’. All he will say is that he tries to behave as if God exists. I think this is because he believes humans need narratives and are bad at making up new ones. He seems conservative in that regard and I can see the point. Few people are actually equipped to design a functional moral framework from scratch. Sam Harris tries but it’s clearly an up hill struggle to take people with him. But I’m largely with SH on the whole god/free will debate. Seems to me that determinism is logically irrefutable, and it’s been painful to watch JP try.

i was thinking that Peterson using evolutionary roots to show the beginnings of social order is the correct first step. All society, to me says “you can live by yourself if you wish, but as soon as two or more humans live together, there needs to be social rules” Those social rules “allow them to live together without killing each other”…. so the rules about fairness, not harming others, form in every society naturally (from the time of the Hammurabi Code) Workable social rules and “ethics” are easy to build out of humans treating other humans respectfully. When we attach them to a particular religious set of dogma is when all the tribal infighting begins…. just sayin….

Regarding free will….. its all about context. something like 95% is cast in stone the moment we are conceived (other than our diet building or not building us to the maximum our DNA is allowing for): colour, hair colour, eye colour, height, sex, personality traits, parents, parents social status, social environment, time period we are born in… those things have no free will. The problem with most philosophy is that they play with the concept of truth, when in fact “there is no truth except for contextual truth,.”What we have left, we have free will (if we choose to use it) to make our way through life with…. so if that freedom to choose the limited amount of choices that are presented to us, that could be called free will, right?

Gary Squires:
Yes, but they need to be attached to some narrative or another. The problem arises when narratives conflict. As Y N Harari says, we dominate the planet because we cooperate through common stories. Clearly, they don’t even have to make any sense, but I’d say it would help if they did! But that would require a decent education in critical thinking and, as you say, the shedding of dogma. But all ideologies have dogma. Or do you have a dogma free model in mind?

Why do you need dogma? Choosing to have a society where the rules allow us to live together without killing each other, stealing from each other, raping each other, etc etc are all self evident,
We don’t need religious dogma to help us with that. Then religion can be in the space it belongs, where a person can select one religion or another due to their urgings.
Just don’t think that a discussion on why God doesn’t answer our needs the way we want him to belongs in a discussion of psychology…. way too many assumptions going on there.

We are living in a mixture social setting, and in order to not have one majority lording over the rest, our social values need to have a base that all agree with….
Then we need to use those social values to form strong laws that force those living in the society to keep or face a set punishment…. really quite simple.

Gary Squires:
Well you’re 95% there on free will! My understanding is that psychologists reckon that intelligence and the major personality traits are about 50:50 nature/nurture and the nurture is largely non-shared, meaning that eg common family upbringing and schooling doesn’t have much of an influence. But the important thing is that nature and nurture is all we have and we don’t choose either of them. We can’t get ahead of them to choose who we are. So even the 5% that you think you have is exercised based on precursors that you don’t control.

Agreed. So, really there is such a small area to debate free will, it is not worth the breath. But philosophy and psychology people like to debate it because it makes them look smart. I was using a broader definition of dogma than the narrow religious sense.

Gary Squires:
We all carry dogma in the sense that we carry beliefs that we consider to be incontrovertibly true based on our indoctrination into society. If you think I’m sure you’ll find some within yourself. Eg it might be how to correctly hold a knife and fork, or that liberal democracy and capitalism are ‘good’ and the ultimate ideology. But they’re not even ‘real’ in the sense of rocks and trees. They’re just shared stories and have worked successfully at a particular point in history. It might be eg that in a world where existential threats require a global response, a more authoritarian approach than relying on voters acting selfishly would serve us better.

No, I’m sure some do just like to look smart and you don’t know me, so it’s possible. I like to discuss these things because I want to make sense of the world and think others should too. Might help people see through the dogma they carry!

Gary Squires:
It’s not worth the breath unless something important rests on it – like wether or not there’s a god. There’s no room for god in a deterministic universe.

Those are your dogma, you say “there is no room for god in a deterministic universe” but that is simply your own understanding of what you are trying to say.

God is not a necessary ingredient in a healthy society, only laws that guard one human from another, including citizens from their leaders.
Once you have torn down all the dogma that you were brought up with, you will find that there is ONLY your DNA left…. then you have to decide, do i want to live in an orderly society or not,… then what do we need to have that orderly society…. conflagrating all sorts of dogma on that only confuses everyone.

In fact what we HAVE seen, is that when religious rules get tied up in social structure, they only protect those that agree with them, and suppress those who do not…. actually this is one of the mechanisms of all systems, monarchies, democracy, communism, religion based systems etc. If we want to have many different types of people living in harmony with those who don’t think or look the same way, then the system needs to be built with the wiggle room for all folks to have their individual choices within the same social framework, while controlling the areas which they need to protect themselves and protect others from themselves.

Gary Squires:
It’s impossible to have law without dogma. For example, should abortion be legal? You can’t answer that from first principles because you have to have formed a belief that either female choice or the sanctity of human life prevails. It’s a uniquely human problem.
Where’s the ‘wiggle room’ in Islam? Your dogma is that we need to be tolerant, which doesn’t stack up against an ideology that wants to impose itself on you.

No, you are confusing the issue. Islam and all other religious groups would have to say “a healthy society is more important than our rules”, or else they cannot expect to live in the same area as those who believe that healthy society is the most important.

“sanctity of life”…. that word uses the concept of sacred, and sacred assumes the concept of there being a spiritual realm which says that human life is somehow worth more than a cat or a dog. These are all human made concepts that ACTUALLY don’t have any basis except when a person brings some sort of God into the picture. I have no problem with saying “your human life is as valid as mine, so if we are going to live together, we need to respect each other and agree to not harm each other.”

What i am saying is that more than two humans want to live together, and so they form rules to create mutual protection.

You are running off to some sort of God based dogma, where humans are sacred, so they should not be allowed to abort fetuses before they are born…. but that should NOT be an issue which can rip apart the fabric of a healthy society.

We have many of these problems because we have unyielding belief systems, which were formed in the pre-science era, banging into each other….. One rule of a healthy society is respect of your neighbour… in fact a rule that came both from Chinese culture as well as Christian culture is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. That is a basic rule that, when not adhered to, allows all sorts of hurt and wrongs to be perpetrated against anyone i don’t like or agree with. That is not healthy society.

Gary Squires:
I agree, but I was making the practical point that it ain’t gonna happen because that very principle is contrary to the religion.

Extremism, which is divisive, and is outdated, needs to be separated from those who believe that a healthy society is the prime rule moving forward into the future. Extremism of every kind says “we are right and everyone else is wrong”. This cannot be tolerated in a society where social health is the priority. We don’t allow folks to act in tribal ways that were accepted 100 years ago, and this also has to be put in its order of priority. If a person values their religious views more than a healthy society, they can keep that to themselves, but if they cause issues with the rules that society creates to keep itself healthy, that must have consequences. Look at all the issues we have these days, they are all where the highest priority of healthy society are being pushed to the rear due to extremist views and lobbying.

Nope, these things are perhaps the reason why things are so messed up.

No Law, No Society. This does not depend on dogma of any kind, except “How do we have a society where we can live together without hurting each other”. This does not require any other dogma except rules to make this healthy society a reality.

These base principles can be then used to build “how do we do that”…. when there are clear rules, society can act freely within them. We don’t need to make a rule about how to hold a knife to do this.

We have tried to use “equality” and “rights” as bases for our society, but they don’t work. We can only use the same base as the oldest societies regarding property and protection of one persons safety from another (which is a double edged sword). Even Hammurabi has rules of trade and fairness….

Gary Squire:
The most promising means of achieving this that I’ve come across this is through mindfulness – a kind of secular Buddhism, as promoted by Sam Harris.

So i was mentioning a “from scratch” value base…. what i meant by that is to look at all the cultures, and take the values that are common in all cultures as the BASE for that system. Those values all need to reflect the priority or primary directive of a HEALTHY society, as we understand it from our modern scientific understanding.

Many of the values from the older social structures are uninfected from the modern concepts of “equality” and “rights” and “the effects of colonialism on class structure” blah blah blah concepts that are confusing so many.

Sure we can start with the social rules form the Judaist laws, or Buddhist concepts, but it needs to be seen that all traditions are being respected and considered. Any concepts which promote tribalism in those traditions need to be seen as opposing the values of a healthy society.

In order to create a healthy society, all of these tribal values need to be subordinate to that prime directive of being constructive in building a Healthy Society, or disregarded as counterproductive to the prime directive.

Gary Squires:
The most promising means of achieving this that I’ve come across this is through mindfulness – a kind of secular Buddhism, as promoted by Sam Harris.

Agreed. Mindfulness should be called “the correct way of using our human mind”.
With the neuroscience of DMN and TPN, this way of using our brain is proven out by science, and there is nothing tribal about it.
BTW, What i have said about awareness as the root of everything, IS my personal worldview.
Mindfulness is simply “listening to our inner self and being aware of our connectedness”.

Patrice Ferguson:
problem of religion is that it is not a practical solution. Especially when one learns ideas from others as dogma rather than self awareness. That is knowing yourself as you actually are not what you fantasize yourself to be. Once you recognize the monster and realize it is you you can conquer it. Knowing yourself is revealing the kingdom within. Your good and evil. Does heaven reign or does hell? These are not places. They are your condition. Are you in bliss or euphoric because of dogma? The sense of self awareness within is the Kingdom. Nothing outside of yourself no matter what chaos surrounds you can defeat you. They don’t teach that in any Church. Only you can do that not them.

I agree with everything you have said there..

Gary Squires:
Agreed. I suspect he sees social media and identity politics etc as creating chaos, and he thinks that resisting it using the platform of Christianity, which is still endemic in North America, is the path of least resistance.

Yes. I believe that is what he seems to be thinking.

One thought on “Discussions on what a truly Multi-Cultural Society would look like.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s