upvote
Unfortunately we don't really have any premodern (i.e. operating under the same constraints) atheistic societies to compare against.

Maybe its just human nature to try and rationalize the world around them? (using whatever framework they have a available)

reply
Do you feel current western capitalistic culture is perfect and the peak of what humanity can accomplish?

There should be more, not less, experiments in alternative ways of life. I wish there was a lot more examples because we desperately need to change some things and some people need to be first.

As a non-American I don't know much about amish and there could be atrocities I am unaware of, but from what little I know I have always respected Amish for daring to be different, and for living sustainable and not contributing to climate change.

If you trade their belief in God with increased CO2 emissions -- why would that be a rational change to their culture?

So who are really misdirected humans? I would say those who sacrifice the planet on the altar of numbers stored in computer systems in banks...

Reading tip for you is "Sapiens" of Harari. Don't worry, he's an atheist, but he may contribute a more nuanced view on the role of religion in human culture (and he names capitalism as a religion too).

reply
Going from "current mainstream culture is not perfect" to "there should be more experiments in alternative ways of life" requires the assumption namely, that the average experiment is more likely to improve matters than to make them worse. When these experiments go awry, they hurt not only the participants of the experiment (who are themselves often children or others who have no other choice), but also everyone standing nearby.

I don't think the current nuclear doctrines are anywhere close to perfect or best possible. There is surely room for improvement. But I vehemently oppose more countries innovating on nuclear doctrine, because the average outcome of innovation is likely to be worse than the current equilibrium, for bystanders and innovators alike.

Medieval Europeans knew that the fallow-field system was imperfect, but many simultaneous experiments on alternatives would have led to famine, not viable alternatives. Careful experimentation in some monastery gardens is a good thing, but wagering everyone's supper on untested ideas isn't.

The same applies to our own civilization. Western capitalist culture has flaws aplenty. But this does not mean we should throw open the gates to every, or even any, alternative group that comes along.

reply
Comparing changes in nuclear doctrines with people choosing a different way of life (granted, also for their children) than the majority seems totalitarian, to me.

Minorities are, well, in miniority. Noone is at any point waging "everyone's supper" by trying out alternative ways of farming within their small miniority. (Meanwhile the majority IS risking everyone's supper in some decades).

Nuclear is different from your other examples because the choices of a small minority can drastically affect the vast majority.

reply
This is about language, though. Religious oddities are merely the background.
reply
s/religion/text editors/

s/religion/sponsors/

s/religion/politics/

s/religion/nationalism/

s/religion/insecurity/

s/religion/intolerance/

...

reply