Falling Faith - Social decline

[IBM]

Alright, contentious issue, but seeing G4Z's follow up to the abolishing of faith schools petition thread, I thought I'd throw this one out there.

At a dinner party the other night with some fairly heavyweight academics we were having the discussion along the lines of a major contributory factor to social decline is the erosion of the social group associated with a faith based society....namely the church.....

Now people put forward, me included, that social decline is more likely caused by social & geographical mobility, where the social/family group is broken up and therefore has less effect on individuals and their actions, knowing that family isn't around to catch them doing bad things. Other people contested that there isn't social decline per se, just that what decline there is is more reported in the news.

But the point being made was that without the 'fear' of divine retribution, combined with the social disapproval of your religious peers, social decline was inevitable without an alternative secular doctrine to make people behave.

Just wondering what everyone else thought....

(and if we could keep it to the arguement rather than this getting into a religion bashing thread. Would make a refreshing change.)

[nichomach]

I'm a Christian and I actually believe that you're far more on track with the social and geographical mobility, economic uncertainty, economic decline in traditional industries coupled with a failure to engage massive numbers of people with economic activity. I didn't become a Christian because I feared divine retribution. Actually, I don't know anyone who did, although I know a lot of people who've become Christian.

I think that to a certain extent when government decided that there was no such thing as society, and that we should trash traditional industries in favour of a service-based economy, a decline in social cohesion was inevitable. Has there been a moral decline? Possibly, but I don't mean in a "no-one goes to Church and it's terrible" way - aside from anything else, mine's doing fine thanks! I mean more that while the whole idea that there was a golden age when everything was great is largely bogus (people have been saying that for thousands of years, hell I think even Socrates - no, not the footballer - had a bash at the "yoof of today"), perhaps what we are losing is adherence to a shared set of basic values. I don't mean identity or ethnicity, because I think they're largely irrelevant (ask a Muslim or Hindu or Christian or Jew or Atheist whether vandalising bus shelters is a good idea, or whether you should say "please" and "thank you", and I suspect the answer'd be the same), but as more people fall into not engaging with society through employment or other legitimate economic activity, they perhaps fail to engage with society in other ways that people who do enagage like that take for granted. Urgh. Need to think more about it...

I don't think that we need a substitute for religion as coercion, because I don't think it really was that; I think it's far more accurate to say that disapproval of your social peers is far closer to the mark as far as that goes. I don't think that people can actually be forced to behave - we lock more people up for longer than any other country in Europe, yet it doesn't seem to affect crime that much. What we need to do is find some way of engaging people who've become disaffected, and yes I include the inhabitants of run down council estates who don't go to school and don't get jobs and what have you. I don't exactly know how we do that, I have to say, but I think that engagement with society at large is a far more critical factor in encouraging adherence to shared values than waving any sort of big stick, ecclesiastical or secular.

[chicken]

I would be more inclined to point the finger of any social decline at the media than anyone.

But I would say that the media coupled with the mass mixings of religions are causing a lot more of a problem than the athiests of this country.

Plus you have the extra pressures of work and travel on the family, being broken up more as you say, but also the stresses of modern day work, understanding every new technology that pops up, working in artificial light staring at screens, queuing in the masses of traffic to and from work, etc.

So all in all, I'm not sure we are "declining" or simply shifting and only having the bad bits pointed out by the media, but if you really want a religious spin on this, I'd say it's the religious people mixing that is causing the most trouble there, but if we're to get anywhere good it's got to be done.

[G4Z]

Really interesting question and far to complex for me to honestly believe I have the right answer. I suspect that you are right on this one and that social and economic factors are the major problems. I don't have any figures but I would be willing to bet that the largest proportion of young offenders come from the economic underclass. That being said, I am also not convinced that crime is going up and that our 'yoof' are out of control, at least no more than kids were when I was that age (more than 10 years already! I feel old). Sensational stories sell papers and I would say that the trend to daemonise 'dole scroungers' and 'asylum skeers' has only increased, therefore I think this is a definite contributing factor to the perception of falling social standards.

Religion imho makes little to no difference in the equation, there have been bad people all through the ages despite the threat of damnation. I often think that is probably the smartest kids who realise that they really do have free will and that in reality there is nothing to stop them doing whatever they want (not to say there won't be consequences if caught). There is a certain level of enlightenment in that realisation if you think about it.

Personally, I think philosophy has more to offer than religion in this context because it makes you consider the 'why' in your actions rather than simply threatening you like a mother might threaten a child 'just wait till your dad gets home!'.

I probably need to give it a bit more thought, great question tho mate.

[med2003]

A.C. Graylings "What is Good?: The Search for the Best Way to Live" is an enjoyable read on this subject.

[usxhe190]

social decline is due to two factors moving at different rates:
A. the types of people in the society
B. a person's level of information of such types of people

When A and B doesn't run at the same rate = social decline

[IBM]

The whole economic/social evolution was my first counter argument to the concept, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder about the necesity of some kind of social group/glue to help social cohesion. This is getting away from the OT of faith, but without those tightly knit groups of families and individuals making up a central nucleus of peer pressure/approval you don't have any fear of consequence, which is surely the primary driving force in stopping people from doing bad things.

G4Z .... I'd like to think that philosophy is a great answer for the masses, but as I maintain, people (me included) are stupid, ignorant sheep who respond far better to the stick than the carrot. People don't care about the 'I shouldn't do that because it makes me a bad person', they care about the 'I shouldn't do that 'cause I'm going to get spanked'.
And as for smart people and religion, I know a huge number (Seriously. Huge.) of very smart, very religious people. People who have explored faith and religion and belief and everything else beside and still come up thanking God. I can't see that changing really.

I'm starting to follow Chicken on this one and blame it all the on the media. And Trolls.

[IBM]

Originally Posted by usxhe190

social decline is due to two factors moving at different rates:
A. the types of people in the society
B. a person's level of information of such types of people

When A and B doesn't run at the same rate = social decline

That's way too simplistic. I could see that as being the equation for social unrest/friction, but not social decline.

[usxhe190]

Originally Posted by IBM

That's way too simplistic. I could see that as being the equation for social unrest/friction, but not social decline.

interesting, can you let me know what is your meaning of social decline vs social unrest? like someone is unethical - what is ethical?

[nichomach]

The changing nature of employment (or lack thereof) has led to a decline in the sort of geographically proximate extended family that was a staple of society. That said, I think we're all probably aware that one area where we do see such extended families is on the sort of estate which has a large number of people who typify those who are disaffected. *scratches head*

[IBM]

Originally Posted by usxhe190

interesting, can you let me know what is your meaning of social decline vs social unrest? like someone is unethical - what is ethical?

I knew someone was going to ask for a definition of social decline, and I don't think that I'm the one to provide it. Nor would it be particularly condusive to the argument, as I'm sure we'd spend as much time debating the definition as the OT. I'd say that social decline was, as you say, a drop in ethical values, things like increased crime, a lowering in social graces, perhaps a drop in marriages, an increase in single parent families, more underage sex, drinking & drug taking. Stuff like that.

Originally Posted by nichomach

The changing nature of employment (or lack thereof) has led to a decline in the sort of geographically proximate extended family that was a staple of society. That said, I think we're all probably aware that one area where we do see such extended families is on the sort of estate which has a large number of people who typify those who are disaffected. *scratches head*

But could it be said that these groups are beneath the social (as opposed to poverty) line? The blind leading the blind springs to mind, like those two mums encouraging their toddlers to fight and recording it on cameraphones.

Has anyone seen Idiocracy? I watched it the other night. I can't get it out of my head right now.

[usxhe190]

Originally Posted by IBM

I knew someone was going to ask for a definition of social decline, and I don't think that I'm the one to provide it. Nor would it be particularly condusive to the argument, as I'm sure we'd spend as much time debating the definition as the OT. I'd say that social decline was, as you say, a drop in ethical values, things like increased crime, a lowering in social graces, perhaps a drop in marriages, an increase in single parent families, more underage sex, drinking & drug taking. Stuff like that.

sorry, only asked because you distinguished between social unrest and social decline

if that is the case, i still think my general theory holds

E.g. drop in marriages (wont do the race one since race issues occurs in some other threads in Hexus)
A. the types of people in the society - PAST boy and girl interact usually in smaller community, CURRENT - lots of interaction
B. a person's level of information of such types of people - PAST - no girl comes along the village anyways, CURRENT - get successful, realise the world is your oyster and you can get hot secretary.

social unrest/decline follows...

[nichomach]

Originally Posted by IBM

But could it be said that these groups are beneath the social (as opposed to poverty) line? The blind leading the blind springs to mind, like those two mums encouraging their toddlers to fight and recording it on cameraphones.

Agreed; as I say, where one would expect an extended family to be a source of stability and guidance, now it almost seems to be the opposite. As an aside, stats just out show that a quarter of kids in Preston live in "workless households", and are dependent upon benefits (and are in poverty as a consequence), yet there are only 1,800 people out of work in Preston, which suggests a small number of families with a large number of children, where no-one is in work...can anyone spot a pattern likely to be perpetuated and get worse? OK, this is from the vicar of Preston, Fr. Timothy Lipscombe, but I think he's just stating what we all know:

The gap between the rich and the poor seems to me to be bigger than ever. It is not good for the parents or the children's self-esteem to rely on the state giving you benefits.

Low self-esteem at the start of your life is probably going to translate into low achievement later on. Poor school attendance, with attendant poor academic achievement, with reduced employment opportunities, leading to...and so it goes on. I don't think the answer is "cut their benefits" because that makes the children's situation worse. At the same time, I don't have a magic bullet to address the problem.

[JPreston]

I for one would like to see a return to Victorian values, by which I mean it should perfectly acceptable for a respectable man to visit both an opium den and a child prostitute on a week night.

[directhex]

generally, the stats show that the less religion a country has, the higher the literacy and other "positive social factors". just look at, say, finland

not saying correlation = causation... just saying

[usxhe190]

Originally Posted by JPreston

I for one would like to see a return to Victorian values, by which I mean it should perfectly acceptable for a respectable man to visit both an opium den and a child prostitute on a week night.

very good point

seems like "social decline" really depends on who you are talking to