In his conversation with Tyler Cowen, Jonathan Haidt mentions that he has “become more libertarian, but with a real sense of respect for what social conservatives say about family stability” — but there are hints of other changes, too:
Cowen: Some of your core ideas in psychology and also I would say anthropology, if you had to pick a famous movie, or famous novel, or play, that illustrated those, that you would use to teach some of your ideas, what would you point to, and what would your account be?
Haidt: Oh my God. I should have a great answer to this question. I am so poorly read, my wife makes fun of me that I haven’t read a novel since I met her in the year 2000, I’ve just been so busy reading non?fiction. Let’s see. Gosh, almost any of these BBC epics, anything that illustrates, I think English aristocratic life in the 19th century illustrates a rich, morally rich society with hierarchy and all those things that have disappeared from modern morality.
I should have a much better answer for you, but I think just reading novels from non?Western cultures, and I would consider 19th century British aristocracy to be sort of a foreign culture now, just can give you an idea of cultures other than our own.
[...]
Cowen: What’s the best replacement for religion in modern, secular society?
Haidt: Oh boy, the best replacement.
Cowen: Good question. Durkheimian question.
Haidt: Yeah. A few years ago I would have tried to give you an answer and say we should have some other sacred value to replace it, but given what’s happened in the last year on campuses, I’m really afraid of it, because you might think, “Humanitarianism should replace it. We should all have a religion of helping the poor, helping each other.” Now, of course, it’s really important to help the poor. It’s really important to help people who are oppressed.
But once you make it a religion, that means you are impervious to evidence. You are committed to certain religious rituals even if those rituals make things worse. For example, I’ve been studying the research on affirmative action and diversity training. As far as I can tell there’s no evidence that they make things better and there is some evidence that it makes things worse.
Now, it’s messy. I can’t say for sure that they do, but the point is, we seem to be doing things on campus that are making things worse. The activists are largely asking for things that will make things worse. Much more affirmative action, much bigger racial preferences, which will cause much bigger gaps between Asians at the top and African-Americans at the bottom. Which is going to inflame prejudice, not reduce it.
Once you make something a religion, you’re not open to evidence. You do really crazy, stupid things. What I would say is, let’s not have a replacement for religion. Let’s set things up so that there isn’t a big religion that unites us all to take on our enemies. Let’s try to return to a climate in which people find meaning and purpose in their private lives and in their smaller associations, but we don’t have a big sense of national purpose.
“What’s the best replacement for religion in modern, secular society?”
False question. The religion of XX and XXI century in Western world is Politics. It replaced Judeo-Christian religion.
Haidt exhibits the highest possible virtue of a scientist, when he discovers new evidence, his views change.
Once you make something a religion, you’re not open to evidence.
Eh? Christianity tells us that evidence, in fact, is a pretty good way to judge the post-1960s secular establishment: Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
No it’s liberalism, or whatever you want to call this leftist secular progressive religion slash modern doomsday cult.
Which is essentially a re-branded offshoot of Christianity, guilt, penance, flogging and all.
Don’t be a denier, the SCIENCE is IN!
For example what are todays priests and proselytizers?:
Journalists.
What are the churches?:
TV the so called “news”.