The Myth of Progress

[Thomas]

Mind elaborating? I am struggling to understand the following: "My point throughout is that God has been accessible to humanity from the get-go, as it were, and according to Genesis, moreso 'in the beginning' than now."

It was simply an aside – a light-hearted comment in reference to Genesis 3.

So you mean "moreso in 'pre-history' than now?" I don't get it. A significant portion of early Christians like Justin Martyr favored an early existence for Adam, so I imagine they wouldn't understand either if they were here in this forum with us.

Oh, sure. There was a broad variation of interpretation, then and now. The doctrinal line is the text employs symbolic language to express the mystery of creation and humanity's vocation.

 

[Ahanu]

Meanwhile 1 in 3 women suffer sexual violence at some point in their lives, which doesn't speak too highly of gender equality – its 1 in 26 men.
And the figure is worse among ethnic and minority groups.

We've come a long way, but the same old games are still in play.

Okay.

Do you mind taking this quiz about gender equality? I am curious to know your score and what you think after taking it. No problem if you don't have time.

 

[Thomas]

5/7

You?

 

[wil]

Pre-history.

Just a question...if Genesis is pre history...it ain't historical eh?

 

[wil]

Okay.

Do you mind taking this quiz about gender equality? I am curious to know your score and what you think after taking it. No problem if you don't have time.

That was a funny "test" designed to fail...once I saw this in the first question I answered the rest correctly without reading them.

It also uses the we've come a long way baby methodology to please folks as to our progress despite the fact that we have a long way to go with equality.

Myth of progresss... if you are over 40 odds are you would have been dead a couple hundred years ago... alive is better than dead (for most of us)

 

[RJM]

Okay.

Do you mind taking this quiz about gender equality? I am curious to know your score and what you think after taking it. No problem if you don't have time.

How many women in the Baha'i House of Justice? Women disallowed forever, according to Baha'u'llah

 

[Ahanu]

How many women in the Baha'i House of Justice?

Zero.

How many women serve on National Spiritual Assemblies? Some statistics on this here.

How many women could potentially be in the Supreme Tribunal?

"It must also be borne in mind that women are not excluded from any other international institution of the Faith. They are found among the ranks of the Hands of the Cause. They serve as members of the International Teaching Centre and as Continental Counsellors. And, there is nothing in the Text to preclude the participation of women in such future international bodies as the Supreme Tribunal."
-Universal House of Justice

Women disallowed forever, according to Baha'u'llah

I am unaware of any Baha'i texts that explicitly state the Universal House of Justice will last forever.

 

[Ahanu]

That was a funny "test" designed to fail...

I am not sure what you mean.

once I saw this in the first question

What does "this" point to?

I answered the rest correctly without reading them.

Okay. It failed once you saw "this" (whatever "this" refers to).

Please clarify.

It also uses the we've come a long way baby methodology to please folks as to our progress

Nope.

despite the fact that we have a long way to go with equality.

Actually, it states we have a long way to go with equality. Oh, you didn't read the rest of it, so you wouldn't know anyway.

Myth of progresss... if you are over 40 odds are you would have been dead a couple hundred years ago... alive is better than dead (for most of us)

That's right.

And . . . compared to today, Christians in the ancient world had less time to change their ways and avoid annihilation, eternal hell, or further punishments. There's that for Christians to consider as well, unless you are in the predestination camp where more time is pointless.

 

[Ahanu]

5/7

You?

2/7

 

[RJM]

Zero.

How many women serve on National Spiritual Assemblies? Some statistics on this here.

Isn't this like saying women are invited and encouraged to take part in local government, but are not permitted to enter parliament?

 

[Ahanu]

Isn't this like saying women are invited and encouraged to take part in local government,

The scope of a National Spiritual Assembly is wider than a local government. The Baha'i Faith's hierarchical administration is more like this from the base level to higher levels:

-Local Spiritual Assemblies
-Regional Spiritual Assemblies
-National Spiritual Assemblies

Some countries (such as India) have multiple National Spiritual Assemblies because the country is so large and diverse. The United States has one National Spiritual Assembly.

Above these you have the Universal House of Justice. The Supreme Tribunal holds a judicial role, so it might be called a complimentary institution. Women, as admitted by the House of Justice, can serve in this judicial role that settles disputes and applies Baha'i laws for the Baha'i community.

@Sen McGlinn can fact check this since he has a deeper understanding of Baha'i administration.

but are not permitted to enter parliament?

Same applies to the Universal House of Justice: Its scope is wider, representing the international Baha'i community. Parliaments represent a nation's citizens.

I don't think the analogy is really applicable.

 

[Ahanu]

Isn't this like saying women are invited and encouraged to take part in local government, but are not permitted to enter parliament?

Now what do you think of Christianity's stance that the one-time incarnation of God was fully realized in a male body (and not a female one)?

 

[RJM]

Now what do you think of Christianity's stance that the one-time incarnation of God was fully realized in a male body (and not a female one)?

But right or wrong -- and the Catholic Church is making slow changes -- Catholic Christianity never advocated female membership of higher decision making bodies.

I'm not defending it, but am pointing out that although the whole Baha'i religion hinges around unity and gender equality and so on -- it does not extend to its own highest decision making body?

 

[Ahanu]

But right or wrong -- and the Catholic Church is making slow changes --

Which changes?

Catholic Christianity never advocated female membership of higher decision making bodies.

I'm not defending it, but am pointing out that although the whole Baha'i religion hinges around unity and gender equality and so on -- it does not extend to its own highest decision making body?

Well, I guess there wouldn't be so much unity in diversity if the idea were to have top-down impositions on an international scale across a diversity of cultures at different levels of development. And if such social meanings were forced, it would render Baha'u'llah's words ("One must guide mankind to the ocean of true understanding in a spirit of love and tolerance") meaningless. It does allow for diversity in various cultures that might not be entirely ready for female leadership, fostering a more organic adoption of gender equality within communities with a bottom-up approach.

Of course, a critic will simply state the restriction reinforces traditional patriarchal structures and undermines the progress of gender equality within the Faith. But to me it is all too cynical.

If you are going to have a bottom-up approach to an issue that is still not widely accepted across the world (especially in places like Afghanistan where women are denied a secondary or higher education), then the Baha'i structure allows for slow transformation through gradual acceptance of the Faith.

The abolition of slavery happened before gender equality. Gender inequality is often less visible and lacks the same clear economic exploitation, making it harder to mobilize against. Coming up with a way to remove such a deeply ingrained cultural norm without force requires wisdom, patience, and practical feet. From my understanding the Baha'i Faith says the key is through prioritizing the education of women.

 

[RJM]

Of course, a critic will simply state the restriction reinforces traditional patriarchal structures and undermines the progress of gender equality within the Faith. But to me it is all too cynical.

Fair enough ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

They forget that science and technology are void of ethics and morals ..

Naturally, that is the business of social rules.

 

[Ahanu]

They forget that science and technology are void of ethics and morals

Naturally, that is the business of social rules.

Are science and technology both isolated things that exist by themselves? No, of course not. They might be said to be morally neutral when devoid of all the ethical committees that go into producing any given product for a company, but they DO impact ethics, morals, and social rules whether we like the science and technology in question or not.

Do science and technology transform the environment of humanity? Answer: Yes. I think we can all agree on this?

Does this transformation impact our behavior? Yes. I think we can all agree on this?

If a new environment emerges as a result of science and technology in which cooperation and empathy become increasingly beneficial, then this in turn can lead to a gradual evolution of morality towards greater inclusivity and concern for the well-being of everyone. In other words, science and technology increase non-zero sum interactions, which allow for more opportunities for cooperation and mutual benefit and decrease zero sum interactions that entail conflict and competition.

As societies grow and interactions become more complex, it becomes harder to empathize with everyone. Technology acts as a bridge. It leads to increased contact and collaboration with diverse individuals and groups. It provides access to diverse viewpoints and experiences through global communication, media, and travel, and it allows individuals to better understand the perspectives of others, encouraging compassion and a sense of shared humanity.

Learning is rapidly improving as well. Simulations through virtual reality can allow us to experience the consequences of our actions from different perspectives. It can be used in training professionals in education and other fields with empathy building. Stanford University uses virtual reality to immerse students in the experiences of patients with chronic pain, improving empathy and communication skills. The Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence helps teachers with understanding student perspectives using virtual reality, the Los Angeles Police Department uses virtual reality simulations to improve the social interactions of law enforcement, medical students use virtual reality to experience the world from a patient's perspective, and so on. If science and technology had no real-world impact on our morality, then so many various professionals would not be using virtual reality to improve their care for others' well-being.

 

[Thomas]

Are science and technology both isolated things that exist by themselves? No, of course not.

Not saying they do ...

They might be said to be morally neutral...

That's rather the point.

 

[Ahanu]

Not saying they do ...

Really? Let's review . . .

The idea of linear progress has never been examined as a possible falsifiable hypothesis. There just seems too much evidence. Evolution, as it still generally and mistakenly understood, means that everything is moving inexorably towards its own perfection. Likewise our technologies – agriculture, biology, cosmology, and so on march on apace.

For those who believe in progress, any regression is only a temporary halt in an onward march to a better world. Yet if one looks at the historical record of the human species – as human – outside of the chimera of its technological achievements – it is hard to detect any continuing strand of improvement.

You presented a false dichotomy.

You implied technological advancements are somehow separate from other forms of human improvement. Here you bracket off "technological achievements" as if isolating it from everything else (such as technology's impact on the environment highlighted in post #97 and, as a result, the moral evolution of human beings). Also, your metaphor (chimera) implies that technology is somehow separate to human progress, but technology can be a powerful tool for improving the human condition.

 

[Ahanu]

Meanwhile, we live in a world of social media that evidences an ever-increasing militant intolerance.

What about the vast amounts of positive interactions and diverse perspectives also present on social media?

What about the increased awareness and efforts to combat intolerance in various sectors of society that is itself raised through social media?!

Social media might inflate the perception of intolerance because of algorithms that favor strong reactions, so why not advocate for improving the algorithms instead of adopting a pessimistic attitude??!!

The invention of the printing press increased the spread of knowledge. It impacted education, literature, and society as a whole.

Some in the Catholic Church acknowledged the printing press' benefits for education and the spread of religious knowledge, and so they attempted to regulate it when they found it could potentially lead to social disorder through the spread of heresy, for example.

Instead of being left behind, old evils return under new names. Nothing changes. So it goes.

Are you not ignoring the vast societal and legal changes that have occurred throughout history in regard to issues like tolerance and discrimination?