Is the inability of a strictly secular education system to address the challenge of nihilism causing an erosion of morality and sense of meaning?

[RealMarek]

For example, the debate about how to stop school shootings revolves around surface-level ideas, such as gun control, arming teachers, early psychological intervention… However, the statements left by many mass shooters betray a radically nihilistic worldview. Why doesn’t this prompt discussion of whether the philosophy promulgated in the schools and through our other cultural institutions might be playing a role in this and other negative social developments?

@anon1903 made a good point that there should be deeper discussion of philosophical and spiritual concepts. While this question is perhaps better placed in the “Society” category instead of “Religion and Spirituality,” is an attempt to contribute toward that end.

[Soteris]

Not really. Besides, that is not what nihilism is either. To put aside a long philosophical argument, Nihilism is not necessarily bad or harmful, just hard for many people to wrap their heads around and some others to accept. But moving forward, secular education has plenty of ways to address nihilism, erosion of morality and whatever else you got. Its an open question if it will actually do it however since education is broadly not for the benefit of the individual but rather to make you a more valuable worker for society AKA employees.

As such, questions of philosophy is usually not high on the list of priorities. But I digress.

If we take your example of school shootings, that is something that falls within the study of criminology. Part of criminology is both what causes something and how to prevent it so we actually have a pretty good idea of how to resolve school shootings. The debate you talk about is not really among the experts, they are mostly in agreement, but between people who lack the basic understanding of the topic which is why their solutions and understanding of the topic is so poor.

You are simply not listening to the right people and arguably that is also true for the majority of society. You are also not asking why, if we know the causes and the prevention of school shootings thanks to criminology, these things are not implemented by politicians who have the power to change society. Basically, you are not asking the right questions here and, using your own words, looking at the "surface-level" of the problem.

We have the problem and we have the solution, we just need to combine the two which is proving to be the real problem. I heard a guy once said that USA always does the correct thing... after exhausting every other incorrect choice first. We are getting closer to the point where USA has stubbornly tried every incorrect decision possible at this point and where it will actually resolve the situation and join the rest of the world since they resolved this ages ago.

[RealMarek]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree that nihilistic philosophy does not always and perhaps does not usually lead to bad outcomes, but when one inculcates the idea either through teaching or implication that morality has no valid fundamental, external, or traditional foundation and that ethics thus need to be constructed through reason alone, one must find a way to discourage foolish, disgruntled people from determining their own morality instead of heeding wiser council.

I disagree that criminology, or psychology for that matter, have all the answers here. I still think, based on reading shooter manifestos, that the problem of nihilism being instilled in people without education of philosophical responses to that problem (and we would be in agreement, I think, that the understanding of these responses is not being well taught to most people) plays a role. I don’t think pointing this out is pointing out a surface-level problem, but rather a subtle problem that is either not being discussed or is simply dismissed because it threatens the ideology prevalent among our cultural elites, who of course believe that their experts in criminology, or psychology, or what have you (capital “S” Science) possess air-tight solutions that would work if it weren’t for those mouth-breathers who disagree with them. I suspect you know that the experts, most especially in the social sciences, have often been proven wrong in hindsight even when an abundance of peer-reviewed studies suggested they were right.

[Soteris]

As far as I remember and without looking back on the small time I spent studying criminology but most crimes came from a problem in society rather than something like education. While its a bit of an oversimplification but poverty as an example can massively contribute.

While its not directly related to school shootings, but mass shootings has a strong correlation to for example previous instances of cruelty towards animals and committing domestic abuse. It is not just some form of Nihilism going on here, even if they themselves might express themselves in a way that might make you think of that through their own words or writings but there is definitely something more fundamentally wrong with them which has a different cause.

They aren't just "Normal people" so to speak. There is something that has primed them to follow down that road.

[RealMarek]

I think without a doubt multiple factors are involved. I do believe that random mass shootings are a more complex phenomenon than basic crimes like theft that tend to correlate with economic factors like inflation. In fact, in the case of school shootings my impression is that poverty is probably not a factor given the number of offenders from upper middle class backgrounds.

[Lliam]

You make a good point.

On one hand, kids are being socially programmed in school with certain deviant values, and on the other hand, they are led to believe that subjective feelings are reality and should be affirmed. They call it inclusion and tolerance.
As a consequence, the most common values are being lost. Society is being fractured.
It is leading to confusion, disenfranchisement, alienation, isolation, low self esteem, feelings of victimhood, hopelessness, and lack of empathy.

On top of that there are few, if any, healthy role models on TV and movies. And news media promotes more fear, hopelessness and violence.

The government, itself, is a model for violence.

Social media takes away the necessity to interact with people in person. And it makes bullying much easier. It's also a place where kids have access to very aberrant messages.

So, it's not just schools, but they play a large role. The fact that all this is happening makes me wonder who or what is behind it. I don't think it is a coincidence. Who benefits?

[RealMarek]

Good point about the government being a source of violence. The current elite have opted for military action either direct or by proxy over diplomacy (which would require compromise) for many years now. This is bound to set an example. I think this is a unique and relevant insight.

[Lliam]

Thanks for the MHO.

[RealMarek]

You’re welcome.

[NamerOfStars]

Good question. I think that's part of it, but only part- it's not a matter of secularity, but of willingness to confront reality and humanity's place in it. Blind acceptance of the world as it seems results in weakness, and almost inevitably, in misery. But I think that's the key- it's not just education, but the whole zeitgeist; media, politics, everything, it's all pushing the doctrine of despair. Convince the populace that nothing can be done about a given problem, and you're free to keep exploiting it while THEY are free to ignore it, since "there's nothing that can be done".

That's why there's so little discussion about it: many of the behind-the-scenes movers and shakers of society WANT people to feel helpless and powerless, unable to meaningfully affect their lives or the world around them, except through certain specific channels that the movers and shakers approve of. Consider: in 1980, 90% of American media was owned by fifty companies, and there was serious concern that that kind of concentration could be easily propagandized. Today, that same 90% is owned by five companies. The proliferation of the internet SHOULD have changed that, but the rise and subsequent extreme politicization of social media drove it back down. And even those sources are being consolidated- run a web browser that doesn't support HTML 5 EMEs, and a huge chunk of the internet, growing larger every day, is inaccessible to you.

One who rejects the hymns of hopelessness is one who is going to be a troublemaker.

[RealMarek]

This is a very thoughtful point. The consolidation of opinion making organs into a small number of large entities ensures they will be controlled by the elite (all from the same socioeconomic class) and used to manipulate the common people. Without the consolidation, there would have been too many competing voices and opinions.

[Alli39]

A secular education doesn't mean that people can't operate through the lens of religious beliefs and secular morality absolute exists and is the basic state of operation for tons of people. You don't need a god to tell you not to hurt people, and having a god clearly doesn't always stop you from hurting people. So I have absolutely no issue with secular education and actually see it as a good thing. For one, it encourages students to find validation for their beliefs outside of "God said so". For another, it doesn't interfere with students' right to their own religion, because it's hard to provide a religious education to students of a wide variety of religions all at once. Secular educations don't force students to exist without religious beliefs, they just don't explicitly teach those beliefs.

I think we see "moral deteriorating" under secular education because it allows people to examine the basic principles behind morals. Not all religious morals actually have a strong backing in the modern world. (Ex. abstinence was a much bigger deal when birth control didn't exist because the likelihood of an accidental pregnancy was way higher.) "Morals" without a logical backing are being dropped by the younger generations as they reapply them against modern life and basic reasoning.

[RealMarek]

I think there are some valid points here. Still, secularism is failing to provide suitable answers to the problem of nihilism. Secular education can be great, but it’s current form in the US is leaving too many people with a sense of meaninglessness and, in rare cases this can lead to extremely flawed morality with tragic consequences. This shouldn’t be surprising given the absolutely appalling performance or most American schools.

[Alli39]

I mean secularism and nihilism are not the same thing, like at all. We're not forcing people to stop believing and atheists still can have life purposes etc. So frankly, I don't think secularism is supposed to solve nihilism is the first place and I don't even agree that nihilism is really the primary cause of much of any major issues in America. Please keep in mind that aetheism, secularism, nihilism, and mental health issues like depression are all separate concepts.

[RealMarek]

Yes, of course I understand they are all separate concepts, that there are plenty of atheists who have a sense of meaning or purpose and have moral beliefs, etc., but nihilism had been (improperly) embraced as a wrecking ball by our sociopolitical elite to undermine the previous social and replace it with what they call ethics. Given this and the statements of the shooters themselves, I disagree that the moral and philosophical outlook that is inculcated through education, perhaps not even intentionally, plays no role. Is mental illness an issue? Absolutely. Is it the only issue and is it always unrelated to a person’s philosophical beliefs? I don’t believe so.

[Alli39]

I mean I disagree. I don't think nihilism is even common enough to be a major problem. I've never met a single person who identified their belief system as nihilist, nor experienced an educational space that promotes such beliefs. I don't know what kind of school you went to though...

[RealMarek]

It’s not that these people think “I’m a nihilist so I can make my own morality.” That’s not what I’m trying to say. You’re right about most people never being educated about nihilism, the problem of meaningless, and the philosophical responses to it. It’s more that they are influenced by the implications of philosophical ideas they don’t understand that were employed purposefully to undermine traditional ways of thinking, but now filter down into the culture in subtle ways and can result in a feeling of meaninglessness and skepticism of any moral standards. And if you were educated in the 1980s and 1990s the message that morality is subjective and any claim otherwise is just a bad-faith power play was repeated incessantly. In the minds of the wrong people, this is dangerous. But it’s okay to disagree on it and I appreciate your response.

[NaultD]

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

Friedrich Nietzsche

He is sad about it. Who will wipe the blood off us? what water could clean us of this crime. It would be us becoming our own agents in life. To clean ourselves and forgive ourselves.

Where the schools or employment hierarchy dosen't want people to be free agents. Keep people under pressure to make ends meet, keep us hungry for time, food, social. Keep burning the midnight oil on both ends of the candle stick. All you got is "no rest for the wicked" on loop on daily bullshit on 3 hour drive between shit to do.

[RealMarek]

Yes. Even though I bring up nihilism as a contributing factor in some tragic circumstances, I am also certain the murderers have little understanding of the philosophical problem that Nietzsche raised and tried to address. You’re completely correct about Nietzsche’s insight about the mass man or “bug-man.” Bug-man life is not something to aspire to.

[nonyabeez-wax]

I would have to agree with anon1903.

Up until the 1980s Christianity was largely the defacto philosophy in most families, of which concentrated on the importance of human life.

In the past 40 years we've seen a drastic shift away from Christian ideals and morals, to a more nihilistic, and self worshiping world view.

A larger discussion about the morals, and philosophy parents were and should be teaching their children is in order. A further discussion topic should be, why and how the school does or could be teaching many things better including the value of human life.

That is not to say that putting good people with guns in schools isn't a viable option, but rather to say its a stop gap measure. Eliminating gun free zones would prove very effective in dropping mass shootings to nearly zero, but teaching the youth to value human life even throughout suffering and hardships would form a long term solution with the elimination of gun control.

[OddBeMe]

One, I agree. I like the idea of more Philosophy and Religious studies. Just ecumenical and not outrageously driven toward Christianity.
Two, that has nothing really to do with mass shootings. Every mass shooter has different reasons. But the same easy access to guns.

[RealMarek]

Well, we agree on something, in part. I think reviving elements of classical education in elementary and high school would be helpful. Putting value on liberal arts (which would have to be much less politicized and made much more rigorous in terms of difficulty at the collegiate level than they are now) would be an excellent idea, but companies would also need to value something other than vocationally focused degrees. I think there is value in having some broadly educated or experienced people to compliment narrowly-focused specialists. This is a battle I lost repeatedly when I was fairly high up on the corporate ladder, and was one of the things that led to my being knocked off the ladder.

[OddBeMe]

Define broadly educated vs narrowly focused…

I’m seeing “humanist degree” grad who doesn’t have a real major…versus computer science.

[RealMarek]

I would agree that today’s humanities degree grad doesn’t have a real major because the programs are not as challenging and they are overly politicized. Also, I’ve seen several English programs that assign less writing than what is required in engineering programs and produce grads who are predominantly trained in deconstruction. This needs to be radically reformed. Before WW2 a liberal arts student had to be competent in Latin (which they would often have studied in high school), a foreign language, calculus, logic, and general sciences in addition to the deep dive into classical literature. Those graduates were valued as employees despite not having a narrowly focused specialization because they knew how to think. Nothing against highly specialized technical training, the path I took. It is needed too.

[OddBeMe]

Ooh basic logic and cognitive debate is my pressure point. Def needs more attention.

But what does this have to do with ridding “nilhism” from classrooms? Logic and education is anathema to religion.

[RealMarek]

The fact that a figure like Aquinas ever existed puts the lie to logic and education being anathema to religion. The better way to put it is that religion is anathema to the educational elites of the modern-day West. If you look at the lifecycle of every high culture you will see that logic and education are born within the foundational religions of the culture, but every culture contains internal contradictions and imperfections that eventually, during the decline of the culture, cause the clerical/intellectual class to turn their critical eye against the foundational principles of the culture. This gives rise to a phenomenon analogous to atheism (for example Bhuddism is to Hinduism in Indian culture what atheism is to Roman Catholicism in Western culture).

[OddBeMe]

Oops, authority fallacy. How do we know Aquila’s wasn’t like the gospel writers…probably an amalgam of different people with a single goal of promoting Christianity?

[OddBeMe]

Autocorrect doesn't like the name Aquinas. Lol

[RealMarek]

Happens to the best of us, and we can’t go back and edit on here, haha.

First of all, Aquinas was alive recently enough that his existence as a single person, whose personal history and life is known to us, is well documented and air tight. This isn’t like pseudo-Dionysius or something.

Second, have you read any Aquinas? It’s very dry and voluminous. Even the scholars I know who specialized in Thomism haven’t read everything he wrote. He was unbelievably prolific and, because he drew from Aristotle, also critically influential in the adoption of formalized logic in the West. Basically, for thousands of matters he presented premises and rigorously posed logical statements, the conclusion, then commentary. Was he trying to advance Christianity? You bet. But he also advocated for the use of reason when clarifying doctrine or answering pragmatic questions. This had many consequences. The universities adopted this scholasticism and his emphasis on Aristotle. The Western scientific method (which began to evolve in monasteries) and the use of reason in Western philosophy evolved from this starting point. Also, there was continued tension between the scholastics and mystics within Western Christianity. This was seen in many ways: within the Catholic Church (contrast the Jesuits with the Franciscans, in the divergence of the fundamentalist protestants (rigorous exegetical methods and - you might not believe it and perhaps plenty of issues with premises - scholasticism) and the charismatic movement. But whatever one might say about this, it is clear from history that logic is not inimical to religion. In the West, it was born within the foundational Western religion, i. e., Roman Catholicism. This does not prove every conclusion of the church was correct. At the end of the day, logic is only as solid as the premises. But it was anything but irrational.

[OddBeMe]

Sure, and I didn’t mean to give off a qanon anti-Aquinas look. But we still don’t have concrete proof Shakespeare was one person or a maybe an alias. Historians seem pretty clear on both Aquinas and shakes existing, but it’s not as clear cut.

I guess that’s my point is that anything religion offers is never clear cut and always self serving. So I don’t see how it could be better than secular schools. Though again I’m for religious studies of all faiths and very pro-logic and reason being taught. I learned it more from debate classes where we had to switch sides and argue from our opposing views.

[RealMarek]

See, I figure that whenever power gets involved with philosophy, religion, education, science…anything really, there will be self-serving agendas. I think there is plenty taught in secular schools today that is self-serving for the current elites. I’m more neutral when it comes to this and try to keep in mind the elite class that is in power at any given point in history and how that might have influenced the work in institutions captured or funded by the elite.

[OddBeMe]

What elite power do you see in charge? Because in Texas it’s right wing religious school boards.

[RealMarek]

What really matters in our system is what the educational experts in the ivy league schools think. The prevailing opinion in all of these institutions is nearly 100% left-wing. Secondarily, what can get through the major publishing houses. State schools boards don’t have nearly as much power as these and are also subject to DoE regulations directly or pressured to conform in exchange for funding. The elite I’m speaking of is the managerial elite that have dominated the US since FDR took power.

[OddBeMe]

I think your side believes that. So right wing school boards believe they’re fighting against it…and banning huck Finn and other books against god or whatever.

How would you like it if New York banned right wing books, whatever they are? Federalist papers maybe…

[RealMarek]

Isn’t it the left that banned Huck Finn? The left bans plenty of books. Realistically speaking, nobody bans books, but just chooses not to use them in curricula, put them on shelves, etc.

Anyway, my side believes that progressives have full-spectrum dominance of all “respectable” and important cultural and information-forming institutions. My side also thinks the vast majority of the conservative punditry, think tanks, and politicians are nothing more than controlled opposition, grifters, or too incompetent to be a threat to the neoliberal elite.

[OddBeMe]

Why would you think lefties have power over “cultural and information forming institutions”?

Those institutions are corporations out for money, as they should be. The left would just like to regulate a bit.

[RealMarek]

Not all institutions are corporations. I don’t think anyone today would seriously argue that there is a healthy right-wing presence or diversity of political opinion in universities. As for corporations, the big-three asset management firms and the USG exert huge influence in cultural terms through ESG rules, especially given the consolidation of acceptable media into very few large corporations. These rules favor the left.

[RealMarek]

And ESG explicitly allows for investment decisions not driven by fiduciary duty to the shareholder’s return on investment.

[OddBeMe]

Uh if they’re for profit they’re a corporation. Some have multiples in order to get small business incentives. Llc, c corp or s corp etc

[Juxtapose]

Ironic you say that considering how many people have been killed in the name of religion.

[RealMarek]

Sure, but that historical fact (as well as the far greater industrial-scale slaughter caused by the anti-religious revolutions of France and communism) is not relevant to the question.

[Juxtapose]

The body count gets higher once you get religion involved. Once people think there is eternity at stake and they have a divine right to act brutally, it's over.

[Juxtapose]

If you read the Bible literally, it tells you to kill gay people if they have sex.

[RealMarek]

“The body count gets higher once you get religion involved.”

We have casualty figures for previous conflicts and you are wrong. People of all stripes, religious, irreligious, are prone to ideological possession and dehumanization of their opponents. The Trotskyites were just as radical and extreme in their ideology as any holy warrior.

[Juxtapose]

lol you would not get people flying into the twin towers without Islam.

[RealMarek]

Okay. We had tens of millions killed for simply disagreeing with communism. Should I say that wouldn’t happen without atheism?

[Juxtapose]

Communism has nothing to do with atheism.

[RealMarek]

Almost all communist regimes enforced atheism as the state ideology and suppressed religion to various degrees. Communism purported to be a scientific and materialist ideology, which is naturally inimical to religion. This is not a mere coincidence and you can read communist thinkers to understand why it is not a coincidence.

[Juxtapose]

And many capitalist societies have enforced religion, including the United States.

[Juxtapose]

Atheism is not a religion, it is not a system of beliefs. It is simply the absence of theism.

[Juxtapose]

Meanwhile theism has many beliefs attached to it.

[Juxtapose]

Go to some Muslim country and tell me religion is helping them at all.

[RealMarek]

“many capitalist societies have enforced religion, including the United States”

Really? If this was true why are there so many atheists, including in positions of power and influence?

And sure, atheism is not a religion, but it does involve assumptions (as distinct from agnosticism, which is either a dodge or an acknowledgement of uncertainty or indecision) - dare I say faith - that there is nothing but physical reality and that reality exists of its own accord without a cause, which if you think of it is a neat trick that could be considered a miracle.

As for religion, I’m not arguing that it always helps and never hurts. People are inherently imperfect, and so will be any institution composed of people whether it is religious or irreligious.

[Juxtapose]

There are not a lot of atheists at all. It's actually a big detriment when you run for office.

Atheism is either gnostic or agnostic, you are speaking of gnostic atheism and misusing the term "agnostic."

[Exterminatore]

Yes.