I read some interesting stuff the other day about the philosophers who talked about the "death of God" could have been making a sociological observation rather any sort of prophecy.
The idea is that the belief, real and lived, rather than hypothetical or intellectual, in God's omniscience, God was watching and God knew about all behaviour or conduct and it would definitely have its inescapable consequences, did in fact promote lawful good behaviour and conformity. The disappearance of this is what constitutes the "death of God" rather than the wholesale abandonment of religious observance, ie you could go to church on sunday but if you doubt any ultimate consequences strongly enough that is what matters.
The thing is that this idea has its analogy in Plato's consideration of the myth the cloak of invisibility, he considered that anyone who could definitely escape social sanction, attention, detection, would definitely be corrupted and choose to use this power for wrongful ends rather than righteous ones.
What do you think, does the visibility or invisibility, detectability of any behaviour make it more or less probable?
If it does, do you think that the ideas of radical transparency that, for instance (at one time anyway) Zuckerburg with Facebook, or other early internet entrepreneurs at least declared to believe in (it could of course all be about the money in any case), would have this effect? Why? Why not?
The idea is that the belief, real and lived, rather than hypothetical or intellectual, in God's omniscience, God was watching and God knew about all behaviour or conduct and it would definitely have its inescapable consequences, did in fact promote lawful good behaviour and conformity. The disappearance of this is what constitutes the "death of God" rather than the wholesale abandonment of religious observance, ie you could go to church on sunday but if you doubt any ultimate consequences strongly enough that is what matters.
The thing is that this idea has its analogy in Plato's consideration of the myth the cloak of invisibility, he considered that anyone who could definitely escape social sanction, attention, detection, would definitely be corrupted and choose to use this power for wrongful ends rather than righteous ones.
What do you think, does the visibility or invisibility, detectability of any behaviour make it more or less probable?
If it does, do you think that the ideas of radical transparency that, for instance (at one time anyway) Zuckerburg with Facebook, or other early internet entrepreneurs at least declared to believe in (it could of course all be about the money in any case), would have this effect? Why? Why not?
