Big Think

Omar Sapayeen on January 20, 2008, 1:13 PM

What are you talking about? What is “secular theory”? Secularism merely holds that governments should not be instructed by religion. This makes sense in any society where less than 100% of the people follow the majority religion, and therefore the minority is in danger of being subject to rules governed by beliefs they do not hold themselves.

There are about 6.5 billion people on this planet. There can be no comforting single ‘scientific picture of the human condition’. Reality is much simpler, and more chaotic. So I disagree.

Andrew Clunn on January 20, 2008, 1:33 PM

I wholeheartedly agree. Secular morality is a very different sort of thing, as it has no unifying text or doctrine, it varies greatly from one region or individual to another. It seems the only two unifying things about it are an innate sense sense of superiority to faith based morality, and a qualification standard based upon either the consequences or the intent of an action, and placing no moral implications upon actions themselves.

There is a growing view that secular morality is under attack by religious institution. In the political sense then (at least in the United States, to which I will speak of as that is where I am from) secular morality tends to stem from constitutional purity, or the supposed reverence that should be paid to the fundamentals of the legal system.

I will point out however, that cases where constitutionality was swept aside for the proliferation of secularly moral judgments (such as the perjury and legislation from the bench behind Roe vs. Wade) are rarely questioned by self-described secular or even agnostic individuals. There are of course many people of faith who go against the very values of their faith to the ends of spreading it. Hypocrisy exists on both sides, it’s merely that the secular humanist is somehow unable or unwilling to admit that their belief system has all the fundamentals of a religion, the only thing missing is God.

James Imnotgonnatellyou on January 20, 2008, 2:43 PM

OmarS, I agree.
AndrewClunn—
Please back up your claim that “the secular humanist is somehow unable or unwilling to admit that their belief system has all the fundamentals of a religion.”

You speak of a secular humanist’s belief in his/her own superior morality over that of those whose morality is religion-inspired. Let me make an analogy. Would you be more willing to live in a house that you yourself have built and you know the possible flaws in its construction, or live in a house that someone else built, who claims to be the greatest genius of architecture, and requires you to take it on faith that he didn’t make any flaws in building it?

These ideas ARE under attack. Case in point: this thread.

Rajarian Rekhana on January 20, 2008, 2:46 PM

OmarS, according to your definition of secularism, I agree. What I meant by the term is the worldview that the scientific method (rational thought) is the only means capable of comprehending the human condition—-that science is the only Providence of man. I disagree, however, that science can yield no single picture of the human condition. Physics has uncovered progressively simpler, more unified levels of natural law, culminating in the recent discovery of the Unified Field. Indeed, by definition, scientific discoveries transcend cultural differences and are applicable to all. My point is that science hasn%u2019t reached the end of its investigations, particularly with regard to the human condition, yet its secular humanist ideologues claim to have the final word on that subject. By the way, by what approach—-scientific, religious, or otherwise—-have you concluded that there can be no simple picture, that reality it too chaotic?

AndrewClunn, glad to have a big thinker to explore this idea with. I%u2019m interested in knowing more about the qualification standard you mentioned. If you can expand on this I would be grateful. At your convenience. . .

Rajarian Rekhana on January 20, 2008, 3:00 PM

I AM, its comforting to know that not all secularists are fundamentalists. My point is that if one is aware of the flaws in ones own foundation, better to perfect the blueprint before forcing others to build their homes (and nations) upon it.

James Imnotgonnatellyou on January 20, 2008, 3:01 PM

I would like to point out as well that secular humanists (now continuing my “house” analogy) are usually never told to build their “house,” while those whose “house” is built by the self-proclaimed “architectural genius” are told to allow HIM to build their house.

James Imnotgonnatellyou on January 20, 2008, 3:04 PM

@ rajarr—
What you just said is (to me) exactly what needs to be said to those who say that since their “morality” is religiously inspired, it cannot be flawed.

Rajarian Rekhana on January 20, 2008, 3:26 PM

I AM, I wholeheartedly agree. Fundamentalism in any form should be rejected.

a a on January 21, 2008, 6:41 PM

Discuss rather than convert. Let people make their own choices. Work together by working against each other. If two teams are playing against each other, it wouldn’t make for much of a game if one team converted the other to their side. They cooperate by competing against each other. I agree to disagree, just don’t cram it down my throat.