Why is secularism seen as such a threat?

[technodad]

Why is secularism seen as such a threat, when the very idea is based around protection of the rights of the individual?

Just to be clear before we start, secularism is about making everyone equal, no matter what their belief - simple as that really. It means that no one group (or individual) has greater rights or power in society than everyone else and that everyone has freedom of expression.

So what is it about this concept that is so difficult for some people to accept and support?

Apologies for the terrible typing! 'Tis late, and I am knackered.

Holo. I too genuinely enjoy our conversations and find them interesting.

I am glad that you don't get put off by my often rather robust banter.

I will have a look at your post tomorrow night if I have time after work.

(I can't believe Holo and I just complimented each other ).

Holo

Is it worth starting a new thread for this other subject, since others won't find it 100 posts into a thread about secularism (which has nothing to do with proving religion is right or wrong, only ensuring it's practitioners are free to worship equally).

Techno, I see you have changed your position. You were arguing that there was evidence that showed there is no God. Now you are arguing that there is no evidence for God. Holo and I were saying that those two positions are different. The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence against.

I don't see what Hitler's 'vegetarianism' has to do with anything; it's a huge red herring and implies something much more unreasonable than anything I said. Ditto the Crusades, though I'm glad you didn't bring the witch trials or Galileo on board as well :) I simply and solely point out that at one time the Soviet state kept itself pure and secular by the persecution of persons of religion. 73 years isn't that long ago; it's within living memory, and many human rights abuses then and now come blanketed in claims that human rights are being defended by them.

My point is therefore that your position too might seem like a threat to anyone with knowledge of the fact that it too has a bodycount. This was in relation to your original post/question. It seems however that you didn't actually want an answer; rather you wanted to show how unreasonable people of religion are in fearing you and your kind.

I have to admit, I am not sure what it is that you want me to answer exactly. I think I have lost a question somewhere in the thread. Can you repeat so that I can respond for you please?

I haven't changed my position at all, I merely added another valid point. I still maintain that there is much evidence that god doesn't exist and that it is a concept invented in the minds of humans for example:

1. praying is proven to not change the outcome of an event and only acts like meditation for the individual praying.

2. people getting brain damage proves that the consciousness (or soul) is electrical responses in the brain and that when that person dies and the electrical responses completely stop people's thoughts can not continue to an afterlife.

The list carries on and is very long, but there is much evidence that religion is made up, and no credible evidence that the "magic" elements of religion occur as described in the bible.

However, this is a thread about secularism, not about whether god exists, which is on another thread.

You are now presenting evidence that religious evidence is invalid because it can be correlated with other organic/biological phenomena. (The argument about the flat eeg is especially weak; happy to discuss, though elsewhere as it isn't germane to this thread.) This mass of assertion can scarcely be equated with the answer to what I asked you (post hoc ergo proper hoc???).

What I actually asked you is what the evidence is for the non-existence of god or gods, something of which you claimed to be 99.999% certain, and you have responded with something else, something beside the point, thus I think demonstrating the rational fallacy of which you are eager to accuse others.

I think the confusion between arguments about the non-existence of god or gods and arguments for secularisation is your own; it was you who opened the question, implicitly in your OP and later and more explicitly down thread.

These threads always do meander, don't they? One of the many reasons I like MN. Am in the middle of a v. busy day - hope to pop back later if poss.

This thread's fallen off my active list - there's a lot to catch up on! Marking place :)

sieglinde,

I have re-read nearly all of my posts on this thread, and I can not see where I have mention "Flat Earth" or even eegs . I have made this comments on other threads on MN in the last few days, but not on this one about secularism. I think you might be mixing up the threads and using things I have said from other threads in this discussion, which as I say, are not relevant.

I think the confusion between arguments about the non-existence of god or gods and arguments for secularisation is your own; it was you who opened the question, implicitly in your OP and later and more explicitly down thread.

I don't see how I imply anything about arguments for god in my OP, which clearly says:

*"Why is secularism seen as such a threat, when the very idea is based around protection of the rights of the individual?

Just to be clear before we start, secularism is about making everyone equal, no matter what their belief - simple as that really. It means that no one group (or individual) has greater rights or power in society than everyone else and that everyone has freedom of expression.

So what is it about this concept that is so difficult for some people to accept and support?"*

This seemed to get confused on the 1st Sept at 14:46 when you claimed that you were both "rational" and "religious" and SolidGoldBrass told you that you couldn't be both (which I agreed with shortly after), which then led to you asking us to explain why. So I don't know how it was me that explicitly started the discussion about the existence or otherwise of god, it was you.

Thanks, sciencelover. 100% certainty is mostly a matter of irrationally ignoring the .0001% possibility of error.

Techno, rather than debating who said what to who first, why not just address the question? You asked for clarification about what the question was, and I provided it.

Surely you can't prove a non-existence? There is strong evidence for the non-existence of god(s) as they are described by followers and their guiding texts.

I can say "God doesn't do such-and-such as believers claim it does; the bible is wrong on certain matters of fact" and can provide strong, logical arguments to support my statements. Well, other people can provide it better than I.

But if we take this further, to ask "Is there any unknown force acting upon our world?" then I have to answer "Almost certainly, and almost certainly more than one". But I'm not attributing design, intelligence or purpose to such forces. I'm simply saying I don't yet know what they are or what they do. Religious followers tend to believe not only in the intelligence of an unknown force, but that it can be manipulated by the power of thought and certain rituals.

I see no evidence that any unknown force acts with purpose, nor evidence that prayer and rituals alter the course of events in play. Therefore I see no evidence of god as followers describe him/her/it/them. I've got no problem with you praying and burning incense, if it helps you. Should you decide that your rituals are more important than the well-being of other people, I maintain the full force of secular law should be applied to you. If you want to endanger other people wholesale, in the name of your religion, your religion should be subject to secular judgement.

I'm slightly out of my intellectual depth on this thread. It strikes me that you, Holo and Sieglinde, seem to be displaying the problem raised by Techno's OP. If you did not feel your religion was threatened by secularism, why would you be disputing it?

Garlic, because that was the turn that the conversation took! (See Solid's post from Saturday.) I think though, that it's all well and good saying things like 'I see no evidence...' - but, for that statement to be persuasive, what we have to do at the very, very least is to consider what evidence is and how it works. Of course, many people are perfectly content not to think about such things, but it's not enough for me just to accept what people say. So yes, I'd want to question a bit the basis of your argument.

Yes, I accept completely that secularism is a completely different question to that of the existence of God, that there are plenty of religious secularists etc.

The power of prayer must have been tested scientifically!

I am curious as to how people such as you, Holo, live with the uncertainty and helplessness of religion alongside your clearly logical & questioning mind. Then again, I don't understand why people are happy to build their houses along unstable fault lines. So maybe I'm just not cut out for this faith lark

Interesting question, Garlic! Tbh, uncertainty and helplessness aren't the first words that spring to my mind wrt religion / faith. Then again, neither are certainty and self-sufficiency, so I suspect that I approach religion from a completely different angle to you.

I do see a degree of uncertainty and helplessness as endemic to all people though. I've spent a fair amount of time in hospials for one reason or another and one sees a great deal of uncertainty and helplessness there, from the staff as well as from the patients. Many of us who are well, fit and active are shielded from the fragility of life, but life is a strange mixture of fragililty and strength. I'm sure I'd think that even if I were not religious; it'd be intellectually dishonest of me to try and kid myself that I can live as a fully certain, self-sufficient human being when I know that I could get run over by a bus tomorrow. So I suppose I embrace whatever strength and self-sufficiency I have and try and use it for the good of others, and embrace the uncertainty and weakness as a way of deepening my humanity and compassion for others. That's why, although I value rational thinking, have the degrees etc., I do have quite a relativised view of rationality; because for me, rationality can't be the entirety, or even the goal, of what it means to be human. Would I say any different if I were not religious? Don't know!

Wrt prayer experiments, yes, there have been some and this man, a really interesting pyschologist and atheist says thatthe results are inconclusive.

Garlic, I don't think secularism is a threat. I was trying to answer the OP's original post, which asked why some people of religion might see things that way. (I still don't think he really wanted an answer; looks like the question was rhetorical or he was hoping for a barney with some fanatics)

I AM a secularist in the sense that I am against faith schools, religion in public life, and the Established Church, and I support everyone's right to a religion or none. I have posted to this effect on MN more than once. I am also religious.

So assuming I count as 'people such as Holo', which might be a stretch , here's my answer. Though I believe strongly in reason and rationality, quite a lot of my life is made up of irrational things, like the aesthetic pleasure of music or food, or romantic love and fidelity (I've been married for 26 years). Both of these are hard to prove because both are so subjective, so emotional, and so contrary to the equally valid and authentic experiences of others. But I do believe in them. I actually quite like uncertainty and helplessness, because it can be more truthful than the insistence that the sovereign me is always in command.

'People such as Holo'? What, hairy truckers?!

Now that would be an interesting study for a brain specialist - what proportion of our lives could be described as us being 'rational'? I'd lay good money on it being quite a small percentage of our lifetime (if you count sleeping hours, hours watching The Great British Bake-Off etc.)

Thanks for your reply :) It's made me go "hmm ..." Never a good thing when I'm supposed to be Doing Stuff!

Yes, life is a strange mixture of fragililty and strength. I live with the knowledge of randomness. For me, the belief that an intelligent force had decreed such randomness - and allowed people to go on thinking they can change the odds with prayer and incense - would be depressing and pointless. Either you think you can change the odds (and I'm pretty sure I could demonstrate the odds are just impartial statistics) or you don't, in which case I don't see how your god differs from my unknown (but impartial) forces.

Perhaps it's the idea of 'decree' that repulses me. Humans who believe their morals have been decreed by higher powers - god/s or organisations - have a tendency to carry out the power's decrees without reference to basic humanity or common sense. They willingly allow their personal judgement to be overridden.

I'm massively interested in the psychology of 'faith'. On the positive side, I've seen faith healing work. I've only seen it work for real, however, on ailments that can be fixed with hypnotherapy. I think prayer is a form of self-hypnosis, broadly speaking; no outside forces required.

I have been "reiki attuned" and was furious with the course leader, who promoted a load of dangerous quasi-medical nonsense along with her quasi-spiritual method. I'm well in favour of 'making people better by giving them attention', which reiki and all other woo/religious practices can achieve, but practitioners will insist on supposing they can affect those impartial odds ... and that they know best.

Very rambly! Sorry.

Oops, x-posted!

Off to Do Stuff before catching up. I could use a hairy-handed trucker! Get over here now!

Agree on the woo, and also on the idea that rituals can make god/s do things. Not in my religion. You don't pray etc to get god/s to do things. You pray because you want to put yourself in the presence of god/s, because you long for them. Maybe this is self-hypnosis - willing to say it might be, but this doesn't affect the existence or nonexistence of the one prayed to, which remains unknown. I don't think I know ANYTHING except that I don't know anything, and for me prayer is a state of unknowing. It doesn't do, it is.

As for ethics, agree that there has to be an intersection of ethical norms and structures. it doesn't int he end matter if I refrain from killing you because of the decalogue or because of my gut feeling, as long as I don't do it. I think though that gut feeling can mislead as much as slates of ethics if founded int he wrong first principles, and in this I am a keen Kantian universalist.

Would also like to add that very few of the obnoxious views of some of his followers can be found in the teachings of e.g. Jesus, who was keen to befriending the VERY people cast aside by the Very Religious People in his society.

Love your enemies still seems a radical and important rule to me, and it often goes dead AGAINST gut instinct.

sieglinde said: (I still don't think he really wanted an answer; looks like the question was rhetorical or he was hoping for a barney with some fanatics)

I genuinely do, but I have been at work for the last 3 days and not had time to keep up with the conversation, and I honestly got lost with your specific question, because I thought I had already answered it by giving two examples of evidence (to be honest I am still a little confused).

When you reiterated your question you said "What I actually asked you is what the evidence is for the non-existence of god or gods, something of which you claimed to be 99.999% certain, and you have responded with something else, something beside the point, thus I think demonstrating the rational fallacy of which you are eager to accuse others."

Much earlier in the thread I agreed with you that there was no such thing as a true atheist, because it is impossible to be 100% sure that god does not exist. I said that I was an agnostic at an extreme end of the spectrum, to the extent that I might as well shorten the explanation (because it will take ages to explain to passers on the street) to say "I am atheist".

I can not prove that god doesn't exists, in the same way that I can not prove that there is an invisible mass-less elephant that craps invisible mass-less gold sitting next to me. Both suggestions (god and my elephant) are equally credible (or incredible), but I don't expect you to find evidence to disprove my elephant, since I am clearly a nut job.

However, science and statistics can disprove many religious claims (and btw Holo, just because one scientist has a differing view, it doesn't change the scientific consensus (much like the MMR vaccination or global warming debate where a few disagreeing scientists get given equal media airtime to that of the 99.99999 other scientists in the interest of "balance", which is nonsense)). I gave some examples of where these claims can be disproved, such as the soul going to heaven, and the effectiveness of prayer on 3rd parties.

Not only is there lots of evidence that religious claims are not true, it is also the case that there is not very much reliable evidence in the other sense (in favour of a god). Most religions are based upon old text, written before scientific knowledge, by many people, over hundreds of years, with political bias. Those that aren't (such as scientology, make my invisible elephant idea look almost sane!)

I hope I have answered your question. If I haven't then you are going to need to ask it in a different way, because I don't understand what you want from me. We have just completed a 1000 post long thread about the existence of god, and I honestly wanted to start a thread on a different subject.

Trust me when I say that I was not attempting to cause an argument, but have a genuine discussion.

I would like religions to be a recognised part of our glorious British cultural mish-mash.
I would like my native society to be as fair, moral and just as possible, without the influence of religious precepts.
Michael Gove fucking terrifies me.
I am uncomfortable about bishops in the House Of Lords ...
... But the few steady voices against inhumane Acts of Parliament have been bishops, arguing on moral grounds.

I'm regretfully unconvinced that Mammon wouldn't get an even bigger foothold (speaking metaphorically; I don't believe there is a Mammon) if not for the moral guidance of churches. This is a very big problem for me. Secular lawmakers, peacekeepers, educators, governors et al should be able to act with wise compassion; they should be able to set and enforce wisely compassionate principles. But the evidence isn't good. Having said that, we're acutely aware of religious bodies and individuals acting inhumanely, too - using their religions as excuses.

We need to start that Church of Common Sense!

Why does secular morality education keep falling flat on its face? At school I had lessons in comparative theology, 'civics', Edward De Bono 'thinking' and critical analysis. Not all at once - each was valuable and, I think, well taught, but they dropped into the curriculum and then dropped out again. I gather this is still ongoing, with personal and social education, rights and responsibilities, etc, still appearing and disappearing. Shouldn't we be focusing on this a lot more?

If such a secular education were to be launched and successfully maintained, would religious organisations feel threatened by it?

Techno, I tried offering my creditors invisible mass-less elephant gold. They weren't impressed.