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?

Techno, I am replying because I don;t want you to think I'm rudely not replying . Of course you have a life - me too! - but your answer still doesn't actually seem to me to fit the question, because you still don't seem to see the fine distinction to which I'm trying to draw attention, the distinction between evidence against and lack of evidence for. The elephant with the gold lacks evidence to support his existence. This is not the same as evidence that he does NOT exist, which is not a lack but a positive thing.

So for example if you said the elephant had mass, we could try putting a lead weight where the elephant is, and if it went in easily we would have to conclude that was evidence against a corporeal elephant, though you might still argue that the elephant was not corporeal and that you had just been wrong about the mass. :)

I will now unwisely address what you say even though it is beside the point..

A separate point is your amusing dismissal of religious texts from what you term ancient pre-scientific times. This is a caricature; the ancient world knew a lot about science, especially the Roman world to which we owe our own notions of empiricism, logic, reason and the rule of law. As well as reason, atheists need to know some history...

Also separately, people in established faiths do in fact report religious experiences very frequently, and while I know you posted previously alleging that these could be explained in terms of neuroscience, this explanation is not the same as your attempt to consign all such feelings to a past before the iPhone came to save us. Also you don't seem to see that one could argue that a god or gods could perfectly well act through neurological responses rather than independently of them.

I btw can't find the thread to which you refer, which may for all I know have contained adequate responses to all these points.

All I want to say here is that agnosticism is the most rational view, and that atheism is more irrational, as is religion. I fear irrational certitudes, whether manifest in Gove or in Dawkins.

All I want to say here is that agnosticism is the most rational view

Once again, I agree with you, since it is impossible to prove 100% that there is no god. This is something that Dawkins makes very clear in "The God Delusion". I have said a couple of times, that I am at the extreme end of the spectrum of agnosticism.

At the end of the day, until Gerolamo Cardano was born in 1576 that people started to properly understand randomness and probability correctly. so 1500 years previous to his work, it is unsurprising that people thought that a self igniting burning bush was a miracle, since they didn't even understand that there is a 1 in 2 chance of getting a heads if you flip a coin! So what makes people think that the bible we going to make a fair assessment of likelihood of events occurring, rather than a lot of jumped to conclusions based upon preconceived ideas?

Ok, I think this is where I ride away into the sunset rather than embark on more discussion. You have a tendency to ignore what I say... But good luck to you in your quest for tolerance, which I strongly support.

Sorry, but I honestly don't understand your question. I am happy to have a go at answering it, but it needs to be clearer.

I just asked it as clearly as I can, but let's have one last try.

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE that God does NOT exist?

This is NOT the same as arguments AGAINST prior claims that s/he does exist.

Nor is it the same as the ABSENCE of evidence that s/he does exist.

sieglinde,

I am not sure it was a lack of capital letters that was stopping me understand it before, it was the fact that I thought I had already answered it at Wed 05-Sep-12 19:32:33.

My elephant example covers exactly this question by saying that there is no evidence that proves that god doesn't exist (I agree with you), but in the same way that you can not prove that my elephant doesn't exist.

However, when some nut job claims that they have an invisible mass-less elephant in the house, that craps mass-less gold, it is not down to the whole world on non-nutjobs to prove that they are wrong, it is down to the nutjob to produce tangible and credible evidence that the magic elephant does exist, until then, he is a nutjob.

When the nutjob also starts getting vulnerable or impressionable people to contribute their money (or their first born child as a sacrifice in olden days) in exchange for mass-less gold elephant poo. Or if gets some other nutjobs to teach people about the elephant to school children (so that they will be brainwashed into giving money for poo when they are adults), then people should start asking serious questions about how this is allowed in modern society!

Ok, we're in agreement, then, that there is no evidence that god does not exist
(or the elephant, either).

I think where we might differ is the idea that there is any onus on believers to prove that there is a pooing elephant in the room. If religion were really a more-or-less private matter, that is if its role in lawmaking and education were removed, then it would be nobody's business but mine if I want to believe in such an entity, and I am happy to be called a nutjob as long as you are also happy for Dawkins and the late Hitchens to be so designated for their equally irrational faith, which has also brought them a lot of money and for which Dawkins at least has set up a kind of charity.

I think where we might agree is the last paragraph here, and this is where I want to say again that I believe strongly in the separation of religion and the state.

However, I'm not convinced that people contribute money in exchange for poo, or indeed woo. I think they probably do it mostly as a kind of subscription to a community, maybe a bit like Slimmers World .

I would also say that it is much harder to brainwash people in a lasting way than you seem to think. I agree totally that all schools should be secular, but having gone to a faith school would observe that not very many of us are still of that faith, and I would also argue that parents or guardians should be allowed to bring up their children in their own religion provided no direct physical harm (human sacrifice, genital mutilation) is involved. Do you agree?

I think where we might differ is the idea that there is any onus on believers to prove that there is a pooing elephant in the room. If religion were really a more-or-less private matter, that is if its role in lawmaking and education were removed, then it would be nobody's business but mine if I want to believe in such an entity

But that isn't the case, it does influence everyone else in society, so unfortunately you don't have that luxury. If religion wishes to keep it's influence, which it clearly does, then the burden of proof is on the community that want to maintain that luxury (which I recognise does not include you personally).

I am happy to be called a nutjob as long as you are also happy for Dawkins and the late Hitchens to be so designated for their equally irrational faith, which has also brought them a lot of money and for which Dawkins at least has set up a kind of charity.

Since they agree that it is impossible to prove that god does not exist and are also at the extreme end of the agnostic spectrum, you can not claim they are nutjobs. Sorry, you just can't!

With regards to their money, they sell a product that people buy (books etc). Neither Dawkins or Hitchens have paragraphs in their books saying that people will go to hell if they don't pay more money! Your argument is not justified and you are seeing things from a strongly biased perspective!

However, I'm not convinced that people contribute money in exchange for poo, or indeed woo. I think they probably do it mostly as a kind of subscription to a community, maybe a bit like Slimmers World

Slimmers world does not tell people that they will get fat if they stop paying subscriptions. If they did, they would be challenged legally.

I would also say that it is much harder to brainwash people in a lasting way than you seem to think.

I agree (ish). Modern science and a better level of education helps here, but this still isn't the case in many countries!

1. 'Religion' might, but I don't, and I see no reason :) for such a thing. I think all religions are better practised with humility and without influence on affairs of state. MY religion btw doesn't have any overall influence on affairs of state in this country. And a good thing too given how it acted and acts when it does. :(
2. Dawkins has a charity and a kind of thinktank, and the bus poster also involved a vague promise, that people would enjoy life more if they embraced his credo, a statement which has been proven to be incorrect on many occasions. Also if both of them are genuinely willing to admit a rational amount of uncertainty, why do they bang on all the time about the absence of god/s? I don't bang on nearly as much about it as they do. I don't feel the need to take out adverts on buses. While the small print might admit of a degree of uncertainty, both of them endlessly acted certain.
3. Slimmers World does promise something nobody can deliver, ie. permanent weight loss. That is, it doesn't say well, you might lose 20 pounds, but you'll regain it in a year plus 10 percent. (I digress).
4. I suspect attempts to correlate belief with educational level worldwide might be very hard to achieve. That said, of course there are ignorant practitioners of all religions and none, but these should not perhaps skew the overall view of religion?

1. Thanks for repeating what I said

2. But Dawkins does not get people to contribute through a culture of fear! Big difference! If I don't donate to Dawkins, there are no negative consequences (other than him having less money to do whatever he does). He does not tell people that they need to pay to be able to embrace his credo, they can get that credo but simply thinking!

3. I don't really care about Slimmers World - if you are unhappy, then report them to the Advertising Standards Agency.

4. Here is some data: www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx clearly not world wide, but a fairly large sample.

Techno, that Gallup data is stunning! Not in a good way.

I feel oddly disappointed that the education/evolution correlation is so strongly aligned to my expectations. I like having my prejudices knocked down :(

Just found my way back to this thread! For which, thanks, Techno.

The data you supplied there Techno is really interesting, but surely only accounts for a certain type of religion (i.e. fundamentalism / conservative evangelicalism)? It'd be interesting to carry out a study of beliefs regarding things like evolution (which surely isn't the only indicator of wider beliefs about the world, despite being an important one) and things like denomination, educational background, nationality, etc. When I come onto thsese threads all I do is to keep dreaming up PhD projects for sociologists of religion!

1. How pointlessly rude you are. Why? not perhaps the ideal display of your ethos...? I make an honest concession, and you go on flogging a dead horse.

1. They might well fear people depicting them as fools or as uncool for not agreeing with Dawkins and his claque. As we all know, kids are especially prone to exactly this kind of pressure. However, I do not think Dawkins and his kind are brainwashing anyone, merely bullying.

On religion and fear, cough, bullshit. a. I'm personally with Ivan Karamazov on this one in any case; I can't worship a god who blackmails me. b. I have only ever heard one priest/preacher EVER even speak of hellfire. You are behind the times. Joyce was longer ago than the massacre of Catholic clergy to which I earlier referred. And see 4. below.

Besides, most people are much more afraid of present ridicule and bullying than even of the most fundamentalist damnation.

1. Yes, Holo, exactly. Techno, your idea of 'religion' is of the most fundamentalist kind of religion of the book, and only a small minority of Moslems, Jews and Christians in any part of the world are fundamentalist in this way. Yet you continue to speak as if nobody of any religion believed in evolution (and I do, btw, since I have some tertiary qualifications in anatomy and zoology.) All the people of religion I know believe in evolution.

1. Oh come on, what is wrong with a bit of banter (Holo doesn't mind when I am rude to her...much). There is nothing within any secular ethos (if that is the ethos you are referring to) that says that I have to be polite. All I have to do is be equally rude (or polite) to everyone no matter what faith they have (or none), which I am. I am much more polite to you than I am to my friends if that helps you get through the day.

2. What utter tosh, are you seriously suggesting that people feel forced into donating money to Dawkins through fear that their friends might laugh at them for being stupid. That is one of the most ridiculous suggestions I have ever heard! I can imagine the conversation in the school yard: "Quick Tracy, you had better donate money to that Dawkins geezer, otherwise Darren won't wanna shag you on the back of the school bus tonight, init!"

The fact that you have heard one preacher speak of hellfire proves my point. One is too many!

I accept that your personal faith doesn't put any weight hellfire, but many peoples' faith does (and we aren't talking about you or I, we are talking about the cross-section of the population). We have a friend of the family who has been at our house crying at the "fact" that my whole family are going to hell because we don't love god. Clearly people like this aren't common, but they do exist as a surprisingly large minority of believers.

Even if hellfire isn't used as motivation, it is often made clear that giving money to church makes you a "good Christian", often a figure of 10% of income is used. There is lots of peer pressure with this sort of culture and it is not appropriate (again, I recognised that this in not the case in all churches (yours included if you go to one), but it does happen quite a lot - every time I go to the christening of friends children, I am ALWAYS asked to donate).

If I donate to Dawkins, it does not make me a good atheist, and there is no building that we all gather in where we get asked to donate. In fact, you have to go looking for his website to even find out that he has a charity (or hear about it during radio/TV interviews, which are hardly regular events - I think I have heard him on the radio three times this year, and I actively try to catch him on the radio when I can). Basically, if I don't donate to Dawkins, no one knows, and no one judges me against a set of prescribed values. It does not make me a bad atheist.

4) I never said that it was the majority (especially in the UK), but I agree the data I provided was not a link between spirituality and education level, but extreme religion and education.

The fact that you say "believe" in evolution does however, says a lot to me. I suspect (although I may be wrong) you put your belief in evolution on the same par as your belief in your religion. However, in reality it clearly shouldn't be on the same level, since evolution is provable by evidence as a highly probably theory (to the extent that we can call it a fact, much like we can say that the earth is 4.54 billion years old (+/-1 about 1%), or that the earth travels round the sun), and your faith that god exists has next to no credible evidence (to the extent that we can say it is highly probably to be fiction, much like fairies and my magic mass-less elephant).

My MIL is Christian, and in no way a fundamentalist (far from it), but she is a creationist, because that is what she was taught in school and church.

(and I do, btw, since I have some tertiary qualifications in anatomy and zoology.)

Well done you
(reader warning: please note, this last comment is my attempt at a joke, and not intended to offend in a non-secular manner)

1. I'm disturbed that you don't see good manners as part of your creed. NB. I am not Holo, though I like her. This I think is part of the overall abrasiveness which many - not necessarily most - secularists seem to see as so very much a part of debate. It's one reason I find their claims to tolerance hard to credit.

1. See? Are you seriously saying Dawkins isn't bullying? In a very Dawkins way, you then interpret what I say with naive over-literal terms, and then proceed to announce it's ludicrous. Of course it is, and it's not what I meant. But it's been a bigger and bigger part of the arsenal of atheism of late to use ridicule and abuse. Agreed?

Is this actually rational, or is it just a bit of fun, eh? How wrong it must be of me to object if so, eh?

What I think I'm trying to say is that I don't much like the worldview you are creating because it's so abrasive. I like a bit of stoush, but you guys always go straight to abuse, often without intervening argument. I would particularly cite the pastafarian argument as pointlessly pointless, and actually a bit racist :) Nor is it necessary to say that other people are ridiculous -saying they are wrong would do.

Now to the meat of your point. of course there are people who are frightened by hellfire sermons - and btw the one I hear was over 40 years ago, and the man who gave it must be long since dead. But they NOW represent a very small minority of churchgoers or any kind of persons of religion. The fact that your MIL and your friend are among them is unfortunate, but the plural of anecdote is not data. The provable fact is that you and many others write as if everyone with a religion was actuated largely by the ingrained dread of hell. This, I contend, is not true, even if it is true for two people of your acquaintance.

1. Believing in evolution... this was a summary view and perhaps a bit unclear, but I think you may be attaching the wrong kind of weight to the word believe. I would be happy to say more loquaciously that I think the case for the theory of evolution is very strongly evidenced by a variety of reliable and well-attested sources, though I could add that there is much work still to do, and that I am especially interested in the way natural selection works in practice - this in NO WAY implies that Darwin is wrong... said she, the proud mother of children with over a hundred dinosaur models.. children to whom the Natural History Museum is a second home, almost. And I also agree that this is not the same kind of belief as belief in god/s, which IMHO doesn't on the whole rest on an evidential base. But I also think - just to be clear - that acceptance of evolution in no way resolves any issue about the existence or nonexistence of god/s. And I like the idea of a god who is remarkably fond of beetles.

you guys always go straight to abuse

Sieglinde, you've broken a first principle of constructive debate: irrational generalisation ('you all' and 'always'). Plus, you've offended me personally as I am one of "you guys" and am pretty sure I do not always go straight to abuse.

However. Having just revisited the C of E 39 Articles for the first time in decades, I see that any nice thing I may do is still sinful: for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin. (8)

I see the Anglican church itself no longer speaks of Hell but it does, of course, quote Jesus quite a lot and he was definite on its existence; he did say unbelievers and sinners would suffer in the fires of hell. I also note, of the unsaved such as myself, the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation. (17)

So the C of E not only puts down my good works, but cosigns me to bedevilled desperation. I call that threatening.

Reading the Articles has reminded me why churchgoers refuse to believe in secular morality (church says it's no good) or that non-believers can be nice people. I'd forgotten how vicious this creed is!
Catholicism & islam are even more damning.

1. Just because you find me rude, it doesn't mean that every secularist is rude. In the same way that not all women are bad drivers (actually most women drivers I know are good drivers), and in the same way that not all priests rape small boys (most don't I am sure). I know someone who is very Christian and at times can be probably the rudest person I know, but I don't think that all Christians are rude. Why do you bring this into the discussion other than to try to make secularism seem a negative thing by creating an unrepresentative stereotype?

2. With regards to whether Dawkins is bullying, well to be honest, I don't give a monkeys if he is or not (not that I think he is, it is just that he has the guts to stand up to people and have a debate with them, and people seem to think that anyone questioning their faith must be rude). Religious groups have unreasonable privileges in society and can influence society without any ability for the people of the country to vote them in or out. Perhaps in terms of balance, having someone who is willing to speak their mind and make a political point is not a bad thing (and that bit of perceived rudeness doesn't actually come close to redressing the balance). Just because he might say things that religious people might find a bit offensive, it doesn't mean that he isn't correct, or that he shouldn't be allowed freedom of speech. I have to put up with Thought For The Day after all.

Regarding the "meat of my argument", I don't particularly disagree with you. However, this item of discussion was started by you claiming that Dawkins was the same as the church because he makes money and accepts donations for a charity that he runs. The points I have made have been to highlight that they are not similar at all, and that the pressure for people to donate to Dawkins is tiny (almost non-existant) in comparison to that of the church.

4. I agree (except the bit about the beetles).

You don't like beetles? What a pity. That's probably the whole problem between you and the god/s . I love them. They live so greatly. They are exemplary in their individualism and determination.

1. I see your point, but was commenting on the link between you, and Dawkins and the late Hitchens in terms of argumentative style. I agree that some religious and agnostic persons are rude too. I am not by any means a poster girl of la politesse :) as garlic points out.

1. I don't think Dawkins is rude because he questions religion. I adore Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not a Christian, and that is even tougher on religion, but it's tough without insults. I can if you like cite the bits of D I find plain and poitless rudeness, as opposed to useful and rational.

And I always turn off Today when Thought for the Day begins. The only person I've ever found interesting on it - many years ago - was the Sikh guy. The christians are utterly dispiriting, and a much greater challenge to faith than Dawkins can ever be. :( I know they are doling their best etc. Argh.

However, back to the meat.. you are still assuming ridicule has no power to make people act irrationally, no power to pressure people, and I still disagree; it worked for Hugh Latimer. Maybe go visit a school playground today?

1. Good that we agree about the beauty of dinosaurs, and am now belabouring the obvious; not all people of religion fail to see this, or to show it to their children. One of my favourite prayers is the one where all that lives praises god just by living and breathing, including the reptiles. (NB: this does not mean that a visit ot the NH Museum has to be imbued with psalms, only that it could be.)

Garlic, sorry you feel insulted. I intended no insult, and I agree in every way about the 39 Articles, an intrinsically bigoted text designed to keep my sort out of every institution in this country - parliament, the universities, the civil service, the legal profession. It's meant to be threatening because it was written at a time of fanatical conflict between religions. Yuck. However, you probably know that not too many C of e people use it today.

Sieglinde

If you have time to post what quotes from RD you find needlessly rude, I would be interested to add them to my list of insults read them to try to understand things from your perspective.

Garlic, wrt to the 39 Articles...they're marvellous, a real testimony to Reformation thought and a foundational document of the classic Anglican 'via media' between the Anabaptists on the one hand and the Roman Catholics on the other. They act, at best, as a filter through which to see the Christian life - but they are not the only filter.

Other obvious ones include the Bible itself, the early church councils and the Nicene creed, the Oxford movement, and the Parish Communion movement, and for some Anglicans more recently, the charismatic movement. All of these interact with each other in ways that are endlessly fascinating (if you like Anglicanism) or endlessly infuriating (if you don't). Different Anglicans will lay emphasis on different aspects of these filters, and others still that I haven't mentioned. It is almost impossible to take one in isolation from the others - no-one lives by the Bible alone, however much they think they might. It's simply impossible (and illegal - cf. e.g. Exodus 21:22).

So one of the problems about this type of internet discussoin is that a document like the 39 Articles can't be wheeled out as evidence that Anglicans hate everyone and think everyone's going to hell - a quick survey of clergy opinions will pretty soon put paid to that idea. So really, to be meaningful and true to the Anglican traditions (plural deliberate), we need to be a bit more aware of the sheer complexity and diversity within Anglicanism, of the various degrees of status of these various filters through which the Christian life is lived, and probably admit that at no time has there been one monolith - as 'the church of the people of England', the C of E is as diverse as the country it serves. (Says she, committed Anglican who loves nothing more than a good theological argument over a few pints in the pub!)

Sieglinde

(I have had time to read your last post in more detail and am back at a PC rather than using my phone, so have a more detailed response).

1. I think discussion 1 is complete, if you agree? Some people are rude, others are not.

2. As per my previous post, I would be interested in some quotes (out of interest more than anything).

Regarding the meat of the discussion... I do agree that ridicule can make people do things they wouldn't normally do, and your school playground example is a good one. However, coming back to the main point that you made (that RD has a charity and so it like the church), I still fail to see how him (or other atheists) ridiculing people would make them donate. Any donation would be anonymous (via the internet), so it is impossible to see how this form of perceived pressure could ever lead to a donation to his charity.

4. Glad to hear it, but reptiles are still alive now, so maybe you should change the words to say "extinct reptiles" .

I've just read the best review of The God Delusion. It's a bit long, but so worth reading (and quotes one of my favourite Christians):

Terry Eagleton

Holo, are you sure you are not Terry Eagleton in disguise? He tends to blah on just like you

Quote from his review: "Dawkins, who is as obsessed with the mechanics of Creation as his Creationist opponents, understands nothing of these traditional doctrines. Nor does he understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us.

What a load of utter nonsense. These are just nonsense words which in no way justify anything.

I know that theists get annoyed with atheists for creating robust debate, but I never understand how throwing the word "transcendent" into a sentence is evidence for anything. Dawkins is obsessed by creation, because there is evidence that supports it and because it is one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world - I think he has the right to be obsessed by it!