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?

Haha Techno! I take that as a compliment of the highest order. I'd love to be a proper thinker like Terry Eagleton when I grow up

But Dawkins isn't one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world. He hasn't done serious research in the field for many years, and his major publications have been aimed at popularising his hypotheses, which have simply been superseded by more recent research.

The word 'transcendent' describes an aspect of God. It's an adjective, not a claim of empirical evidence. Just calling it a nonsense word makes you look both ignorant and closed-minded.

Whatever

It's good to see that Voltairean wit has not left the world.

I'd like to thank sciencelover for reminding me there is already a word for disestablishmentarianism :) Call it secularism if you will, it looks good to me.

Having only skimmed the Eagleton review you linked, Holo, I'm struck by the circular fact that he makes the very same assumptions about atheists that he accuses us of making about christians. He says we can't be bothered to find out what religion means to the religious and/or understand its transcendent values. Most of God's advocates on this thread have said the same. Yet every atheist and agnostic in this discussion has argued in favour of social responsibility, core moral values and personal 'spirituality'.

I don't much like Dawkins but I know he's repeatedly made the same points. If either side of this debate has closed its mind to the other, I fear it's the side wearing the God sweatshirts.

Every atheist and agnostic has grown up in a religious culture. We all know the beliefs and principles of at least one major religion; generally two or three. It'd be ridiculous to claim we don't know what it's all about! God's defenders, on the other hand, seem to have spent no effort precious little time on learning what unbelievers believe, being happier to dismiss us all as sinful /stupid /uncaring /choose a negative epithet. That's ... well, it's bigoted.

For the record, transcendence isn't exclusively divine. Ordinary people transcend stuff all the time, acting out our evolved desire for a better, fairer world. Using it as a mystical get-out clause is a tiny bit lazy, imo.

Garlic, no, Terry Eagleton was writing a book review of The God Delusion (which, I agree, is car-crash terrible). He wasn't making any statements about atheists as a generalised group, he was critiquing Dawkins, as he expresses himself in The God Delusion. In fact he says at one point something like 'these are not just the views of any atheist...' and then goes on to talk about the philosophical and political currents guiding The God Delusion. I thought it was a very well written critique.

So, meant to add, don't take that book review personally! :)

Holo I just waded through that review and agree with you, I think it's one of the better written critiques of Dawkins I've read. I agree with him that Dawkins seems to lump thinking believers in with fundamentalist bigots, giving no room for any difference between such.

Garlic, it's a shame you've come across people who behave as you say, in thinking those who do not believe are stupid/uncaring etc etc. Most 'God defenders' on this thread have not said or even implied anything that would remotely look like this.

It's significant, I think, that Terry Eagleton is not himself a believer, not a practising Christian. He is interested in, and sympathetic to Christianity, but he does not himself have faith. So what we are dealing with in that review is emphatically not 'God's defender'. Mind you, I wouldn't have the presumption to be God's defender myself - and he certainly doesn't need me to do that job.

I live with and love an atheist. We have talked about faith and lack of faith many times, and I think I have a good understanding of why he doesn't believe. And he has a good understanding of why I believe.

But his reasons for not believing have nothing to do with the kind of prejudice masquerading as argument that Dawkins flourishes so energetically. He's more likely to read Nietszche - an atheist who at least knew a great deal about the Christianity he despised.

Yes, I like the Eagleton review too. He has many good friends among Oxford's Dominicans. They are pretty clever, so I doubt Eagleton despises all people of religion as thick fundamentalists.

Garlic, I too am very sorry you've met such judgemental people. It's actually explicit in Christianity that you should not judge others. I have absolutely NO sense that I am better than you, or more likely to please god, because I know nothing about you or your life - and it's none of my business anyway. I think thougt that regarding Dawkins, what people mean is that he has no qualifications in theology, Bible studies or Quran studies, or ancient archaeology.

I've said before that I've read a lot of writings by atheists and I also know many. I used to be an utterly rational agnostic. Most of my colleagues are atheists and some are militantly so. I don't think I see them in stereotyped terms. However, it does bother me that the current frontline of atheism is taken by people who are neither especially rational or especially learned; it was better fifty years ago. it bothers me BECAUSE I want to see a more secular society.... with a disestablished church, please.

Technodad, yes on 1. Interesting point on extinct reptiles. I'd love to include thanks for them, but perhaps it's difficult to imagine them praying now, except through their avian descendants? Am in a rush with Real life now but will post some Dawkins quotes that rile me later, though this might reopen 1.

Thank you for your nice replies, Sieglinde, Holo and Madhair :)

Dawkins annoys me mainly because he is a zealot. They all annoy me! He makes errors of zealotry (undue antipathy towards the 'opponent'; basing arguments on unproven assumptions, etc), which Eagleton picked up. I'm glad of his book, though, as it opened up discussions - like these - which had been, it seems to me, suppressed.

Like you, Sieglinde, it bothers me if the current frontline of atheism is taken by people who are neither especially rational or especially learned: I don't actually know who's at the frontline of atheism! Did it seem better fifty years ago because only those with detailed theological knowledge had the confidence to argue? I'd rather see swathes of people prepared to stand up as atheists than have us scared to speak out.

I've got to say my "argument" is just hugely simple. I don't believe in the intelligence of unseen forces. That's it. It only becomes complex because theology is complex. I shouldn't have to argue on the 'opposition's terms, as that skews the debate from the outset. I can only argue theologically within the limits of my theological knowledge, which is derived from an ordinary atheist upbringing. The fact that an atheist child gets a pretty solid grounding in christianity highlights what I dislike about established religion. It's too powerful.

Garlicnutty, there is a lot of common ground here because I think for most Christians (can't speak for any other people of faith) the argument is also very simple: we have experienced what we can only explain as God.

However, to have any kind of debate we have to speak on other people's terms, otherwise we simply end up repeating our simple starting points and there's no debate at all. I think a lot of Christians resent that we have to debate on the terms atheists set, too. But unless both sides do this, how can we have a conversation?

What I would say is that I do not think that an ordinary atheist upbringing gives you a good grounding in Christianity. I was brought up in an atheist family, and although I had heard of Jesus, and the cruxifiction and the resurrection, my understanding of these things was minimal; I really had very little knowledge at all. And I see that lack of knowledge all the time in my work teaching literature at university level. Most of the people I teach have very little idea about any aspect of Christianity (in a recent class, only 2 out of 20 had heard of the trinity), and many believe without question such myths as 'Darwin disproved the Bible'.

crucifixion -- that was a wonderful Freudian typo if I say it myself!

Lol @ your typo

in a recent class, only 2 out of 20 had heard of the trinity - you're kidding?! Goodness, education has changed since my day Mind you, if that means the church has less influence on teaching these days: good!

I understand what you mean about having to debate with knowledge of the other side's terms. Religion seems a special case, however, since it has this whole 'science' of theology behind it. There's no science of atheology as far as I'm aware!

It keeps coming back to Technodad's invisible menagerie: I could tell you masses of detail about my gold-shitting elephant but your responses would be limited to "There's no evidence of said elephant" and "I understand that you believe the elephant is here." In this manner, theology seems to me almost entirely (not altogether) illusory.

Education certainly has changed -- it's a bit of a problem if you're teaching them, say, Milton. Or even Shakespeare.

I think this is a good analogy for how some atheists see theology, because they view theology as something that is all about the existence of a gold-shitting elephant.

But the first point is that God is not like that elephant because his existence isn't knowable. He's not an entity within the universe but the condition of the universe's existence. In that sense it's a category error. I don't know (in the sense of I cannot prove) whether God exists, and that doesn't really worry me. I can't explain my experience in any other way that makes sense of that experience. Yes, I know it's all neurological stuff happening in my brain and body -- but how else would God be apparent to me than through my brain and body?

Secondly, theology isn't all about whether God exists -- it's very minimally about that. Its about all the other questions that arise once you have accepted the existence of God.

Of course, you can say 'you have no evidence of God, so why are you wittering on about (say) the problem of pain, or the nature of the atonement?', and you have a perfect right to do so. But that doesn't mean to say that theology has no intellectual or rational basis -- merely that you can't understand why I'm doing it.

YY, niminy we need to have enough knowledge of religion to understand our own culture - mainly christianity here, but we need a smattering of the Norse and greco-roman ones, too.

I've hit the dissonance wall again with "god is the condition of the universe's existence". You state that as fact. I say it's not; it's an article of faith. It's the elephant. You say theology is about "questions that arise once you have accepted the existence of God". Therefore, it is totally about the existence of god!

I could make a science of my elephant: there are conferences to be held on whether there's only one such elephant or many; how much exercise does an invisible elephant need and what are our responsibilities towards it; why has it chosen my living room as residence; what to do with the invisible gold shit and why ... etc Still, anybody coming into my conference would say "This is all about a non-existent elephant!" A science built upon an illusion is illusory.

You're wrong to suppose I don't understand why you do it, by the way. I don't live in an atheist vacuum.

... Unless you meant "My name for the condition of the universe's existence is God". Which is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't stop there does it? There's theology, structure, rules & rituals built around it. It is not just a word or a concept; it's a control mechanism with perceived personality, motive and intention.

I wonder if your cognitive dissonance is caused by you conflating two different things that I was saying? The first is that it's a category error to liken God to the elephant because he's not an entity within the universe. I accept that his existence isn't provable.

The second is that you seem to think one can only study entities the existence of which is empirically provable. But that is not the case. Justice and beauty are two examples of things which have no empirically verifiable existence as entities. But the disciplines of jurisprudence and aesthetics nevertheless exist to study them.

But don't hurt your head by banging it!

The idea of God as a control mechanism isn't recognisable to me - free will is central the the Christian account of God. Churches can, and have done, tried to control people. But they are human institutions.

But we call all see an item an judge if it is beautiful or not (based upon an opinion brought to us through nature and nurture). Also, we measure "justice" against our own personal values (which are attained, again via nature and nurture). Justice and beauty are not a good analogy to god, since only some insane people claim to see/feel him.

I am just glad that my elephant idea is gaining traction, since I plan to sell the poo in exchange for huge amounts of money. When you mix the poo with water it gives the water memory and can heal any illness!

niminypiminy said: free will is central the the Christian account of God

As Isaac Bashevis Singer once said: "We must believe in free will ? we have no choice."

Technodad, whether you can see a beautiful thing is beside the point. We can all agree that beauty and justice exist, and we can have different ideas about them, but they cannot be empirically proved to exist. In that sense jurisprudence, aesthetics and theology are analogous.

Enough people have had encounters with God over the millennia to make your point that only the insane few ever do especially fatuous.

Beauty doesn't exist, it is perceived by the observer.

If no human had ever seen the Arctic landscape, then it would look exactly the same as it currently does, even though there would be no one to judge its beauty (or ugliness).

However, if no humans existed, there would be no human intelligence to invent god.

How can something that doesn't exist be perceived by the observer?

(by the way, the inverse of that question - how can I know that something that I perceive exists? - is the founding question of epistemology, that branch of philosophy which deals with knowledge)

The fact that my wife thinks I am beautiful, but every other women in the world thinks I am ugly is enough to prove that beauty is not a physical property, but something that only exists within the electrical activity of the observers brain.

When my wife dies, I shall cease to be beautiful to anyone and only be ugly.