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?

I like this quote from the Robin Ince blog linked above:-

Before going on a rampage of violence and carnage because some dicks made a film, stop for a moment and think, ?hang on, it?s just a film. I don?t like what it says, but it is just a film. I think I might take the handkerchief out of the bottle and put the petrol down?

That describes secularism wonderfully.

seeker, yes, yes yes. I have a similar problem with any certainty, yes. Most of the people of faith I know are much less volubly certain than Dawkins, but I do know OF preachers elsewhere who are apt to claim knowledge. I don't like that either.

Techno, thought you'd say that. However, perhaps we can agree on how aggressive Dawkins is? Does he have to be so one-note? yelling constantly is just as ineffectual as never yelling.

I know I will be in trouble for this, but it does remind me of Lawrence Rees's recent BBC documentary on the way people liked Hitler not because of his ideas, but because he sounded so certain. I'm just the opposite, and I plan to stay that way. Just to be clear, I don't mean that Dawk is like Hitler in any other way, except of course the dislike of religion, but the incessant rage is very offputting to me.

And I LOATHE AND DESPISE the teaching of 'creationism' - look at that stupid suffix, pretending to science! Ick. Techno, you know my dinomania.

seeker, maybe your dd did a different board GCSE RE to my ds? i could have taught my cats to sit the paper he did...

Nicholas, love that quotation, and agree too about the implication.

Interesting. I see a completely different Dawkins.

I've gone off him recently because of some extraordinarily misogynist behaviour- but he always strikes me as entirely reasonable. Outspoken, opinionated and emphatic- but entirely reasonable.

I think that sometimes the strident qgressive accusations are brought out to deflect fromnhis arguments. Attack the man if you can't attack the message.

Happy to attack his message if you like...

But the medium is (also) the message, and since I'm not afraid of his arguments but only of his certitude, the latter seems more relevant to this thread.

Moreover, the aggressive remarks he made that I cited above were ad hominem arguments too - you can't have it both ways.

The misogyny is a big part of him, I fear.

Ah, you see his message is unassailable.

Huh? I don't think it is.

Well, it's only assailable if you're starting from a position where you believe in God. If you're not sure, or don't they nit's unassailable. It's impervious to anything except blind belief.

Not at all. See discussion earlier in the thread re the Terry Eagleton review. Eagleton finds plenty of ways to assail The God Delusion. As noted in that discussion, Eagleton does not classify himself as a believer. If only Richard Dawkins (and Daniel Dennett and the others of their clatch) were a little less ignorant about religion, and a little less inclined to mistake their own rhetoric for philosophical argument, their works would be much more convincing.

I am increasingly persuaded that people think Dawkins is right because he repeats the common prejudices of our time.

Your assumption that belief is blind is wrong. On the one hand, people who believe in God have reasons for doing so; on the other hand, it is a rare believer who has not faced his or her own doubts. On the contrary, it is atheists of Dawkins's ilk who are not willing to admit any scintilla of doubt about their view; if any can be called blind believers it is they.

At a risk of creating a monster eating it's own tail, here is AC Grayling's critique of Eagleton's critique of Dawkins....

"Terry Eagleton charges Richard Dawkins with failing to read theology in formulating his objection to religious belief, and thereby misses the point that when one rejects the premises of a set of views, it is a waste of one?s time to address what is built on those premises (LRB, 19 October). For example, if one concludes on the basis of rational investigation that one?s character and fate are not determined by the arrangement of the planets, stars and galaxies that can be seen from Earth, then one does not waste time comparing classic tropical astrology with sidereal astrology, or either with the Sarjatak system, or any of the three with any other construction placed on the ancient ignorances of our forefathers about the real nature of the heavenly bodies. Religion is exactly the same thing: it is the pre-scientific, rudimentary metaphysics of our forefathers, which (mainly through the natural gullibility of proselytised children, and tragically for the world) survives into the age in which I can send this letter by electronic means.

Eagleton?s touching foray into theology shows, if proof were needed, that he is no philosopher: God does not have to exist, he informs us, to be the ?condition of possibility? for anything else to exist. There follow several paragraphs in the same fanciful and increasingly emetic vein, which indirectly explain why he once thought Derrida should have been awarded an honorary degree at Cambridge."

I'm not eager to join the worm Ouruboros/Midgard Serpent here.

What I wanted to say is that irrespective of Eagleton or Grayling, it does seem to me that Dawkins' views are entirely assailable, and they have been assailed. Often. Have you read the longer refutations, seeker? Not meaning to be rude, but I've never met a Dawkins fan who has.

seeker, just to help with the catchup, all I've been saying all along is that atheism and religion are equally a degree away from perfect rationality. Agnosticism is perfect rationality. Atheism is an act of faith. I note for example the word 'reject' in Grayling's rant. (Don't get me started on him... I have been unlucky enough to meet him many times. His ego is itself metaphysical; it's impossibly large and rampant. I'm not sure if I can believe in it.)

What he doesn't say is what the rational grounds for rejection are. Usually there's a fairly quick resort to Occam's Razor, which is of course a creation of scholasticism.

However, I'm concerned that we have now hijacked the thread...

But Dawkins does say that technically he is an agnostic- based on the fact that you can't prove a negative.

Anyway, I'm not a "Dawkins fan" as you put it. I agree with much of what he says, but his misogynism means that I am not a fan.

But the fact remains that faith can only be proved by faith. You can show a person of faith all the evidence that there is no God and they can go along with you up to the point where they say "Nevertheless, I believe". Which ends the discussion.

Anyway, secularism. I see no reason why anyone can possibly oppose the concept of a secular state. Unless you believe that it's OK to impose your beliefs on other people whether they want them or not. Which of course, Christians don't.......

seeker, yes. I see this about Dawkins. But I've also heard him call himself an atheist, and his notion of probability seems flawed.

Upthread, I've said I'm for the disestablishment of the C of E, and secular schools only in the state sector. I am absolutely not for any imposition of any kind, though I also think parents have every right to bring up children in their own faith unless real physical harm is involved.

However, I think it worth noting AGAIN how many people died in the bloodlands of Eastern Europe under communism last century (estimates vary, but around 10-20 million) to enforce secularisation. It's no more guiltless than organised religion; given enough yelling certainty, it too can enforce itself by violence, showing itself to be no more inevitably rational than any other faith.

All I am saying is that I'm against anyone of any belief who is certain they are right - even people who make 99.9% certain do for 100% certain in their words and actions. They are the pathogens. All of them are capable of doing wrong.

Communism wasn't trying impose secularism- it was trying to impose communism!

Communism doesn't necessarily involve secularism, but it mostly did in the places I just mentioned. Secularism was sen as essential to the larger goal of communism.

Sorry- don't you mean atheism?

Yes and no. We were talking about a secular society, and this was for Russian communism a sine qua non of their creed. They may also personally have been atheists. Like Dawkins, they dressed up their actions as liberation. Like Dawkins, they were too sure.

My point all along has been that though I too support a secular society, this can in some - usually atheist - hands become a method of oppression; this is my response to the OP (technodad) about why people of religion might fear secularism. The short answer is the lessons of history.

They - Soviets - certainly did not allow for any religion, in part because they saw it as deceptive, and in part because they saw it as a rival and therefore as rebellion (as did Hitler). Like Dawkins, many eagerly baited believers. Others just shot them. Between them, the Nazis and the Communists killed a third of all the Catholic priests in Poland in 1939, possibly as many as a million men. Not to speak of the rabbis....

Well done Sieglinde for perpetuating the myth of Hitler and secularism. Hitler was a Catholic. The Wehrmacht even wore belts inscribed with "Gott Mitt Uns".

I can't believe this thread got 218 posts in before Godwin's Law was invoked! :o

Sieglinde

I am not sure what the point of saying religious people are scared of secularism because of Russia is, when the same argument can be said for Muslims being scared of Jews (and visa versa) - repeat that last sentence and insert any combination of religions (or just groups of different people) which have killed each other in the past at one time on another.

Surely, if all religious groups are part of the modern secular movement, then they can help form the end resutl and it will be inclusive for all

(As long as it means that twats like Pickles are forced to sort their life out).

It seems to me that the definition of 'secularism' we are using is very fuzzy, and this is not helping the debate. So here are some things that seem to be under discussion:

The separation of church and state
The ending of involvement by religious organisations in state education.
The ideal of a religion-less society.
The ideal of society where religious belief is held to be a purely private matter, with no purchase on public life - whether this be civic, or moral, or constitutional.

Of these, I think I would say that the separation of church and state (in England, and in a modified sense in the UK more generally), may well have something going for it. The Church in Wales in already disestablished. But given the fact that House of Lords reform has just been effectively kicked into the long grass, it seems that it's unlikely to be at the top of the list of legislative priorities for any government any time soon.

The involvement of the church in state education is a historical legacy of the fact that the earliest schools for the poor were set up by churches - most notably the Church of England, but including other denominations and faiths. In none of the many reforms of the school system since the mid-nineteenth century has any government seen fit to unpick that historical legacy. And in the current climate, the idea that we will move to a single system entirely secular state education seems unlikely. And if I consider which likely outcome I would like least, having schools with church involvement in their running, or schools run for profit by private companies, I know which I would choose.

Another shibboleth of secularists is the requirement to have acts of worship in schools. It seems to me that opposition to this bespeaks a certain lack of confidence in their own values on the part of secularists and atheists. If these groups are so worried by the infection of religion by the occasional exposure to Christian or other worship, then they must be worries indeed about their ability to transmit their moral values to their children.

Finally, on this topic, is the teaching of creationism in state schools. In schools that are bound by the national curriculum, this cannot happen. And that presently includes all church schools.

(have to go - but there is much to say on the other definition of secularism)

Niminy

You say that an atheist should be able to put up with communal worship. But the argument can be switched round (as always). Surely religious people are confident enough in their faith that they don't think it will wear off just because god isn't mentioned in school assembly.

The critical difference is, that not mentioning god in assembly is not telling kids that god doesn't exist (so doesn't undermine the parents' upbringing choice). However, the current situation where there is group worship DOES undermine the upbringing wishes of many parents!

That is why removal of religion from schools is a key part of secularism. It make it fair for everyone. Modern Secularism is basically about fairness for all!