Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Hakluyt's Voyages.......

570 replies

Hakluyt · 23/10/2014 18:10

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

OP posts:
ErrolTheDragon · 24/10/2014 22:35

'Secular' has a few definitions:

  1. of or relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things
  2. not concerned with or related to religion 3)not within the control of the Church

In the first two senses, I'd agree that these things are less dominant in many people's lives in our culture than they used to be. Either because (like you) they are still Christians but more 'worldly' or because they are apatheists or atheists. TBH your background sounds rather more extremely 'non worldly' than the norm for the previous generation I'm 53 - from a very Christian family (GF a minister, dad and mum church elders, uncles comprised one Rev Dr missionary, a Methodist lay preacher, another URC elder and a Cof E church warden, my brothers became Baptists... shame we didn't have a Catholic in the mix for a proper ecumenical spread Grin) - church twice on sundays, lots of church socials and youth club stuff but those were mostly fun and games and even our own discos and cinema trips ... doing 'normal' things wasn't seen as incompatible with a Christian life. Rock'n'roll but no (pre/extra-marital) sex and drugs

In the context of many of these threads, it's the third meaning that people are often thinking of - a secular society with separation of church and state. In that sense, while in some areas the Church has less effective control, there are still areas it retains - especially the issues around schools which obviously are endlessly discussed on MN.

headinhands · 25/10/2014 08:31

I expect the reason that I notice the use of 'secular' is partly because of my Christian background and having heard the word used with a negative slant. Basket weaving and listening to music are equally secular activities. As is The Daily Fail and your washing machine manual.

Hakluyt · 25/10/2014 08:48

And many people of faith are in favour of society being secular.

OP posts:
headinhands · 25/10/2014 08:50

Absolutely Hak, because they recognise the unfairness of the current situation, such as compulsory worship etc.

Hakluyt · 25/10/2014 08:52

They also recognise, unlike many other people of faith, that morality is not the sole preserve of religion. Which goes back to the old "atheists have no moral compass" canard I mentioned in the previous thread.

OP posts:
vdbfamily · 25/10/2014 10:01

I don't think basket weaving would be seen as secular.Secular activities in the sense I use the word,are ones that bring 'worldly values' into the home. So television and internet are probably most obvious because of the amount of rubbish that they contain.But in my mind it is better to have them and benefit from the good stuff and teach your kids to be sensible about what they watch.The easy route is to ban it totally. Music obviously can be 'worldly' but again,rather than ban it,we enjoy music,but I encourage my kids to look up the lyrics of songs they really like and sometimes they are a bit shocked by that. With cinema/theatre/video games etc we just ensure it is age appropriate.
My observation would be,and it may be absolutely nothing to do with people in our country moving away from church attendance/belief but may have just co-incided, but I would say that generally people are much more self absorbed.We are losing the sense of caring about each other. Our relationships with others have to be mutually beneficial.The poor in society are the governments problem,not ours. You only have to look around a few MN forums to see the advice people give. If your partner has not washed the dishes for a few days then leave the bastard, if your mother-in-law offered her opinion on how to raise your kids then stop all contact,how dare she. Don't share finances with your partner as he will leave you with nothing when he dumps you eventually.
I find it so depressing. Whilst I fully accept that some things in society may have changed for the better,I think generally,there is less will to do stuff that does not have any benefit for the individual involved. There is less willingness to 'work things out' when difficult. The fridge breaks,get a new one. The partner is annoying,get a new one. The friend wound me up,dump her.
If our community is to function we need to care more.We need to understand it is not all about just us. We need to accept that in relationships there are bad times and if you work it through them they can get better. We need to love some of the less lovely people for whom you might receive nothing positive in return. We need to use our free time to do something useful for society. We need to move away from the constant desire to get more money,buy bigger things.
RANT OVER !!

Hakluyt · 25/10/2014 10:05

I understand what you mean, vdb- but that's not what "secular" means. It's not a synonym for "worldly", which is, I think, what you are talking about. You seem to be suggesting that it's only religious people who care about the moral development of children, and that's simply not the case.

OP posts:
headinhands · 25/10/2014 11:01

i don't think basket weaving would be seen as secular.

It wouldn't not be seen as secular. And ultimately it is secular because it's not part of religion. This is why I am pressing home the meaning of secular because some Christians hear it and think it means having less value and goodness than they have, which is both erroneous and insulting. I don't follow religion but enjoy a satisfying connection to my community and have a healthy sense of empathy. Everything I do, by definition, is secular, but that doesn't mean I have, in any way, less goodness in my values.

VelvetGreen · 25/10/2014 11:08

I agree with a lot of what you say there vdb. Where we probably disagree though is that religion is the answer to the ills of society. Like Hak says, morality is not the preserve of the faithful. I find much about the way the world is utterly soul destroying, but the reasons for the way it is are largely socio-political (and the political often claim to be religious - the Blairs and Bushes of the world), and in some cases directly down to religion (or at least the abuse of it).

There was an interesting thread a few weeks ago about why there hasn't been a revolution - apathy has a lot to do with it. Lack of community cohesion on one hand, and a tendency to think 'us and them' on the other - something many religions or at least various sects encourage. I think it is one reason why i am more drawn to traditions like Buddhism and Taoism that emphasise our sameness, rather than our differences.

Remember the John Lennon song - they keep you doped with religion, sex and tv. The way to escape this conditioning is to think critically about what you are hearing and seeing, to ask why you are being told something, to ask why the media reports some demonstrations but not others, to ask why ukip is given more air time than other minority parties, to ask why Cheryl Cole is in the front page when hundreds have died that night in Gaza, to ask why creationists keep talking about C14 in relation to dinosaurs when it is actually like trying to measure the speed of traffic with a thermometer.

This is why science works. You are allowed to ask questions, to challenge findings - it is actively encouraged. I used to have faith - asking questions was also encouraged, but the difference was that i was expected to accept the answers, or think about it but come to the 'right' answer - i came to different conclusions. In this respect things like social media can be amazing tools to free yourself from the crap we are fed - you can find out what is happening in the world and what you are not being told, and then ask yourself why.

Something like tv or the internet are just tools - you can use them for good or ill, but when humans fashioned the first tool from flint the choice was there whether to use it to cut food or attack your neighbour with it. Should we not have developed the tools? Would it not be better to teach children to learn to use tools carefully and with thought, than to pretend the tools don't exist - what happens when they accidentally stumble across a blade and don't know how to use it safely? Much in society is of itself not good or bad - it is the purposes to which they are put, and the reasons behind it. If you can understand these reasons then you go a long way to freeing yourself from the fog of all that weed they are forcing on us!

Now i've had a rant Smile

headinhands · 25/10/2014 11:14

there is less willingness to work things out

I don't know it this is the case, as I mentioned previously christian divorce stats aren't wildly different to 'nons' but even so the values you are espousing are in no way the preserve of Christianity.

Hakluyt · 25/10/2014 11:18

You could also interpret "less willingness to work things out" as "(usually) women not being prepared to put up with crap any more because the constraints put on them by the Church have been removed"

OP posts:
headinhands · 25/10/2014 11:21

think about it but come to the right answer

Yes! I was told numerous times to have peace about it which I now see means don't dwell on it. For example when discussing some barbaric slaughter in the OT. In hindsight it's a bit like finding out your husband has multiple convictions for murder and being encouraged by his family to not dwell on it. You just knew that if you had pressed the issue after the spiel about peace you would have been labelled as being awkward or argumentative which is so sad and wrong!

BackOnlyBriefly · 25/10/2014 11:26

Lots to catch up on again.
PickledInAJar "I said your argument is with" and when you thought I meant you were fighting I explained that 'argument' doesn't mean you are having a row with someone. Now you're complaining that I said you were having a row.

You really need to read the whole of each post and think about what the person is saying instead of leaping on the most familiar/easy words.

BackOnlyBriefly · 25/10/2014 11:46

The meaning of secular has already been explained, but I'm now wondering how many religious people do assume it means 'worldly' etc. Especially the ones not directly involved in debate, but just hearing it on the tv.

If would change the meaning of perfectly ordinary speeches wouldn't it and they would be hearing phrases like this:

"We need looser morals in schools"

"people with morals shouldn't have a greater voice in society"

No wonder they are pissed!

vdbfamily · 25/10/2014 12:43

Definition of the word 'secular'
Wikipedia
Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saecularis meaning "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.
Dictionary.com
of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
The free dictionary
1.Worldly rather than spiritual

Basically the first 3 tthat come up on a Google search and the first defination given.
So rather than assume Christians use it in the wrong context,let us try and be clear on the context in which we individually are using it!

Hakluyt · 25/10/2014 13:01

I wasn't assuming anything about Christians. I was saying how the word is used in the context of threads like this. As I have said, many Christians are also secularists.

Can you see how your assumption that moral behaviour somehow only happens in a religious context is...... difficult for many non believers?

OP posts:
Hakluyt · 25/10/2014 13:03

What is secularism?

OP posts:
BackOnlyBriefly · 25/10/2014 13:23

vdbfamily this isn't about us saying you got the word wrong. It's about understanding each other.

When you said this:
Secular activities in the sense I use the word,are ones that bring 'worldly values' into the home. So television and internet are probably most obvious because of the amount of rubbish that they contain.

That's quite different to the way the rest of us are using it. It's not even the way bishops and priests are using it.

"not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion" is not a bad definition.

It's often talked about in relation to government. Secularists oppose a government taking the side of one religion because that's not just bad for atheists. It's bad for the other religions too. That's why many religious people are secularists.

Governments should be neutral on religion in the same way courts should be neutral on skin color.

vdbfamily · 25/10/2014 13:31

Velvetgreen I know you think I am completely mad on this but in science people are not encouraged to ask questions if it involves questioning 'evolution'. There are respected scientists who have their papers removed from public view because they are about dinosaurs and C14
creation.com/c14-dinos
and before anyone jumps on me and says yes but the rocks are older so there must be another explanation for the carbon,you may not be totally surprised to hear that there are scientists who think that the rock dating process is not reliable.
www.icr.org/article/soft-sediment-deformation-recent-flood/
I have wondered about how thick layers of rock representing millions of years of sediment,can twist so much without cracking and breaking.There is an amazing bay near Lulworth cove with the most amazing twists in it .This suggests that they have to be soft when it happened.How can millions of years worth of sediment still be soft? Genuine question.

Jerry Fodor(Atheist)said
I think there’s the sense that if you think that there’s something wrong with the theory you’re giving aid and comfort to intelligent design people. And people do feel very strongly about whether you want to do that.[4]

The discussion has been 'shut down' and if you look at this list you will find respected scientists being refused work because of their beliefs.

www.conservapedia.com/Suppression_of_alternatives_to_evolution

In what way do you see that as the scientific community encouraging debate?

Hakluyt · 25/10/2014 13:37

Vdb- have you considered that the websites you link to might suggest a less than impartial viewpoint?

OP posts:
vdbfamily · 25/10/2014 13:41

I have no assumption that moral behaviour only happens in a religious context.But I think some Christian morals are different to secular morals because some of our morals are Bible based and yours would not be. However,I also accept that some morals that I would hold to be Bible based would be held by a non Christian just because it is a good way to live.

BackOnlyBriefly · 25/10/2014 13:46

That's certainly true. As an atheist I've never seriously considered selling my daughter into slavery. Though it was tempting once or twice :)

And I wouldn't be willing to stab my son to death no matter who asked me to.

vdbfamily · 25/10/2014 13:55

I know and understand that Hakluyt and they are not websites I frequent, they appear when I search a question. My whole point is,and I go back to the quote from the atheist, it is considered to be career destroying to EVER suggest something that agrees with Creationists, so scientists are not honest in their discoveries.If they make a finding that questions evilution as we know it,they rework it,hush it up or decide contamination was involved. What I have said all along is there is NO middle ground. However, feel free to pick a genuine point that one of these whacky creatioists make and scientifically dismantle it if you can,because these scientists have as many credentials as the other ones. And to argue that because they believe it warps their judgement can be used both ways because if a scientist is convinced about evolution they also have a warped judgement.
I truly wish there were some middle ground where people could genuinely question.

headinhands · 25/10/2014 14:10

I don't know much about geology but from what I do remember of geography the forces that have twisted the layers of rock at Lulworth into vertical patterns are massive, the same force that causes earthquakes, the tectonic plates moving. Compared to the monumental power of the earths molten core our earth's crust is like the skin on a custard.

Asator · 25/10/2014 14:10

Some choice quotes from Conservapedia:

"The Age of the Earth has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, liberals insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 ± 1%).[2]"

"The Homosexual Agenda is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate approval of homosexuality and homosexual ideology, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes). Such special rights will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of broader society. The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of free speech today."

"Creation science asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day six of creation[5] approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus debunking the Theory of Evolution and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age and creation of the earth."