Nothing is really secular, is it?
I was thinking about secular morality and of course, religious involvement in political matters. Now we can define secularism as
or in some cases
However it can be hard to see where religion or religious influence ends and secularism begins. Wasn't the whole idea of having secularism (and the separation of church and state) directly from religious values and religious persecution?
For instance, would the argument over pro-choice vs pro-life really be seen as a secular matter (I'm in no way arguing it is only a religious thing)? My argument goes like this
1. We expect our government to make decisions based on our moral values
2. Moral values are often shaped both implicitly and explicitly by one's religious values (or lack of)
3. Thus the government's decisions are shaped by religious values
It seems to me that the separation of church and state is a myth. While there is no explicit religious connections, people who vote in a democratic system will use their religious values to select candidates who have policies that agree with their values that were shaped by religious ideas. And of course, if you live in the West, there's virtually no way your ethical framework or values haven't been shaped by Christianity. Of course, I don't mean to argue this is a bad thing at all. And many (maybe even most) religious people in the USA are against the teaching of religious ideas in public schools, etc. What do you think?
denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis
or in some cases
not overtly or specifically religious.
However it can be hard to see where religion or religious influence ends and secularism begins. Wasn't the whole idea of having secularism (and the separation of church and state) directly from religious values and religious persecution?
For instance, would the argument over pro-choice vs pro-life really be seen as a secular matter (I'm in no way arguing it is only a religious thing)? My argument goes like this
1. We expect our government to make decisions based on our moral values
2. Moral values are often shaped both implicitly and explicitly by one's religious values (or lack of)
3. Thus the government's decisions are shaped by religious values
It seems to me that the separation of church and state is a myth. While there is no explicit religious connections, people who vote in a democratic system will use their religious values to select candidates who have policies that agree with their values that were shaped by religious ideas. And of course, if you live in the West, there's virtually no way your ethical framework or values haven't been shaped by Christianity. Of course, I don't mean to argue this is a bad thing at all. And many (maybe even most) religious people in the USA are against the teaching of religious ideas in public schools, etc. What do you think?
Comments (220)
:up:
Separation of church and state doesn't mean we exclude religious values, it means we exclude religious institutions from government.
The first amendment in the U.S. constitution says that people can decide for themselves what to believe. The secular is about having a choice rather than living within a theocracy. In that respect, it is not a declaration of anything other than agreeing to not kill each other on the basis of what we think.
It is an experiment. Some of the results are not encouraging.
And it means we include secular institutions, devoid of religious values. So non-religious values are given the power.
The people who originally set the rules made the government a secular institution because of the problems they saw with religions intimate involvement with government. For better or worse, that's what we have now. I think the separation is important.
Moral values are "often" shaped by religion, But where do religious values come from? That is the unanswered question.
The interesting thing is, the way we currently have it, some religious and non-religious people feel slighted. Some religious people are afraid that religious values are deteriorating, and see arguments like the taking of "God" out of the pledge of allegiance as evidence as such, or feel discriminated against/attacked by their beliefs. While some non-religious people feel like, despite there being separation of church and state there is still prejudice against them
(A 2019 poll asking Americans who they were willing to vote for in a hypothetical presidential election found that 96% would vote for a candidate who is Black, 94% for a woman, 95% for a Hispanic candidate, 93% for a Jew, 76% for a gay or lesbian candidate and 66% for a Muslim – but atheists fall below all of these, down at 60%. That is a sizable chunk who would not vote for a candidate simply on the basis of their nonreligion.)
Quoting Paulm12
The use of 'moral values' is an almost meaningless term. Whose moral values? There are no moral values as such, there are instead a panoply of competing values that people hold as morally justifiable based on personal preference or an interpretation of law or Islam/Christianity, etc. Even within one religion moral values are all over the place.
I read:
"In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional, irrespective of how it may be purveyed in theological or religious instruction."
Why is that?
That's why I said "our," as in each person's interpretation of what is right and wrong.
The interesting thing about that that situation is it could go either way. If people think creationism is religious in nature, then teaching it in public schools would be unconstitutional as it would be advocating for a specific religion and thus violating church and state. However, ruling that you cannot teach creationism in particular could be seen as an unfair attack on creationists, thus also violating the separation of church and state.
Good observation!
Why are state and religion separated in the first place? Shouldn't the state be involved in all kinds of life? I mean, watching they all get their chance? Be it science, religion, astrology, Buddha, Inuit, Hopi, Sioux, etc. So they all can live as they want to?
To prevent theocracy.
So an atheocracy is better? Why?
Because theocracy never works.
That depends on the theocracy. And it seems atheocracy has some problems too...
What theocratic government has been successful?
This is actually why I'm for teaching about religion or using religious texts in public schools. It is important for people to understand what others believe. Furthermore, the Bible in particular has had more influence on Western culture than any other book; immigrants who come to the US and are not told or encouraged to read it will be at a severe cultural disadvantage. I think reading the Quran, Confucius, Buddhist texts etc would have been really useful to me in public school.
:up:
Totally agree! I always felt something missing in learning at school. I loved physics though. Maybe because its somehow related to know about the reason for existence. I was intriguiged by all those strange weird theories and sub-atomic worlds. How nice it would have been if it all was mixed! Gods, music, art, astrology. In free classes, talking all languages... We should be prepaired for our role in society though...
All cultures besides the western one. The whole world is western. I cant really tell the difference between people in Iran or in Europe. Same streets, same schools, same power plants, same houses, same cars, same hospitals, same airports, harbors, trains, TV programs, etc.
Never ever? It works for the theocrat.
Quoting Paulm12
It also violates the modern trend of society becoming all inclusive and catering equally to all possible identities. Eventually all identities will be included in the social program. It will only be possible to eliminate the "undesirables" (like those who identify as creationists) through iconoclastic censorship.
I'm curious what the difference between a Theocracy is and a country that has a "national church" such as Finland or Denmark. Because some of the happiest countries in the world are, interestingly, some of the most secular but also have an official church. To be fair, I think their "happiness" comes from having a good trust in their government and a pretty homogenous population.
I think an important part of a country is having religious freedom (which of course, is often supported by religious and nonreligious people). State atheism doesn't exactly have a great history, and certainly after dudes like Mao and Stalin left a bad taste in peoples' mouths.
1. That secular ethics converges on religious ethics is testamsnt to the power of rationality: if we have the same basic values, apply logic and we'll all come to the same conclusions.
2. Divine revelation is, to me, a case of, get this, divine fallacy. Moses, for example, couldn't believe that he was the author of the decalog; he thought, erroneously, that no human could ever pull something that great off on his/her own. Thus, Moses, concludes, again mistakenly, that there's got to be another source of morals, that source he asserts is God. Rather unfortunate.
Religious morality is faith based. It all has to do with ethical doubt. That even if we do what is considered right, there is no way to determine if that right is morally good. So in a secular society, human laws determine morality, and such morality can be imposed in various ways. Whatever the case, the law of man is exceedingly relativistic, and fleeting as the time passes.
For the religious individual, it is different because morality is derived from a divine principle that is believed to be the law of god. For such an individual, morality is substantially extant and he is held accountable for his conduct whether or not it is seen by others.
The problem arises when a group of individuals who derive their morality through a percieved common faith decide to impose their religious morality on others. It is especially problematic when it is enforced through theocracy as history shows. Theocratic morality is inherently flawed because of its veiled hypocrisy, that it passes its ethics off as religious morality, when it is really a secular morality that lies to itself.
Lastly, religious morality is only for the individual, for no other reason than that it requires faith, and no other than the individual alone can have actual faith.
As far as I know, theocracy is just the present avatar of the critical flaw with ethics viz. that it ultimately ends up being a set of impositions. Doing away with theocracy won't, in my humble opinion, solve that problem.
Our instinct to be free (read as, in extremum, the ability to do what we want with our lives) rebels against restrictions which ethics boils down to.
Nevertheless, my hunch is that at the heart of this conundrum lies a very powerful illusion that leads us astray.
Absolutely. That is the core essence of postmodernism. Of course, as in most everything, a healthy balance of freedom and restriction is probably the optimal route.
Quoting Agent Smith
I can't argue against that. Illusion is what makes the world go round, we can't escape it. At best, we can only make best out of how it all seems to be.
The aim, a noble one, is to keep us on the straight and narrow. The rationale: Maximize freedom & Minimize constraints to the extent possible i.e. not at the cost of our well-being/comfort/peace of mind/whathaveyou.
We, paradoxically, pay considerable sums of money to be fooled (movies, books, magic shows). It perhaps keeps us sane in a world that is dukkha (unsatisfactory). Remember Gautama was looking for an exit (from samsara). He, it seems, wasn't into magic (maya). Too bad.
I would question that. I think the expectation is that government acts within the bounds defined by law and political custom. The problem with moral values is that there is no objective way to define them. I don't mean that there is no real basis for them, but that the basis for them is not within the limits of objective determination. Quite why that is, is a very deep problem, but suffice to say that the grounding of morality in (for example) Judaism, Christianity, and the Indic religions is held to be the subject of revealed religion, where what has been revealed is precisely an order within which moral claims are ultimately meaningful. This is because they all, in some way or another, depict human life within the larger context of a cosmic drama as distinct from the supposedly quotidian story of fortuitous origins and random development that is typical of the secular 'creation myth'.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Quite, although 'substantially extant' is a rather awkward way of describing it. Do you mean for them it is 'real, in spite of what anyone says about it'?
Quoting Paulm12
If you mean, wasn't the idea of the secular state originally intended to provide freedom of religion, then, yes, that is true. However, since the advent of the Enlightenment, there's a strain of ideology which aggressively seeks freedom from religion, depicting all religion as superstitious, backwards, and anti-scientific, personified by the evangalising atheism of for example Richard Dawkins, whose goal is the absolute destruction of religion in all its forms.
Here's a very good (although quite difficult) essay, called Terror in the God-Shaped Hole, by contemporary Buddhist scholar, David Loy. It was published as an analysis of the Islamic terrorism that motivated the 9/11 attacks, and so is rather a heavy-hitting piece of analysis, but he has some very perceptive things to say about the underlying motivation and consequences of 'secularism' as an outlook on life, including secularism as having produced an 'identity crisis'. And it does that, precisely because it has rejected the sense of identity and belonging that animated religious culture in the first place, replacing it with a never-ending procession of artificial goods and products which can never fill the sense of 'lack' that drives it. It's rather too long and complex an argument to try and summarize, but the section in particular under the heading of 'The Spirituality of Secularity' is particularly acute, in my opinion.
that is true, but when it comes to well-funded lobby groups taking legal action to prohibit displays of religious iconography in store windows then it amounts to rather more than that in practice.
If I remember correctly, dukkha is suffering and it is due to our dependence on maya, which ultimately keeps us stuck in samsara. So, following that thread, the great illusions of life are a sort of drug that keeps us sane by by distracting us from the eternal suffering that Guatama sought to escape. You must admit, given the buddhist perspective, what Guatama attempted is an insane task by all worldly standards. Religion is a tricky thing.
Don't forget that religious folk are far from certain what is moral and what is not moral. It is never an easy question unless you belong to the same fundamentalist church. The debate about what god wants and how to interpret religious doctrine often turns into conflict between theists.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Including other religious expression of the same faith or different faiths. Religions do not agree on god/s will. Whether it's Protestants fighting Catholics or a Sunni vs Shia brawl. Some Christians fly a rainbow flag, others hate fags...
Quoting Paulm12
Agree.
Quoting Paulm12
One difference is that an official church doesn't mean fundamentalist or literalist interpretations - e.g., where the legal system must follow the Koran or the Bible. In nominally Christian countries where they have a national church, people generally hold the Bible to be allegorical stories and fables representing symbolically some kind of beneficial force or god. From them you don't get shenanigans about how to stack the supreme court in order to follow particular interpretations of a holy book. In theocracy, culture and behavior is forced to conform to particular and narrow interpretations of holy books.
Quoting Paulm12
Secularism and religious freedom are in the interests of religious diversity but fundamentalists don't like it when they realize the practices of other faiths they dislike have equal protection and status.
Gautama, in my humble opinion, was cursed with hyperalgesia (his pain threshold was low) and hence, I suspect, his description of existence as hellish (1[sup]st[/sup] Noble truth: Life is suffering). It could be the other way round of course: Most folks are, in this case, gifted with hypolalgesia (high pain threshold). According to legend, Gautama descended from...paradise? The penny drops, oui?
Exactly. Excuse my lexicon, I was simply attempting to speak the strange language of philosopher.
Quoting Tom Storm
A truly religious person will likely have a fanatical certainty of the general law that is to be observed. And if you are referring to fundamentalist churches, you are then pointing towards the theoretical morality into which the so called "law of god" is formulated for easy digestion. What I am saying is that all that collectivist religiousizing is edifying for many, but at the core of it all, religion is the domain of the individual and nobody else. I would go so far to say that there are exceedingly few examples of truly religous individuals, which unfortunately makes the church the only sample we can draw from for examples of what religion is. Too bad for us.
What's wrong with hating fags? ... Just kidding, being facetious.
Again, none of that is religion. They, look like religion, because, sadly, that is the example the world presents to us, but these are merely adulterations of religion. The universal goal of each is the salvation of the individual practitioner, nothing else.
:rofl:
That is genius stuff. :clap: :clap: :clap:
You jest! :snicker:
If you insist...
Quoting Agent Smith
His father must have said that. Get it ... *crickets*
Not so. Some would argue that truly religious is the opposite of fanatical. I can think of many very religious people (including preachers, priests and nuns I have known) who do have this trait at all. This is a fundamentalist trait, not a religious trait.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Perhaps you mean 'should be' the domain of... Not sure that this gets to the problem of religions in practice however. We know they help decide elections and change governments and help pass laws and put people in jails and enforce world views and what can be taught at schools so I would not see how your argument works except in theory.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Religions are organized social groups based around rituals, community and transcendent beliefs. Sounds to me like you are changing the definition to suit a viewpoint or is it a no true Scotsman fallacy? You tell me. :wink:
The demands of one's faith are beyond reason... that sounds quite fanatical to me.
Quoting Tom Storm
Sounds like another argument in favor of campaign finance reform. I say, go for it.
Quoting Tom Storm
google definition of "religion":
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
I emphasized personal. So, who did you ask was committing the Scotsman fallacy? You obviously
Fundamentalists are the lamest strawman for dismissing religion. It's like evoking Elmo's pedophilia to demonize all muppets
There's little to no difference between evil (Satan) and justice (Justitia). This, in my humble opinion, is the crux of the issue. A taste of one's own medicine! Reciprocity, re Newton's 3[sup]rd[/sup] law.
To complicate matters further, as if that were not enough, one must be able to distinguish Praxidice (justice) from the Furies/Erinyes (vengeance).
No, it's not being used as a straw-man for dismissing religion. It's being provided as an enduring example of where religion goes wrong and makes the world worse. Many religious writers are in complete agreement and sometimes go further than atheists on this subject. Just read Christian writers David Bentley Hart or Bishop John Shelby Spong, or one of the best more recently by a Christian writer Kristen Du Mez Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. This is important stuff and can't really be minimized with vague 'straw man' claims.
A tax office is a secular building. A church is a religious building.
Morality is not owned by religious institutions anymore than it is by secular institutions.
There are many areas where you can argue for some item of human experience being partly secular or partly religious. In political terms secular - which I believe is where the term is most commonly used today? - means the state keeps figures of religious institutes away from governance of the state. It is not an absolute as most things are not unless they are abstractions.
For instance the UK is a secular nation yet it is ridiculous to state that the religious institutions play no part in the broader political environment. I would say that religious institutions have far less sway in the UK than they do in the US though.
It's actually the 'no true scotsman fallacy' - it means you are redefining what something means (here religion) in order to provide your own exculpatory definition. Like you seemed to do above. If I am wrong about that, apologies.
Obviously all beliefs, from politics to religion begin as personal values, but they are practiced in community as public expressions of personal belief. Or are you going to argue somehow that the umpteen millions of people who belong to churches and synagogues and mosques and ashrams and who follow the teachings of their faith leaders in community groups don't count? If you argue that they are not true religions then I think you may be evoking that contested Scotsman. :wink:
As a Scotsman, I do agree that I don't understand anyone who puts sugar in their porridge.
It's like adding syrup to your chicken curry! :vomit:
They are almost.....contradictory. Opposite sides of a magnet will repel but they can be 'forced together' and held in place.
I suppose I feel the same way about combining the word 'true,' with the word 'religion(s).'
It's more a matter of subjective taste based on a strongly grounded personal interpretation of the evidence involved, rather than individual ability to completely disprove the concept of sugar in your porridge being valid, even if someone says THEY like it or THEIR religion is true.
It's exactly the opposite. It are a north and south pole. Of course, your poles are contrary because you, irrationally, don't believe and are not able to understand it as your inborn religious feeling is beaten into submission be a new theology.
As if science doesn't give a personal interpretation. They even try to define how evidence should be interpreted. The haughtiness...
:lol:
Well, I'm not a true Scotsman I can't eat it without honey. :razz: And I have it for dinner.
Sorry - I should point out that my personal experience of democracy is external to the US system. I wasn’t referring to the ‘separation of church and state’ as such, but to its common (mis)interpretation as the ideal of secularism: as Wayfarer pointed out, the difference between ‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ religion.
I think where the US struggles is in recognising this distinction. So I agree with you here, and I think that secularism should not be presented as the ideology behind ‘the separation of church and state’ at all. They’re not supposed to mean the same thing. That was kind of my point.
I just roughly demarcate in terms of political influence and sway over court and governmental proceedings … which leaves the UK in a somewhat contrary position as the Royal Family has legal power yet they keep these powers by not actually using them and remaining ‘neutral’. In the US it doesn’t take a genius to see that religious views play a large role in leaning governmental powers one way or another.
:rofl: Well,I've heard that only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday Sun.
Very strong midday Sun in Scotland is probably about as rare as someone putting honey in porridge, but I have seen a brand called 'quakers' who sell little packets of freeze-dried porridge with honey in it!
Go figure! You are just a wild child rebel Tom!
Philosophically speaking, does honey in your porridge mean you are more likely to rebel against, or advocate a society that considers theistic tenets when making economic, social and foreign policy?
:lol: What? So for you, North is not opposite South?
I cant debate rationality with an irrational thinker, it's a waste of time.
My dear brother Uni, listen carefully. The north and and south pole of a magnet exist by virtue of each other. It's you trying to push two like-poles against each other. In reality the north pole (science) and south pole (gods) naturally fall onto each other, making a new powerful dipole, each pole reinforcing the other. How powerful you wantit (want it)?
They are opposites, positive and negative, opposites. The rational people and the irrational people (like you), opposites!
What's wrong with being irrational. The mist irrational thing is a mindless spark!
Agreed. I like that you brought up the ‘neutral’ position of the UK Royal Family, as head of both church and government.
In Australia, there appears (in my view) to be a considerable percentage of the population who are deliberate ‘fence-sitters’, both in political and religious ideology. Where the UK system enables a neutral position as ‘above’ politics (ie. nobility), in Australia the neutral position is that of the larrikin: the boisterous, badly behaved maverick with an apparent disregard for convention. They always have a critical voice in our government, but no noticeable balance of power because they are deliberately informal, in every sense of the word.
I think perhaps it’s the ‘one way or another’ - the lack of neutrality in the US system - that I find intriguing, as an external observer. It seems to me (but I may be way off the mark) that the very notion of ‘God’ (whether possible or impossible) assumes the only ‘neutral’ position available in the US. This separation of church and state - and its subsequent interpretation as either freedom of or freedom from religion - contributes to this.
It's not rational!
Quoting Hillary
And your alternative offer is god(s) :rofl: Let the people decide!
Is the movement in Australia towards becoming a republic not quite significant now?
Have yoh actually read what I write? If a cosmology is complete, and mine is, what other reason for it's existence can be given than gods?
Ooookaaaay.... :lol:
Anything your unfettered imagination can come up with. Anything goes in your world of woo woo.
Your universe could have been created by SCIgod from the union of the mathaphys and the orga.
Or it could have been da boomboom that made everything. Da boomboom was da first cause and did not need any other cause, cause it was da first da only, da original da boomboom!
Like in science!
No science makes effort to discern between what is plausible and what is not.
So does theism. There is just as much woowoo going on in science as in religion, if not more. Did you make a study?
:rofl:
Now look here brother Uni, without the gods and heaven I wouldn't exist. Without them I wouldn't have the cosmology they revealed to me. Study the universe, life and people and you know heaven, the gods in it, and the people gods in particular.
Believe in da boomboom brozzer, if ya needs to! It elp you in dee nite when da bad veesit your brain!
I will stay with rationality thanks!
:lol:
You're allowed, brother Uni, you're allowed. If that comforts you, it should be properly valued on its merits. As long as we realize it's just that. Comforting. And I kinda like it, people opposing my views. Better than boring compliance!
:up:
:cool:
I haven't heard of anything like that? Was it in the US? Australia?
This is certainly not true from my experience.
This shows a pretty egregious lack of understanding of what "suffering" means in Buddhism.
Thank you for the opportunity to use "egregious" in a post.
You may have a point. What's your take on suffering...in an out of Buddhism?
You're welcome.
I think you are committing the No "No True Scotsman Fallacy" Fallacy
My own reading of the ancient Sanskrit texts indicates that the correct translation is "All life is surfing."
But seriously, here's one brief explanation from the web:
Quoting Learn Religions
:snicker: Gracias for clearingt that up for me.
Is not wanting attachment itself an attachment? :chin:
This is another one of those philosophical enigmas that I haven't been able to crack for, what?, the last 30+ years.
Reminds me of trying to get cellotape off my hand. It's stuck on my right hand; I pull it off using my left, it now gets stuck on my left hand; I use my feet, it gets stuck on my feet...you get the idea! I can't get it off! :cry: I'm suffering!!!
Wayfarer has quoted this text several times on the forum. St. Augustine, one of the Catholic Church's Church Fathers, wrote it in 415. It shocked me the first time I read it.
[i]Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.[/i]
Avoiding attachment without trying not to try to avoid it is the hardest part. Please don't imagine I know how to do it.
Separation of church and state is intended primarily to protect religion from government influence rather than the other way around. One obvious way that could happen is that government will restrict religious practice. Surprisingly, to me at least, many Christians also believe that churches' involvement in politics leads to a corruption of faith.
I thought you might have some idea how to, you know, find the way out of the maze of suffering/agony/angst/pain. I would like that very much, but looks like I'm not getting out of the mess I'm in anytime soon. I hope, I :grin: and bear it!
How does the US struggle to recognize the distinction? The US is not an anti-religious state. Neither the Bible nor books by Richard Dawkins are banned in the US.
The first two are easy.
Then you’re against religious freedom?
Good one!
As for nirvana, do you suppose one of 'em options is via dolorosa (the problem is the solution :snicker: ). There are precedents of clearing one's karmic debt through intense suffering (hell being the "easiest" way to do this). Interesting stuff this is! :chin:
The first two are the most difficult. To be enlightened takes a while, but if you have endured the hardships of sister morphine (or her tougher brother, alcohol) enlightenment comes easy.
Quoting T Clark
Why doubly negating? "Without trying not to try to avoid". Which means "trying to avoid". So you wrote:
"Avoiding attachment while trying to avoid it is the hardest part"
Not sure I understand. Avoiding while trying to avoid? Avoiding while trying to avoid avoiding? Seems being filled with desire. An admirable attitude! :smile:
Intelligence - Bang your head on the table - Bang, ow! Boy that hurt. I won't do that again.
Wisdom - Bang your head on the table - Bang, ow! Boy that hurt. Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow!.... Bang. Hey... wait a minute!
It'll cum yoway, brother Agent! I know. I've been there too. It comes naturally. To some soon to others sooner...And when it has arrived, you will play your way through life like the people gods once did in the eternal heavens. You will give them a remarkable performance, like you you are already doing here! In the memorable words of T Clark: keep on banging wisely. :joke:
Quoting Paulm12
You most probably refer to the term "secular". Otherwise, "secularism" is far from that. It is the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
It's like mixing the term "physical" with "physicalism", "spiritual" and "spiritualism", etc.
I would loudly and proudly shout for help and expect it. Why suffer in silence unnecessarily when there is help available and if there is none then I would be camping nearby my local and national politicians and I would be asking them, everyday, why there is no adequate help available. Even if the best I can hope for is to die right next to them and with the knowledge of the local press then I would consider that a victory.
Maybe an individual cannot stop what's happening to them but they can perhaps help stop it from happening to others.
Just one foolish, Christian, opinion, defending his opinion from another foolish opinion. No more, no less. Times haven't changed since.
No I’m saying I feel like I’ve been indoctrinated into this idea of the separation of church and state being a “good” thing because I live in the US. And maybe it is. But it is hard to separate the "secular" from the "religious" in any case.
This is a very good point, and I do agree. This is precisely why churches aren't taxed, etc. Also great quote from St. Augustine, I had forgotten about that (he can sometimes be hard to understand because the writing is over 1500 years old, but that quote is pretty clear).
This has been my experience too. I think Christians often take these sayings as evidence that church and state can (and maybe should) be separated, especially after the protestant reformation
and
From one popular Christian website, on the separation of Church and State:
Hmmm you may be right, and I didn't think about the distinction between these two terms. Although my original post did use the word "secular," not "secularism." A quick google search brought up the following definitions. For "secular:"
or
while "secularism" is defined as
.
Secularism may claim to be untied from religion, but I still find it hard to see how anything can be free from religious influence. To me, it would be like saying some movement is "free" from philosophical or philosophical consideration.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/01/santa-monica-nativity-scene-atheist
there are many other examples (although admittedly, the Santa Monica example was not as simple as a shop-window display.)
That's what confused me. I don't think you'll find anywhere in the US where people are not allowed to show religious symbols on privately-owned property. The story you linked to was about an incident in a publicly owned park. The second amendment has been interpreted to forbid government at all levels from involvement in religious displays. I'm ambivalent about that.
According to Pew, 70% of Americans are Christian, 6% are other faiths (Judaism 2% , Islam 1%), and 22% are no affiliation. I would guess that most of the 22% unaffiliated were raised as Christians and are more or less comfortable with Christian symbols. Part of me wants to tell non-Christians, of which I am one - "You live in a Christian nation, just suck it up." On the other hand, I believe the separation is important.
Then why is that called secular? Isn't it mandated that science is thought in schools? Isn't it mandated religion should be kept out of school?
As I noted, I am personally ambivalent. It's no surprise the country is too.
I agree with the first part of this. Can you expand on what you meant by 'none is better than any' and an example?
Not sure why they call themselves freethinkers. Why should believe in gods limit your freedom of thought?
BUT, that said, if the alternative to religious philosophy is nihilism or materialism, then I'll always pick the former.
It may be the only alternative for some people. It is certainly not the only alternative for everyone.
You prefer nothing above material? Why? Materialism just says we are beautiful collections of matter particles. With smiling faces, arms, legs, a brain to think, etc. What's wrong with that?
How is it hard? Can you give an example?
The separation of church and state is a good thing if you believe that citizens should have religious freedom, if for no better reasons.
Shouldn't any worldview or culture and state be separated.?
Not significant enough...
Quoting I like sushi
Too true. The US system of political power relies on taking a position in relation to ‘God’ as a reference point, even if it’s false. The UK political power system relies on the absolute neutrality of ‘God’ - if the Prime Minister takes a personal position in relation to ‘God’, then that position cannot invoke the power of the Prime Minister.
And in Australia it’s perceived almost as a sign of corruption. If a politician takes a position in relation to ‘God’ then they effectively give whatever power they represent to something/someone else - whatever we deem this notion of ‘God’ to be.
That’s how I see it, anyway.
That’s an interpretation - in the US particularly, it depends on your position in relation to religion. Realistically, the intention is to protect BOTH. The church IS (at least potentially) a political entity - like in the UK, it retains its power by remaining politically neutral. To take a side is to halve its influence. And vice versa, any system of government maximises its power by remaining religiously neutral. In the US, that amounts to an overt deference to ‘God’, regardless of personal position. In the UK, it’s more of a ‘he that shall not be named’ pervasiveness. In Australia, its a case of private vs public.
No, simply because ideology is required to hold a state together.
If the ideology is that all worldviews and ways of life deserve a fair chance, yes.
:snicker:
What a mindjob, eh?
:up:
No. Australians seem pretty apathetic and we largely lost interest in the republic idea some years back.
Quoting Possibility
Don't know about that. Most Australians seem embarrassed by public discussions of god or religion and we are largely secular. God was rarely mentioned in culture when I grew up and only now has a flicker of interest because of the culture wars and the fact that we've caught some of America's shallow Evangelical style beliefs. But this seems to be mainly a form of capitalism rebranded with a cross.
Let's say that Christianity is founded on an unequivocal 'is' - the belief that God exists. Christian culture absorbed (some would say appropriated) all that was noble in the so-called 'pagan philosophies' under the umbrella of the 'Church Triumphant', belief in which was compulsory, and questioning of which could be fatal. This unequivocal dogmatism then over centuries engendered its opposite - militant atheism. The 'death of God' also becomes associated with the dissolution of all certainty, the advent of nihilism, which Neitszche foretold. Doesn't the sense of nausea originate with that sense of the unreality of everything? That we're 'thrown' into a meaningless cosmos, from which we alone are obliged to create meaning where really there is none.
And yet the battle lines between secularism and religion are drawn, and the argument on both sides cites ‘separation of church and state’ as their basis. This is what I meant by ‘struggle’ - not an incapacity, but an unresolved and open debate.
Thanks for keeping my spirits up. Unfortunately, I won't be able to reciprocate in any way except by saying merci beaucoup!
I've learned a new English word: reciprocate. My day's made too! Gnight brother Agent! :yawn:
But I'm sure that's just how we choose to look at it. We seem to find excitement, connection and opportunity in creating meaning. This is all anyone can do. You're still obliged to create meaning, even with a belief in transcendence of some kind. It is always an active process and we still have to identify which system or parts thereof resonate with us and why and then we have to embody our beliefs through our own judgements, choices and effort. Are we not kidding ourselves if we think there is an alternative to self-creation, regardless of the availability of ostensible 'ready to wear' belief systems?
I grew up in a Catholic community in Australia - God was rarely mentioned in public, only in personal and private arenas. I think it’s not so much that we’re largely secular, but that we’re publicly secular.
Politicians are exclusively public figures here. We’re embarrassed because religious beliefs are private - in the same way that we’re embarrassed by public discussions of sexual misconduct in our politicians. If your private influences become part of your public influence, that’s not on. Hence the ‘capitalism rebranded with a cross’. You don’t see that as a form of political corruption?
I started out not wanting to accept anything on faith. That was the whole point of the 'spiritual experiences' that I thought I had had, or could have. The aim of meditative practice was to realise those states for oneself. But as life went on, it became apparent that such states are very elusive. And besides, in Zen Buddhism, there is the admonition never to seek out experiences or to attach importance to them. So I'm re-evaluating what it means to believe, and starting to see that it's not such a open-and-shut matter.
Why do people think this way?
Perhaps belief in god(s) is strong (enough) evidence that one prefers to lead a moral life. Whether out of fear or out of genuine respect for ethics matters not.
The Gordian knot is that almost all religions, except perhaps Jainism & Buddhism, have an unfortunately distorted idea of right and wrong.
To sum it up,
1. Faith in God is a reliable indicator of how morally upright a person you are.
Unluckily
2. Belief in (a) particular god(s) entails endorsing a set of moral codes that may fall short of the mark (to err is human...)
We need to work on 2 is what I'm saying. This is an uphill task for sure. Why? For the simple reason that to attempt amendment to the ethics of a religion is to accuse God, no less, of error. Lamentable, we've painted ourselves into a corner.
You seemed to be claiming that the US struggles to recognize the difference between ‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ religion. The separation of church and state facilitates both.
This is what I mean. The spiritual life and nihilism both invite equal acts of creative vision and personal transformation galvanized by uncertainty. Between you and me I think the foundational benefits of transcendent belief systems are grossly overstated. :razz:
Quoting Wayfarer
I agree that we inherit potentialities and frameworks (my 'ready to wear' comment was as much about our inherited language as it was about faith systems). But we are the ones that have to drive, interpret and enact them.
Quoting Wayfarer
To me this resonates with finding meaning in meaninglessness which for me has an almost mystical resonance.
Can you say something more about your understanding of belief in this 'not such and open-and-shut case' context?
:chin:
any comment on the Russell passage I quoted?
Quoting Bertrand Russell, A Free Man's Worship
Do you think this is true? What are the implications?
:up:
Freedom of religion vs. Freedom of thought.
Both guaranteed by the constitution from the little that I know.
In an weird sense, freedom of religion is pro-atheism for the simple reason that religions cancel each other out until we're left with atheism. This technique of playing one religion against another is quite popular.
Quoting Wayfarer
The implications are exciting for those of us not attached to transcendence. But the style here is flowery and emotive and trying to throw us off. I am not a follower of Richard Rorty per say (and God knows he has his critics), but for some years a couple of his quotes seem apropos.
"There is nothing deep down inside us except what we have put there ourselves."
"Truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths.”
I think of his statements more as provocations, like Zen koans.
But how different in the end is Russell's world depicted here, to that of an idealist along the lines of, say, Bernardo Kastrup - wherein we are but brief flickering dissociated alters of great mind, a non interfering, essentially instinctive consciousness that isn't troubled over our suffering or our welfare and in the end we are reabsorbed into this overarching mind like plastic bottles being recycled at the reprocessing station?
Maybe I overstated my case. When I think of separation of church and state, I usually think of protecting the political system against a theocracy such as ISIS. I was pointing out that protection of religion is just as important. I understand that is what you are saying.
:grimace: John, good luck! You're gonna need it!
I would've gone all analytical on the matter of John's rather lamentable circumstances, but my gut instincts tell me he should look Fortuna straight in the eye and say in a calm voice "Oh yeah? Fair lady, two can play at that game!"
Very different indeed, although I sense it is probably not useful to try and explain why.
:up:
The point is, for the nihilist, it doesn't make any difference. Put another way, for the nihilist, 'creative vision and personal transformation' are empty words, meaning nothing. And if that's not the case, why, they're not nihilist!
But I suspect that here you fail to understand in the same way that you say I don't understand - but for opposite reasons. :smile:
No. There's a real difference between nihilism and idealism. So equating the passage from Bertrand Russell's A Free Man's Worship with Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealism only conveys that there is a real difference that you're not seeing.
Let's review. Your definition was:
Quoting Tom Storm
You did not cite a source, so I can only assume you invented it yourself.
I did not invent a definition for myself, instead pulled the definition of religion directly from google (which is about the most basic source one can find for definitions):
It is glaringly obvious who is redefining religion here. No apologies necessary.
Anyways, enough nonsense
Quoting Tom Storm
You are confusing the culture of religion with religion proper. The religious individual does something quite different than religious culture does, it is a qualitative difference. The goal for the religious individual is to cultivate his faith. Whereas the purpose of religious culture is, among other things, to provide a place where a religious individual can go to cultivate his faith.
Now, the setting of religious culture is dependent upon the participation of religious individuals to merely exist, and it is not the only means by which a person can cultivate his faith. If you strip away all the community groups, public expressions, and faith leaders, religion can continue to exist for the individual. But take away the religious individual, and there can be no religion amongst community groups, public expressions, faith leaders &c.
What occurs for the religious person in the cultivation of faith is an exceedingly personal experience that is impossible to explicate in terms of religious culture.
Exactly, dr Strangelove! I don't partake in any cultural activities regarding my religion, other than directly expressing it. I don't worship, don't pray, don't go to heaven or hell, don't seek to converse, read no religious books, and don't go to church. I see good and bad as a reflection of the eternal gods in eternal heaven. Get to know life and the universe and you know the gods and heaven.
Very nice! Need I say more.
Nihilism: Everything is meaningless or pointless
Life sans choice is pointless.
Choice sans life is meaningless.
Does nihilism conduct itself like a kamikaze (terminates all of philosophy and also itself in one fell swoop)?
Nihilism requires its subordinate to either create himself by his own willpower or perish. Hence Nietzsche's emphasis on the will to power.
Maybe we can explore this another time but, no.
A person with a transcendent belief actually has to invent meaning and purpose in a way no different to a nihilist.
In fact Kastrup makes the point that he has no real idea why we are here and what purpose there is to life. He is personally riddled with insecurities and anxieties (which he often acknowledges). He has to build any sense of meaning from the ground up, just like any nihilist.
I don't accept that meaninglessness is anything but an invitation to construct personal meaning. It is not pointlessness. Humans make meaning out of anything. We can't help it, with or without god/s.
From the nihilistic perspective, this is absolutely correct. Fortunately nihilism is not the end-all-be-all. From the idealist perspective, this is not the case by any means
Dunno why, but after reading a few of your words you seem to be one of the more enlightened persons here. One gets to know them... "Jawohl mein Führer!" :lol:
I can't think of a good joke :vomit: . I think wayfarer was involved with Tom storm concerning idealism equating to nihilism. I like that debate. I have stupider opinions than the rest I assure you
Stop it. You are making me blush :blush: . But seriously, that is an amazing compliment, thank you.
That's what I mean! :lol:
Ha! A great answer to Tom Storm! No doubt. You are enlightened... But Ill move on...
Anyone who likes dr. Strangelove is enlightened, in my humbly humble opinion! Ive seen it a considerable amount of time. "No fighting in the warroom!" And its impossible not to laugh about herr doctor.
But idealism vs. nihilism... :lol:
What's nihilism's selling point? Is it just the bitter truth or does it give a kick that makes people addicted to it?
If you're rich enough, you can make people do things for you...for a fee of course.
Just wanted to say that this is a great conversation you two are having. I don't have anything substantive to add, but I've really enjoyed reading along.
Nothing!
Business transaction (in the market)
Customer: I'll give you $0.00. Can I please have 0 apples?
Shopkeeper: :rage: Get the f**ck outta here a**hole!!
Business transaction (in a math department)
Customer (a mathematician): I'll give you $0.00. Can I please have 0 apples?
Shopkeeper (another mathematician): It's a deal!
Well, at some level it might be said that everyone is an incipient nihilist - could it not the case that people seek and grab hold of belief systems like drowning people cling onto driftwood in the ocean? The fear of emptiness and consequential depression surely must make Islam or Scientology look as welcoming to some folk as a warm fire on a cold night. I have certainly met a lot of theists who have stated that they can't bear the thought that existence has no intrinsic meaning.
:lol:
Truly, dear Agent! If I would collect the things you typed, and bundled them, it would be a bestseller! I know it gets boring me saying this, but I cant stop it!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: . Some people just get it. Its an honor to meet you
Kinda like an old friend I just met! He's just out from a hospital - fell off his bike down a cliff. He related to me how, as he was tumbling down like a rag doll, he tried to grasp with both his hands at anything - a rock, a branch, a bush, anything - to save himself. We all need something to anchor our ship too in this raging typhoon of a world; as they say any port in a storm.
Ok, here it is. Nihilism requires perspectivism in order to make sense of the world (so you can eat and shit). So its great contribution to history is the notion of perspectivism. In my opinion, perspectivism is the greatest tool the philosopher can ultilize. Ask me if you want an explanation of perspectivism
I'm only rich in cheesy sarcasm
‘To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don’t grab hold of the water, because if you do, you will sink and drown. Instead, you relax and float’ ~ Alan Watts.
There is ‘clinging to belief’ on the one hand, and there is ‘letting go, and letting God’ on the other. But this place usually only sees the former.
:snicker:
I want an explanation on perspectivsim and do share how it relates to nihilism.
In a sense. But the driftwood is meant to keep the Sea of Nihility from drowning you. Precisely because science can't offer any reason for existence the driftwood is necessary to stay alive. Now, you can collect all driftwood and construct a ship for fools with it, or you can construct a prison boat. I prefer a ship of fools with excursions in the depths of the silent sea.
Something is better than nothing!
I see what you mean. In fact, everyone has a philosophy about life and its various manifestations and aspects, even if one doesn't realize it or does not think about it explicitly. And everyone believes in something basic, even if this is not God. I use to say that non-religious scientists have science as their religion and in fact, they are more fanatic about it than leymen about their religion! :smile:
So, it all depends on how we use the term "religious" and "religion": loosely or strictly.
But since, as I undestand, your topic refers to the strict aspect, I don't think that the proposition "nothing is really secular" is valid. For one thing, it invalidates the term "secular" itself. (Which, in fact, leads to a circular or self-denied statement: I first define "secular" as something "not religious" and then I state that nothing is secular, i.e. there's no such thing as "secular" and by conseqence everything is religious! :smile:)
I'm not saying you are wrong. But how does someone outside that world, like me, tell the difference between the two?
Quoting Hillary
I know you keep raising science but as an atheist I have limited interest in science. I don't look to it for anything except as a tool for solving certain types of problems. I am one of those vexed people who find science and maths dull.
Shame that he couldn’t loosen his grip on the bottle.
Conversation went nowhere after that.
Still, Watts was a perceptive philosopher, which is more than you can say for……never mind…..
I think Australians are moving inexorably in the direction of a 'monarchy-free zone.'
I hope Scotland becomes independent eventually, then gets rid of the monarchy and joins Europe again and Unites with every other country it can, including England but not as something as colonial and empire soiled as Great ( :rofl: ) Britain. I have never felt British in any way at all. British means nothing to me. I don't think many Australians still feel allegiance to something as outdated as the British
monarchy. Surely they see how such was rewarded in the inept and criminal way Churchhill used the Anzacs as fodder at Gallipoli
That's exactly the reason I believe in gods. Because science is dull and boring and claims to know the truth. But it hasn't. Luckily. Whatever meaning and purpose we find, what's the difference with gods being there and not being there?
By applying analytical skills. The passage I quoted from Russell was one of his famous early essays, published turn of the century. It’s a very vivid statement of a certain cultural moment. You could write an analysis of it in an English class, or a history class. The tutor would say - what is Russell saying? Why does he say the world is ‘devoid of meaning’? What role does he think science plays in it? Why do you think he capitalises ‘Science’?’ And so on.
Nihilism really is the belief that nothing is real, and/or that nothing means anything. It doesn’t really matter what *you* think it means, that is the meaning. I’m saying that it is a bleak kind of emotional and philosophical disposition, that it drains the world of meaning. That is an objective claim. I might be wrong, but if you want to show that I’m wrong, then you need to say something about what these ideas mean, not just how you react to them or how they make you feel.
Another anecdote - I got into University after a dismal school career, as a ‘mature age student’ - a convention they no longer have. The subject of the examination, taken with pencil and paper, in an exam room, was a comprehension test on a passage from another of Russell’s essays, ‘Mysticism and Logic’. Right up my street, I thought, and indeed, I passed the exam, and went on to study just these kinds of subjects. Not that it’s provided any obvious benefits. But I’d like to think I know what it meant, and I guess, in some way, I have the credential to prove it. ;-)
You might not like science, but it's the state pushing it by law into the minds of the young. Like God once was.
Because that "devoid of meaning" fits his scientific ideal.
This is one of the dumbest, most obvious pieces of made-up Roman propaganda ever put into the mouth of the invented Jesus character. Caesar was a dictator, a despot, a butcher, evil through and through. He and the Roman system stole the vast majority of what they acquired.
Why would Jesus tell the Jews to pay their taxes to a tyrannical system such as Rome?
Unless it was just Roman propaganda to get the rebellious Jews to do just that. Behave, accept Roman rule and pay the taxes Rome demanded.
The word disposition is useful. For all our reading and thinking, I suspect all we ever do is embolden our dispositions. Although I am aware some people do change their minds - perhaps they eventually encounter their true disposition? I think bleak almost describes my outlook fairly well. But it's also Camus-Sisyphus-cheerful, not lugubrious or defeated. It allows for all kinds of meanings and excitement. I don't see why it would not. I made a conscious choice to construct my own meaning when I was around 25. The ideas I went for are not original or profound, but they do. And yes, they probably owe their origins to the vestigial traces of Christianity, through secular humanism and a simple-minded utilitarianism, but they float in the air, they are not founded on certainty or transcendental promises.
I support democracy and majority rule but I certainly would never suggest dissenters just 'suck it up.'
Organise, protest, campaign, even engage in civil disobedience but I would also emphasise the importance of a non-violent strategy. Otherwise, you are not being true to yourself and agree to be like a carpet for those you don't agree with to freely walk all over.
So how do you account for the subject of RE (Religious Education) taught in all Scottish secondary schools and the fact that Scottish catholic schools are still very much allowed in the British system?
Half the schools here have the word 'Saint' in their names!
Yeah, at Christian schools here you get one hour per week about the bible. One hour to much in my opinion but the rmmajority to learn is science. Is there one youngster with a diploma that shows a good performance in christianity? Com on brother Uni!
Yes, and rightly so. But the point is what is taught. The university I graduated from was christian too. It's even called the "free" university! Havent heard a word bout christ though. Only in the introduction week with other students.
I do agree with your comment in a general, global sense right now that there is a great deal of apathy in the human global population. I think its a combination of 'we have no power to or are too scared to try to change things for the better of all' OR 'well, I know there is a whole lot of unfair shit going on in the world but I just wanna be able to pay my biils, look after my loved ones and enjoy my life.'
I think such apathy is present in all villages, town, cities, including the ones in Australia BUT I also think that below this surface, most Australians think that Monarchy is backward, immature and even ridiculous.
No real idea what Australians think. Most people I have spoken to over the past 20 years don't give a shit about a republic and can't see what difference it would make. And the ones that do are more interested in ending capitalism than the monarchy. I think people are more positive towards monarchy than they were in previous years, mainly because the royal family are the ultimate reality TV show, the ultimate Kardashians. Entertainment has become its own value system.
We should never accept that the label on the tin, accurately identifies the tin contents.
From 'The right honorable gentleman/lady' through to priest/minister/pope/queen/king/president/Prime mininster/beloved leader and on to honest/wise/good/decent/man/woman.
The decent, honest, reliable, trustworthy individual must DEMONSTRATE that he/she is such.
That demonstration must be continuous and consistent.
We need strong, powerful, reliable checks and balances to stop nefarious b******* from gaining and maintaining power and influence.
All I need to do now is work out exactly how to achieve that on a global scale! :worry:
Indeed they do. Without that, we'd be living in a very different world, and there's no certainty that it would be a better one.
Just because you and Tom feel this way about Science does not make it so.
I find Science wonderful and exciting.
Here's something to cheer you up.
Fractals might come in handy.
Did those who become priests, ministers, bishops, imams etc not attend school? Were they not taught science? You were taught science and look what happened to you! :rofl:
:lol:
Aint it great!?
I find Science wonderful and exciting
I dont think it is. But most youngsters do!
I felt the windy woosh as that one flew right over my head? :lol:
'like cooking a small fish???????'
Fractals????
Are you referencing chaos theory? As in out of fractal chaos, order can naturally arise?
is frying the small fish some reference to the idea that 'I have bigger fish to fry?'
I do and I am no youngster, not physically or mentally!
Quoting Hillary
:lol: NO! it's a waste imo.
Not sure I get this. You are no youngster. Okay. And you like science. Okay. Just like me. But still, most youngsters dont.
Quoting universeness
Then stop thinking about gods! :lol:
Read what you type! YOU TYPED: Quoting Hillary
You suggested most youngsters find science wonderful and exciting, like I do!
Quoting Hillary
Right back at you!!!!!
I expect you to ask someone to be your eyes and help improve your aim at least or stop shooting until you employ such assistance as shooting guns can be a very dangerous activity for a blind novice/neophyte! :gasp:
I meant I find it not boring but most youngsters do. My dear mother of god brother Uni. Why the hostility?
I like the gods. If you don't then you dont. I dont wanna talk about them gods anymore. Lets talk science!
:lol:
Shooting blanks does not seem like a very useful activity to me but, each to their own! :smile:
No hostility involved, just reaction to the words you type!
Quoting Hillary
Life doesn't work that way! As the famous Judge Judy says on TV.
"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
I wonder if Judge Judy is often quoted on philosophy websites? :lol:
Oh! Laughing at my own attempts at humour again! :blush:
Pretty much the same story for me and I actually really like Watts. His ideas were ‘off-the-rack’ but he had charisma and was an excellent preacher man. His words gave me comfort and meaning in a difficult time, as I recall.
I don't disagree with anything you've written. As I indicated, I am ambivalent about the issue.
Ok, thanks for replying to my comment.
I understand your hope, and I agree there is a distinct lack of allegiance as such to the British monarchy in Australia. But I honestly don’t think we’re there yet. Our representatives still too often operate as if the ‘adult supervision’ has simply left the room, and I think they prefer the sense that if it does go pear-shaped there’s still a ‘grown-up’ around. I’d like to think we can get to the point where we don’t need that, but unfortunately I don’t believe that time is now. The ‘grown up’ is little more than a stabilising reference point or an empty threat at this stage, but it’s still useful as such.
Quoting praxis
I agree that ideally it facilitates both. What I’m saying is that the dynamic driving ongoing discussions about separation of church and state in the US is in trying to resolve this distinction - drawn up as anti-theism vs anti-atheism - in a way that differs from the UK and Aus. Again, note this is an outsider’s perspective of American politics. I’m not claiming this is the intention, only an appearance. The neutral position in the US is the Constitution, in which the ideal ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is stated as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.
The neutral position is a logical ideal: separation of church and state enables freedom of thought and of sentiment. It’s a distinction in potentiality - differentiating power, significance and value systems. But there is no actual separation to be observed - ‘God’ is named in the Constitution and on all legal tender, and is called to bear witness in all court and parliamentary sessions.
Well, the recent victory of Anthony Albanese may change things in Australia for the better.
He is already talking about a referendum on the monarchy!
I don’t see what you’re saying. Can you give examples that illustrate this difference?
The US is not anti-theist or anti-atheist, though it contains citizens of both.
What proportion would you say are neither?
According to Pew Research, about 3% identified themselves as atheist in 2014, so I imagine that antitheists (opposed to religion) must be less than 1%. Around half reported that religion was important to their lives. Unknown what portion of this demographic may be anti-atheists. That’s about all I can say offhand.
No examples?
Thanks for the stats. It’s very different to external perceptions. There does appear to me to be a very vocal (or lobbied) push FOR religious intervention in US politics. And I can see that a perception of anti-theism is NOT the same as self-identifying as ‘atheist’. But would it be more accurate that it’s not so much anti-theism as anti- religious-intervention?
So no, no examples. I’m gonna go away and rethink this...
I have a feeling Watts' charisma is largely due to his voice (deep baritone, made more impressive by chain-smoking).
:snicker: