The Minimal Secular Agenda Regarding Religious Belief

[♦ nivek ♦]

The minimal secular agenda regarding religious belief

Rebirth of Reason

by G. Stolyarov II

 

"A reasonable secularist does not seek to wipe out religion -- as this

would be an impossible task that would only meet severe resistance and

endanger the prospects for the humane, peaceful coexistence of all

persons. Moreover, revolutionary changes in any person's worldview are

undesirable, as they uproot him from sophisticated and decently

functioning understandings of moral action that can develop on the

basis of a wide variety of underlying philosophical frameworks. Any

changes in a person's philosophy need to be gradual and thoroughly

considered -- and thus nobody concerned with maintaining the peace of

human interactions should wish for an instantaneous overhaul of all

religious persuasions. Instead of fighting the religious or 'de-

converting' them, the reasonable secularist needs to attempt to -- in

the course of discussion and argumentation -- reach an understanding

of proper this-worldly behavior that he and the majority of religious

people can at least roughly agree on." (12/17/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/4ted3w

[Antlerman]

Hey, you must have been thinking of me on this one!

 

In principle this is what I drive at it my trying to find common ground with the religious through understanding the main motives underlying most religious systems. In understanding the humanistic principles beneath all the garb of supernatural language, it allows a more fruitful and beneficial understanding going both ways; from the religious in their needing to be accepting of all others outside their religious affiliation, and for the secular to recognize the humanity behind the religious and move forward in society together, rather than building ever-widening divides.

 

I am in agreement with this article that to simply smash the icons of a religious system for others is essentially irresponsible (note I said for others and not oneself which can be a symbolic gesture of a commitment of parting ways). It's little wonder why you hear so often from the religious, in fact usually the first response, is the dismay over how we could be moral without God. We all understand that this is a fallacy when looked at objectively, but it serves to illustrate that in their mind, the system of symbols is all interwoven in patterns of feedback loops, where the symbols in fact do serve to reinforce certain ways of thinking, both negative and positive, becoming fused with and nearly indistinguishable from them to the "believer".

 

The question really is what are the most effective ways of moving those on the religious side forward towards respecting those on the secular side, and vise-versa? To finish the article nivek linked to above:

 

In order for this to happen, it is not necessary for religious belief to disappear. Rather, it simply needs to be expressed

humanely and tolerantly

.

 

The following is a list of expectations that the secularist should be able to reasonably make on all religious persons. Many religious persons, in fact, already adhere to these points and thus should not be actively opposed in the expression and practice of their beliefs.

 

The Minimal Secular Agenda Regarding Religious Belief (MSARRB)

 

To ensure the peaceful and harmonious coexistence of all individuals, all persons of religious persuasions should voluntarily adopt the following understandings.

 

1. A recognition that it is possible for non-religious people to behave morally and to behave just as morally, if not more so, as any religious person.

 

2. A renunciation of all coercive apparatuses – governmental or private – for the imposition of religious beliefs and practices on those who do not wish to receive them.

 

3. A renunciation of all coercive apparatuses – governmental or private – for the suppression of non-religious beliefs and practices.

 

4. A renunciation of support for coercively obtained funding for religious or religiously affiliated institutions.

 

5. A renunciation of any religious criteria for the holding of leadership positions in public office or in private businesses which have no direct relation to religious or philosophical activity.

 

6. A recognition that lifestyles and behaviors which are objectionable on a solely religious basis can only be legitimately countered by private, non-coercive efforts and not through the use of governmental or private coercive power.

 

The adoption of the MSARRB will greatly de-escalate the current “culture wars” and facilitate maximum freedom for both the religious and the non-religious. Moreover, it will enable more civil, tolerant, and respectful interactions among individuals of a wide variety of philosophical persuasions.

I can think of several other ideas towards those on the religious side that might serve this end, but as with all things, there must be a meeting in the middle. What would be necessary from the secular side in order to achieve this? What is our responsibility?

[ShackledNoMore]

I agree that this MSARRB looks like a reasonable set of guidelines, appropriately allowing room for people to believe, or not, whatever they are so inclined. I also agree that a subset of religious followers do adhere to the guidelines and it's nice to be able to coexist painlessly with this group.

 

Unfortunately, there is another subset of religious people who are are a very long way from adopting the MSARRB, and not just the most extreme. More than half of the U.S. electorate would not vote for an atheist president (#5). The Great Commission, for those who take it to heart, is not compatible with #2. In general, and most unfortunately, the MSARRB runs counter to the religious beliefs themselves of many of the pious.

 

How to move this group forward to respect the secularist viewpoint? Change society? Wow, this is difficult indeed--at least I can't think of any ready answers.

[R. S. Martin]

AM, I looked at your list. I know Christians who will get rid of No. 6 by denying that what is overtly religious reasons have nothing to do with religion.

 

For example, Michael Behe flatly denied that Intelligent Design was based on religion. He did so under oath when it had been physically proven by professionals that ID is a relabeling of Creationism, and that Creationism is based on Genesis. I've seen other evangelicals since then flatly deny that ID is based on religion. This being the case, it looks to me like the line of "religion" (or conflict or whatever label we agree to slap on it) is simply being moved. What do you suggest in such a case?

 

I get my info on Behe from the DVD Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, but you can probably find it online in the transcipt of the trial in Barbara Forrest Articles.

[R. S. Martin]

I agree that this MSARRB looks like a reasonable set of guidelines, appropriately allowing room for people to believe, or not, whatever they are so inclined. I also agree that a subset of religious followers do adhere to the guidelines and it's nice to be able to coexist painlessly with this group.

 

Unfortunately, there is another subset of religious people who are are a very long way from adopting the MSARRB, and not just the most extreme. More than half of the U.S. electorate would not vote for an atheist president (#5). The Great Commission, for those who take it to heart, is not compatible with #2. In general, and most unfortunately, the MSARRB runs counter to the religious beliefs themselves of many of the pious.

 

How to move this group forward to respect the secularist viewpoint? Change society? Wow, this is difficult indeed--at least I can't think of any ready answers.

 

Yes. Heaven is on their side and hell supports heaven's agenda.

 

There may well be Christians as described in the article; the author claims there are. I am quite sure that on these forums they are labeled as CINOs. When I take a global perspective of the situation, here is what I see:

 

Massive and powerful religious political institutions willing to fight--and die if need be--for their version of the supernatural. Massive populations of the rest of the world drawn in on both sides of these instutions because they depend on one side or the other politically or economically or both. Significant secular voices calling for the cessation of all religion.

 

Within religion and within secularism there is major disagreement as to the proper solution of the world's problems. I agree with the article that a massive up-turning of the life-philosophy of the world's human population cannot happen; it must be gradual. I think that (gradual change) is what is happening. But it takes both extremes to make a change happen. And more than one lifetime to change such a monstrous beast as this.

 

I was watching the Four Horsemen again last night. That's the unmonitored debate between Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and Hitchens in Sept. 2007. They believe that it is possible to deconvert people by argument. We've seen it happen here; witness the many people who say it was things they read on exC or history, etc. that caused them to start thinking. My personal opinion is that the internet brings about an unpredicented number of deconversions because it puts real knowledge at the fingertips of the world's masses. I think the argument can be made that this has been the general trend since the scientific revolution and enlightenment four or five centuries ago. This coincided roughly with the invention of the printing press and spreading literacy. Actual deconversions can perhaps be seen as the "cutting edge" of the movement toward a more tolerant humanity. I get some of my ideas from Brief History of Disbelief.

 

As for talking with Christians. I don't have first-hand experience with the American culture wars but I have now had about six months of intense interaction on William Lane Craig's forums. I'm making progress in relating with the Christians. What respect I have with the Christians today seems to have been earned by:

1. being true to myself,
   
2. being honest as I understand it,
   
3. holding others accountable for their word and deed
   

I have not been the perfect model for interacting with them by any stretch of the imagination but I would say these three points guided me all the way. I started from scratch and needed to do major refining of my method. Today one young person commented that my posts seem to have changed since a few months ago. I thanked the person and took the opportunity to point out that this works both ways: others are not bullying me so much as they used to.

 

As for how it works. I am not strong in either science or philosophy, their main bulwarks against the devil. My strength is consistency of thought, personal and intellectual integrity. Like the legendary shepherd boy of old, with these in my sling-shot I go out among the Goliaths with their philosophies of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Intelligent Design theory.

 

What these people don't get is that just because the Bible says that God spoke the word and the universe came into being does not mean that they can do the same. In other words, they don't get the fact that six-syllable words, fancy philosophies, and massive vocabularies don't shape a universe. Just because they say it doesn't make it so. They don't get that. I can't join discussions on their level because I lack the schooling but I notice when their logic doesn't hang together, when they say things like "all matter is an effect of a cause"="evidence of God's existence."

 

That statement was made as part of a discussion on NOVA's video Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution. I had posted the thread under title "Answer to Christian question how could life happen without God." You can imagine the politics at play. (If I had realized this particular person was in the vicinity I might have been more discreet.) In light of "fourteen billion years of evolution," I pointed out (rightly or wrongly) that no one can go back that far to prove whether or not matter is uncaused. I assume he's right that matter in our time has a cause but I don't know where it came from "in the beginning" and neither does he.

 

I am right in that no one can go back a billion years to collect a sample of matter to analyze in the lab tomorrow and he knows that. That's one point in the discussion I was sure about so I stood on it. He disregarded it and requested that I provide evidence of uncaused matter (a totally unreasonable request in light of the progress of the convo). When that sort of thing happens in a discussion, I call foul (spell out the other person's lack of integrity) and quit the conversation.

 

I think that on some level they respect the integrity of this kind of logic that hangs together. I also think that on some level they see that the way I spell out their lack of integrity matches reality. Thus, I think I am appealing to their intellect and their feeling. Surely sometime something somewhere will penetrate. Also, I try to keep in mind what somebody said about speaking to the lurkers. Chris Hitchens (I think) said in a debate I watched that he does not aim to convince his opponent but possibly someone in the audience will start to think.

 

Thus, some of the respect I gain is negative in that certain people won't speak to me and I won't speak to them because our values differ too much.

 

Here's where it shows up:

1. they get extremely uncomfortable when my honesty shows up their lack of integrity--intellectual or personal
   
2. I get extremely uncomfortable when they use misleading statements, twist things out of context (my own words or the words of someone else) to suit their agenda, or lie to make their god, religion, or themselves look good.
   

The adults, esp. aged 40 and older, are really skilled at this and--for the most part--probably beyond enlightenment.

 

What was really a "feather in my hat" today was a young person taking my side against one of these seasoned "warriors of the faith" in an issue of superstition, i.e. "powers of darkness." I do not know which way the wind will blow tomorrow but this suggests to me that personal and intellectual integrity is the only way to go. With integrity we may be able, over time, to earn their respect and trust. When and if that happens, I can see them adopting the MSARRB.

 

And yeah, come to think of it, I had used AM's method of finding common ground as one of my ways to connect with the young people mentioned in this post. But it was just an out-growth of personal integrity for me. This one young man is going through some sort of crisis. He knows what he wants in life but he feels God is opposing him on every front and this causes serious struggles. He wants to obey God but he also wants to enjoy his life on this earth. The topic of OCD has arrisen. I didn't read every post so I don't know if he has been officially diagnosed or if that is just the group's idea, but everyone in the discussion is encouraging him to see these "convictions" as OCD talking to him and not God. For once, the fundies and I are in full agreement and cooperation on a common interest. He's a nice and intelligent young man and all of us want to see him happy.

 

Sorry, this is really long-winded. I had been going to start a thread about earning respect/talking with Christians, etc. but then it seemed maybe that is what Kevin wanted to talk about with this article. If I am mistaken, hopefully we can work it out. You know where to find me.

 

~Ruby