IBW

From a political standpoint, I must agree at least partially with Mr. Fields on Secularism as a religion in his article at <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/religion.html." target="_blank">www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/religion.html.</a> I might add that, however noble and “unreligious” the affirmations of Secularism may seek to appear, it has proven inevitable that folowers will tend to gravitate towards a related belief and value system to adhere to, defend, and advance in society. Inasmuch as its only unique affirmations are in opposition to supernatural belief systems, it sets itself up as an anti-supernatural belief system. Though individual systems may exist, this only emulates the various sects of religious views.

In contrast to religious spiritualism and from my perspective, I see two problems with the manifested belief systems of secularism: one is that of a self-imposed limitation on the pursuit of understanding potentially beyond that of our physical and intellectual senses, and an often surprising intolerance and defensiveness against any religious pursuits which shun such limitations. To draw an analogy:

An astronomer may see signs, albeit minute, of forces or conditions beyond the explanations of our present comprehensions and technology. He can choose to disregard them as irrelevant or problematic, to concentrate on more immediate concerns, or because he has no passion for such an undertaking. Or he can choose to personally engage himself in this unending quest for knowledge. Where the former might limit his capacity for learning more about the universe around him, it would be expected that he would condone if not encourage others to research the possibilities.

Secularism appears to stop at the intersection where the universe of “hard facts” ends. Those in honorable religious pursuits choose to proceed on. There should be no personal condemnation from either side, but the secularists should realize that they are in no position to advance understanding in the areas from which they have disassociated themselves. The spiritualists are, and the secular community could respect the fact that both may eventually benefit from what is discovered despite all the inherent flaws in “inexact sciences”. The spiritualist cannot arrogantly deny the evidences of the known world, but neither should the secularist arrogantly deny the evidences and/or implications of the unknown world. Granted, there are a lot of ignorant and infantile views floating around, but that doesn’t discount all the possibilities presented through centuries of legitimate theological and related scientific studies and, yes, personal and “unexplainable” spiritual experiences.

We also typically make self-serving choices, accepting those that fit our view, style, and comfort, and rejecting those that manifest problems or hardship along the way. The real difficulty is recognizing an ultimate goal and whether it is worth the effort and the self-denial. It may be an easier determination if we don’t look at it from an individualistic perspective, but rather from the legacy or lessons which we may leave our children and the generations. Do we want them to stop at the same intersection, or do we wish to encourage and maybe even set an example for pursuing something beyond ourselves?

As a member of the human race desiring to know as much as possible about our world, seen and unseen, and given a choice between a society of spiritualists and secularists, I would definitely err on the side of the less inhibited pursuit. It is certainly reasonable for someone to make a personal choice for secularism, but I would also be surprised if that person didn’t keep an ear bent towards any new developments or revelations that might suggest a reason for once again stepping off the curb and venturing out to other avenues.

Ira White

snatchbalance

IBW,

In my experience, it is normaly organised religions that try to stifel free enquiry. It is also my experience that scientists, by the very nature of thier work, are looking for and trying to explain the currently unexplained. There is no motivation, that I know of, to ignore previously undetected phenomena. If nothing else, the competion keeps them honest.

If there was actually some evidence for some type of "higher power", or being, or intellect, it would be all over the headlines.

As far as spiritual speculation goes, well as they say, that and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

The way I see it is, spirtitualists, of all shapes and sizes, just have nothing to show for thier efforts. After 40,000 years of trying the same things, you'd think they'd figure out that wishing something just don't make it so.

But, on the other hand, human inspiration and inovation come from many different sources. So as long as you're having fun, and your ideaology is not coercive, knock yourself out.

Let me know when you find something.

SB

Ierrellus

IBW,

I am a theist, but by my personal definition of theism I would probably not be accepted in any theistic fora. For me, my belief in God is a personal preference and is not debatable. I found in this secular community an acceptance in exchage of ideas which allows me to express my opinions and receive constructive criticism without the common theistic judge,jury, executioner approach to diverse opinions.

I do not see secularism as a religion or a religion substitute. It does not,in my personal experience, discourage me from believeing what I want or need to believe. It does, however, offer good critique for my dogmatic moods.

Ierrellus

Gurdur

Ierrellus, sorry to be nitpicky, but really you are a fideist (or possibly even a deist), rather than a theist.

Philosoft

We're all secularists because we have no choice but to assume our senses are conveying accurate information about the causal status of the material world. Implicit in supernaturalism is the violation of naturalistic cause and effect. This renders any supernaturalistic conclusions you may come to about the nature of any occurrence entirely moot because your senses, reason and logic are no longer of any use. But for one's religious presuppositions, it becomes just as plausible to say Satan sent Jesus to die so that we would believe our sins are forgiven, when in reality our sinning is unforgivable.

Frankly IBW, I find your accusation that lack of supernatural thinking restricts scientific inquiry more that a bit silly. Clearly, unexplained phenomena are like magnets for scientific inquiry. And attributing things to supernaturalism is akin to failure because it's no different than saying, "We are unable to determine a cause."

IBW

post:
“In my experience, it is normaly organised religions that try to stifel free enquiry. It is also my experience that scientists, by the very nature of thier work, are looking for and trying to explain the currently unexplained. There is no motivation, that I know of, to ignore previously undetected phenomena. If nothing else, the competion keeps them honest.”

I, too, see a level of inhibited rational within many religions just as I see in humanism. I see those that seek to discourage the valid evidences of studies detrimental to their cause, but also those who seek to understand and reconcile everything they can on both sides of the issue. The problem is in using what appear to be biblical inconsistencies to discount theology or the supernatural as a whole. At least those who recognize the possibility of the supernatural have the broader perspective unlike humanists who “deplore efforts to…seek to explain the world in supernatural terms…” (from the Humanist Affirmations). I could understand “have a problem with”, but deplore? I’m still trying to determine if secularists summarily take issue with any of the historical credibility of biblical scripture, or if it is primarily creationism and theology they question.

post:
"If there was actually some evidence for some type of "higher power", or being, or intellect, it would be all over the headlines."

There appear to be those scientific theories that cannot be proven, show inconclusive evidence, can be attributed primarily to the leanings (beliefs, perspectives) of those who further them, yet are accepted as reasonable fact in academic studies. Theological “theories” within scripture with at least as much historical credibility is summarily discarded. It reflects a double standard to me.

post:
"I found in this secular community an acceptance in exchage of ideas which allows me to express my opinions and receive constructive criticism without the common theistic judge,jury, executioner approach to diverse opinions."

I appreciate the exchange of ideas as well and have problems with a myriad of “Christian” tenets, but I find that satisfaction on many of these issues can be achieved through honest and open-minded personal study. There came a point, however, where my pursuit was forced beyond sheer rational. In attempting to intellectually analyze theology, a physical manifestation of something beyond natural explanations occurred. It was bizarre, conspicuous, spontaneous, and unique as nothing I had previously heard of, seen, or could have contrived or preconceived. There were no external conditions to bring it on. It happened in the course of spiritual considerations, appeared related to them, and had scriptural support as I discovered later. Though I ultimately recognized that it must be akin to the numerous yet personally unique experiences that happen to millions, this proved an enlightening event for me into the possibility of the supernatural.

Though a secularist may quickly discount this as something emotional and/or unverifiable, I find it odd that “intellectual seekers” would not be actively exploring the profuse manifestations and coincidences of spiritual events. As a rational theist (I hope), I see little in the Humanist Affirmations with which I cannot agree or qualify on the natural level, yet humanism would seek to discourage my considerations on the supernatural level. That’s why I categorize it as the more inhibited pursuit. Many secularists appear to have once been “believers” who didn’t find credible support for their theology or the supernatural. I would submit that if they experienced what I did, they would more likely reconsider. Unfortunately, it seems clear that such experiences are not usually promoted through skepticism, but I’m not sure why they are not always easily manifested for the sincere seeker. It did not come easily for me as for others, and I can only attribute that to the constraints of doubt, arrogance, or some other personal weakness that must be overcome. But had it not been for the event, I could well be a secularist or, at best, a token Christian at this point due to my desire for more solid evidences. For those that haven’t had more encouraging experiences, I could only recommend continued open-mindedness, sincere pursuit, and putting away discouragement, negativism, and resentment that can easily be fostered by the shortcomings of theism and non-theism alike.

Ierrellus

IBW,

I am not attempting to discredit your mystical experience, but there has been a plethora of scientific and pseudo-scientific studies done in attempts to explain this phenomena. Common experiments in mystical revelation include psychodelic drugs, sleep deprivation, sensory isolation tanks, etc, etc. According to Aldous Huxley, even depriving the brain of glucose can make you experience heavens, hells, angels and demons. Good for you if you can arrive at those states without going through those experimental ordeals. But what if one single person can't get there from here?


gurdur,

What's the difference between a fideist and a theist? I really don't know.


Ierrellus

[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

snatchbalance

IBW,

1. Yes, many different organizations have agendas that they seek to promote. they use(and abuse) findings that they consider advantageous. People do such things, always have, always will.

The problem with theology is that it just has nothing honest to to offer. On god, no evidence, zero, zip, nada.

2. the inconsistancies of the bible are not appearant, they are acutall. Of course, various apologists seek to explain these anyway. (In the past I have expended considerable time and in pointing out specific biblical idiocies, I don't bother anymore.)Usually, they have some sort of special insight; you'll have to excuse me and the rest of the mere mortals for not having such powers. Untill I develope the requiste power I'll have to discount thier claims.

3. The bible is mythology. Like all myths, there is some history, and little "wisdom", some good and poor story telling, all mixed up.

snatchbalance

IBW,

Yes, yes, yes, different theories. Like I said, there is competion. People are actually looking for answers.

Other than god created everything, what theological "theories" do you have in mind? No double standard here, let's see what you got.(If it's the same old flood, devine revalation, problems with the fossil record, violations of the second law, etc., kind of stuff; don't expect a further reply from me. I've wasted too much time in the past.)

SB

Vorkosigan

There appear to be those scientific theories that cannot be proven, show inconclusive evidence, can be attributed primarily to the leanings (beliefs, perspectives) of those who further them, yet are accepted as reasonable fact in academic studies. Theological “theories” within scripture with at least as much historical credibility is summarily discarded. It reflects a double standard to me

List, please, of such theories.