Secularism

[mamouth]

Originally Posted by Pup

I'm speaking from a U.S. perspective, so it may be very different in other countries, but here we have quasi-religious cultural markers, such as the story of Santa Claus bringing presents at Christmas or the Easter bunny bringing eggs at Easter, which everyone agrees aren't real but which have symbolic/traditional/cultural value. There's virtually no anti-Santa Claus or anti-Easter bunny pressure by atheists and many join in those cultural traditions.

The problem is that many people who promote religious practices don't see them as cultural markers. They wouldn't want Jesus and the Bible lumped in the same category as Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.

I think it's that insistence on "realness" that makes some atheists uncomfortable. I don't think they ignore the fact that religious symbolism has a powerful cultural effect. On the contrary, that's what scares them. And the same may be true for members of minority religions, who may see entanglement of the majority religion with government as a way to promote the majority religion and eliminate their own.

People who want secularism, in the sense of a separation of religion and government, may feel that their own cultural traditions and beliefs are at risk if the majority religion is able to pass laws based on its version of reality, which excludes their own version of reality.

the above would be helpful to illustrate some of my concerns. hence, i endorse the above and makes it as a citation for the request of Mr. Richard Garfinkle that "You're repeating your earlier assertion. That's not evidence. Could you please instance such organizations and explain why you think they speak for the majority of atheists and secularists."

[mamouth]

Originally Posted by evilrooster

I would be very interested in evidence to back up the quantitative and absolutist points I've bolded in your comment. Neither tallies with my experience.

For instance, in neither of the two countries I've lived in with substantial socialist parties (Scotland and the Netherlands) do those parties advocate for the elimination of Sinterklaas, Christmas, Easter, Hemelvaart, or any of the other religiously-oriented festivals as national cultural events.

At times they, along with other left-wing parties (the SNP, Labour, GroenLinks, PvdA, etc -- many of which have socialist leanings) have advocated changes to the amount to which those holidays are also public or statutory days off. But that's primarily argued as an accommodation for members of minority religions and cultures, who would like as much right to take time off for Eid, Rosh Hashana and Diwali as their Christian-cultural colleagues and classmates have for Christmas and Easter. I've never seen any mainstream political party advocate for the elimination of official recognition of religious holidays to cater to the sensitivities of atheists.

the above passage too would be helpful to illustrate my point in such a way that while in their everyday practices, socialists, secularists, atheists, communists, accommodate many of the religious rituals, they do not seem to concede such ethos in their theoretical assertions about religious practices and their cultural mediations

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by mamouth

the above would be helpful to illustrate some of my concerns. hence, i endorse the above and makes it as a citation for the request of Mr. Richard Garfinkle that "You're repeating your earlier assertion. That's not evidence. Could you please instance such organizations and explain why you think they speak for the majority of atheists and secularists."

This doesn't answer the need for citation on organizations or why they speak for the majority.

[mamouth]

Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle

This doesn't answer the need for citation on organizations or why they speak for the majority.

my assertions on secular, atheist, socialist, communist movements are based on my understanding of their logical contradictions. that is to say that often they tend to compromise on their ideology of unreality of supernatural/spiritual/mystic phenomena. such compromises might have necessitated on various grounds. however, forthright explanations are not seen widely. French Marxist theorist Althusser's position that beliefs are not mere false consciousness but has a status of ideological reality has been a major advancement in this respect. to be brief, my point is that the so-called practical/tactical accommodation of belief practices needs to be articulated. neither a simple indifference stance nor an aggressive eliminationist confrontation do not serve the purpose of tackling the present day problems of humanity.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by mamouth

my assertions on secular, atheist, socialist, communist movements are based on my understanding of their logical contradictions. that is to say that often they tend to compromise on their ideology of unreality of supernatural/spiritual/mystic phenomena. such compromises might have necessitated on various grounds. however, forthright explanations are not seen widely. French Marxist theorist Althusser's position that beliefs are not mere false consciousness but has a status of ideological reality has been a major advancement in this respect. to be brief, my point is that the so-called practical/tactical accommodation of belief practices needs to be articulated. neither a simple indifference stance nor an aggressive eliminationist confrontation do not serve the purpose of tackling the present day problems of humanity.

I think the accommodation is offered and articulated well (at least from my experience in the U.S.--from what I've heard, this may be less true in other countries), but believers in supernatural/spiritual/mystic phenomena do not necessarily want to be accommodated because what they practice are cultural traditions. They want to be accommodated because they believe their phenomena are real. So the compromise is often offered, but it doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

For example, in the U.S., those who push most strongly to have creationism or intelligent design taught in U.S. public schools want it taught in the science classroom, not as part of a curriculum on comparative religious myths. The latter is an unacceptable compromise to them, because it treats their beliefs as myths rather than reality.

In a U.S.-based google search for "intelligent design" taught "comparative religion" one finds many results from pro-secular, atheist and other non-religious viewpoints saying they'd have no problem if intelligent design were taught in comparative religion classes of public schools. That's accommodating the religious viewpoint by treating it as a cultural phenomenon.

But that's not necessarily acceptable to the other side. For example, here's a transcript of a discussion (PDF file). A brief excerpt:

STEVE: [a Christian arguing for intelligent design] ...Our position right now is that it would be perfectly legitimate and appropriate for students simply to learn Darwinian theory, and to learn the [creator-based] counter arguments against it. The critiques.
WATTENBERG: But, Michael's point seems reasonable that you teach that in comparative philosophy, in comparative religion, not necessarily biology.
STEVE: Except that these arguments are in biological journals.

[Maxx]

Originally Posted by Pup

I think the accommodation is offered and articulated well (at least from my experience in the U.S.--from what I've heard, this may be less true in other countries), but believers in supernatural/spiritual/mystic phenomena do not necessarily want to be accommodated because what they practice are cultural traditions. They want to be accommodated because they believe their phenomena are real. So the compromise is often offered, but it doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

For example, in the U.S., those who push most strongly to have creationism or intelligent design taught in U.S. public schools want it taught in the science classroom, not as part of a curriculum on comparative religious myths. The latter is an unacceptable compromise to them, because it treats their beliefs as myths rather than reality.

In a U.S.-based google search for "intelligent design" taught "comparative religion" one finds many results from pro-secular, atheist and other non-religious viewpoints saying they'd have no problem if intelligent design were taught in comparative religion classes of public schools. That's accommodating the religious viewpoint by treating it as a cultural phenomenon.

But that's not necessarily acceptable to the other side. For example, here's a transcript of a discussion (PDF file). A brief excerpt:

I don't see the point in offerring a non-biological explanation of biology as a biological argument.

For example, the range of constraints of planetary systems
which (xeno)biologies might face is a topic for astronomy.

Similarly the range of constraints offerred by different types of divine beings is a topic for (xeno)theology.

[mamouth]

Originally Posted by Pup

I think the accommodation is offered and articulated well (at least from my experience in the U.S.--from what I've heard, this may be less true in other countries), but believers in supernatural/spiritual/mystic phenomena do not necessarily want to be accommodated because what they practice are cultural traditions. They want to be accommodated because they believe their phenomena are real. So the compromise is often offered, but it doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

i am thinking about the possibility of conceptualizing belief practices as also as socio-cultural symbolism through which believers speak, share, visualize, articulate something that cannot be communicated directly. that might include even some political aspirations and assertions

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by mamouth

i am thinking about the possibility of conceptualizing belief practices as also as socio-cultural symbolism through which believers speak, share, visualize, articulate something that cannot be communicated directly. that might include even some political aspirations and assertions

But doesn't that mean that by your standards any time an atheist does not defer to religious views, the atheist is being eliminationist?

In short, how, by this view, can an atheist do anything except keep silent or tell what he or she would think of as lies?

By the standard espoused, would not any profession of atheism be deemed destructive to religion?

[veinglory]

I don't know about you but I enjoy the hell out of Christian traditions, many of which almost no-one adult believes to be true (Santa) along side Pagan traditions that likewise almost no-one adult believes to be true (Easter Bunny). Sometimes it is okay just to do something because it is fun.

Being atheist is not the same is being a killjoy.

If this thread continues to revolve around needing to prove atheists aren't trying to conspire to destroy something/anything, it will be closed. This is the atheism room and is expected to be a place where belief is discussed with respect and acceptance.

[mamouth]

Originally Posted by veinglory

Being atheist is not the same is being a killjoy.

If this thread continues to revolve around needing to prove atheists aren't trying to conspire to destroy something/anything, it will be closed. This is the atheism room and is expected to be a place where belief is discussed with respect and acceptance.

atheism per se is not a question of debate here. i have been trying to problematise a reductionist tendency to understand the conception of secularism either as a theoretical framework allows the insulation of religiosity/spirituality (by core-religionists) or as a framework which allows the insulation of socio-cultural (including politics). the second way seems to stem from a scientistic approach to godreality which does not entertain any form of non-physical energy (as hold by atheists). for me both religionist and non-religionist (atheistic) secularism involve difficulties.

[veinglory]

I know what the subject was, I also know it has involved making derogatory claims about atheism that people then felt they should rebut (a defensive position anathema to this as a 'safe room' for atheists). So just don't do that anymore, okay? Or if you want to do that, take the discussion to another room.

[Maxx]

Originally Posted by mamouth

atheism per se is not a question of debate here. i have been trying to problematise a reductionist tendency to understand the conception of secularism either as a theoretical framework allows the insulation of religiosity/spirituality (by core-religionists) or as a framework which allows the insulation of socio-cultural (including politics). the second way seems to stem from a scientistic approach to godreality which does not entertain any form of non-physical energy (as hold by atheists). for me both religionist and non-religionist (atheistic) secularism involve difficulties.

I don't think you can problematize a reductionist tendency by ascribing it to people (for example atheists) who don't have such tendencies. After all, reductionism is just a useful methodology and it doesn't change anything about a useful methodology to problematize it since any useful methodology is all about problematization already.

[veinglory]

I also think it is hard to specifically problematize reductionalist versus holistic thinking when they are both prone to inaccuracy under certain conditions (and the whole thing is arguably a false dichotomy). And neither has any obvious relationship to diversity tolerance (secular or otherwise).

[evilrooster]

Originally Posted by mamouth

atheism per se is not a question of debate here. i have been trying to problematise a reductionist tendency to understand the conception of secularism either as a theoretical framework allows the insulation of religiosity/spirituality (by core-religionists) or as a framework which allows the insulation of socio-cultural (including politics). the second way seems to stem from a scientistic approach to godreality which does not entertain any form of non-physical energy (as hold by atheists). for me both religionist and non-religionist (atheistic) secularism involve difficulties.

The tendency to conflate wildly heterogeneous views into nebulous and essentially fictionalized factions is certainly a problematic one, but I confess that I have found it more present than lacking in your own contributions to this conversation. Your conceptualizations of both atheist and theist secularists appear to be derived substantially from your preconceptions surrounding the two communities, substantiated less by the empirical evidence provided than by misinterpretations of of it.

Whereas I am unqualified to represent the atheist community in this context, I can assure you that the motivations which you attribute to my particular category of secularist are profoundly incomplete, and, where present, wholly misstated. It would be inappropriate for me to elaborate further in this context, and a poor allocation of my unfortunately limited temporal resources to do so in a conversation which has thus far tended more toward misinterpretation in the direction of a pre-existing conceptualization of the matter at hand than to even-handed investigation of the available evidence with an eye to the formation of a new paradigm (or the refinement of an extant one).

[Maxx]

Originally Posted by mamouth

atheism per se is not a question of debate here. i have been trying to problematise a reductionist tendency to understand the conception of secularism either as a theoretical framework allows the insulation of religiosity/spirituality (by core-religionists) or as a framework which allows the insulation of socio-cultural (including politics). the second way seems to stem from a scientistic approach to godreality which does not entertain any form of non-physical energy (as hold by atheists). for me both religionist and non-religionist (atheistic) secularism involve difficulties.

I'm puzzled about what exactly you mean by reductionist. As I understand it, it would be reductionist to say "All of Chemistry is just Physics," ie, a more abstract formulation poses a reductionist scenario when it is applied to a discipline that works out more details implied by the abstract formulation. So to me, the ultimate formulation of a theistic scenario, ie, "All of everything is just what an all-powerful being intended," seems to me to be the most reductionistic possible formulation of all possible formulations, ie, anything other than some theistic scenario is inherently much less reductionist than some theistic scenario.

[veinglory]

The way I read it, reductionism reduces things to an operational level and to their smallest appreciable parts, involving specific objects and specific actions of those objects. As such it tends to be materialist. But I can certainly see other ways to be non-holistic.

[mamouth]

Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle

But doesn't that mean that by your standards any time an atheist does not defer to religious views, the atheist is being eliminationist?

In short, how, by this view, can an atheist do anything except keep silent or tell what he or she would think of as lies?

By the standard espoused, would not any profession of atheism be deemed destructive to religion?

here my response would be something like this: by my conviction i may not be a theist or a believer of any kind, still i cannot be indifferent to religious/spiritual needs of people by saying that they are superstitious.

[veinglory]

I think we're done here as this conversation keeps circling back to a topic that belongs in another room.