Why Is It That Athiests Talk So Much About Religion

philologos

ColmDawson wrote: »

So, what is religion's role in public life?

You've been waiting for an answer for quite a while. I'm sorry for leaving it so long.

For Christians, the role of Christianity in public life informs pretty much everything they do. How they seek to perform at work, how they seek to relate with their friends, how they seek to engage with partners or family members, it serves as a means of contextualising every sphere of life where it would otherwise be disentangled and elements would be isolated. It's about speaking out against what's wrong, people being disenfranchised and marginalised, it's about sharing little by little with those around you a little about the Saviour that inspires the way you live. It's about following after God in all things to do with all that He has created. This is the role of faith in society.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What we generally want is something else, but that also incorporates religion. We want the removal for our discourse ANYTHING that has no evidence supporting or substantiating it in any way.

Correction. What you perceive to lack evidence. Your perception should have little or no impact on how people decide to lead their lives, and this is why your approach and the approach of Atheist Ireland the organisation you claim to represent is more than mere secularism in respect to Government. I.E - Religious institutions not directly interfering in Government.

Just because a Government is secular, does not mean that it must follow that the entire society is secular. This would be something that anyone who claims to follow Christ would surely have issue with. Faith can't and won't be just a "private matter". This is where the compromise ends as I would see it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is no evidence such a thing is occurring, yet people believe it anyway. There is also no evidence it is NOT occurring either.

See above. This is about your perception, nothing else.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

GIVEN therefore that the idea that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe is also similarly devoid of evidence either way, we merely wish it to be treated the same way.

See above.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Now I understand people such as yourself feel victimised and that secularists are out to get you specifically, but essentially all we are asking is for equal treatment of your idea compared to any other

I don't feel "victimised" because luckily our State is discerned enough not to apply the elements of Atheist Ireland's ideology that go further than mere secularism on a government level.

By the by it isn't about "equality" at all. I would welcome atheists contributing to the national discussion on this, along with every other faith organisation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What is so wrong about that? What makes you think your particular evidence devoid idea deserves special treatment over all the other evidence devoid ideas exactly? Why do you get preferential treatment? What is not "fair" here to use your word from above?

Read the earlier pieces of my posts, I've gone right through my issues with your view and the view of the organisation that you claim to represent.

In many ways AI is good. In many ways AI isn't.

Improbable

Jakkass wrote: »

For Christians, the role of Christianity in public life informs pretty much everything they do. How they seek to perform at work, how they seek to relate with their friends, how they seek to engage with partners or family members, it serves as a means of contextualising every sphere of life where it would otherwise be disentangled and elements would be isolated. It's about speaking out against what's wrong, people being disenfranchised and marginalised, it's about sharing little by little with those around you a little about the Saviour that inspires the way you live. It's about following after God in all things to do with all that He has created. This is the role of faith in society.

I think the original question might have been better worded by asking "what is the specific role of religion in public life that could not be fulfilled without religion? Everything you said can be fulfilled in a manner that has nothing to do with religion aside from the saviour and god bit.

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because a Government is secular, does not mean that it must follow that the entire society is secular. This would be something that anyone who claims to follow Christ would surely have issue with. Faith can't and won't be just a "private matter". This is where the compromise ends as I would see it.

I think there is something very wrong with this attitude. I don't see a secular government as being a compromise, more like a necessity.

philologos

Improbable wrote: »

I think the original question might have been better worded by asking "what is the specific role of religion in public life that could not be fulfilled without religion? Everything you said can be fulfilled in a manner that has nothing to do with religion aside from the saviour and god bit.

This question wouldn't have anything to do with secularism at all. What does matter is that people are going to believe, and some people aren't. How best do we facilitate both within the larger society?

As for it having nothing to do, this is the impact that faith can and does have on people. This is its role in public life for believers.

Improbable wrote: »

I think there is something very wrong with this attitude. I don't see a secular government as being a compromise, more like a necessity.

I agree to an extent. I disagree in how some people, particularly nozzferrahtoo are defining it. The problem isn't with whether or not people want a secular government, the problem is with how people are defining it. If some people are taking liberties in defining it, we have a big problem. This is what encourages me to be skeptical of how people use the term.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

If some people are taking liberties in defining it, we have a big problem.

Like atheist = aggressive secularist kind of definition liberties?

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Like atheist = aggressive secularist kind of definition liberties?

I haven't actually done this in this thread as Wicknight has pointed out. I actually have explained my own position numerous times. So if you want to strawman what I am actually saying go ahead, but if we want to discuss further that's possible also.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo - You can't be serious that you can't think of any agenda particular to atheists. Aggressive secularism (taking religion out of public life, diminishing religions role in the public square) isn't really argued by any people of faith at all.

Ehhhh.....

Edited to add: Or are we just getting back into your arbitrary plucking of "lots" and "many" and "sizeable group" type wafflings?

ColmDawson

Thanks, but does it have anything unique to add outside of the minds of Christians themselves? Some sort of objective value?

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Ehhhh.....

Edited to add: Or are we just getting back into your arbitrary plucking of "lots" and "many" and "sizeable group" type wafflings?

Look, Ickle Magoo, if you really want to misconstrue my posts. Be my guest. I've clearly said what I think.

Not at all. One can recognise that not all of group X participate in Y, but that a large portion of X do. This is different than generalising.

Generalising would be the logic that because a large group or even any sized group of X do Y, that it must follow that all of group X do Y.

I don't reason this way at all. I recognise in this case that not all of X do Y, but rather that a sizeable portion of X do Y.

Hopefully that will outline the reasoning.

If you want to contribute something new, I'll be glad to discuss. However, this is all that needs to be said about your complaint of generalising.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Look, Ickle Magoo, if you really want to misconstrue my posts. Be my guest. I've clearly said what I think.

Could you post the stats that back up your assertions of "large group" and "sizeable portion" as I requested several pages ago then? I'm not sure how it's possible to claim anyone else is misconstruing something that has been made up.

Ush1

As someone said, a secular government should be a necessity not a compromise.

Religion should not influence laws or politics in anyway.

philologos

ColmDawson wrote: »

Thanks, but does it have anything unique to add outside of the minds of Christians themselves? Some sort of objective value?

Of course it does, in that it manifests itself in society at large. Or it becomes apparent. It is people being who they are in the world. Perhaps what I have described is the ideal for how Christians should live and act in the world, but I would also argue that in many cases it has manifested itself since Christ's coming.

I would also argue that a huge amount of charity activity is fuelled by belief in a higher purpose. One can rarely look at the work of the Salvation Army for example and say that it is a bad thing. There is also no doubt that this work is motivated by faith.

It appears that nozzferrahtoo actually would like all expression of faith in society to end. I can only say that the world would be a darker place if it did.

ColmDawson

The problem is that while faith can influence people to act charitably (although I suspect that people who are charitably inclined would do so if there were no religion), it can also influence people to interfere with law, education and politics — all too often to the detriment of society.

The only fair way to prevent the latter from happening is to create a secular system.

This isn't repressing personal expression of faith. It's making sure stories with no evidence to back them up don't influence government, education and law.

philologos

^^ The ambiguity lies in "secular system". Do you mean "secular government" or "secular society"? I disagree with the latter entirely. In fact a "secular society" is incompatible with Christianity. I would hold that "secular government" is compatible. I wouldn't think that a "secular society" is even desirable, but a "secular government" is (I would favour the American / Australian model of secularism to the European model).

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ The ambiguity lies in "secular system". Do you mean "secular government" or "secular society"? I disagree with the latter entirely. In fact a "secular society" is incompatible with Christianity. I would hold that "secular government" is compatible. I wouldn't think that a "secular society" is even desirable, but a "secular government" is (I would favour the American / Australian model of secularism to the European model).

His definition came with the next sentence;

"This isn't repressing personal expression of faith. It's making sure stories with no evidence to back them up don't influence government, education and law."

sonicthebadger*

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ The ambiguity lies in "secular system". Do you mean "secular government" or "secular society"? I disagree with the latter entirely. In fact a "secular society" is incompatible with Christianity. I would hold that "secular government" is compatible. I wouldn't think that a "secular society" is even desirable, but a "secular government" is (I would favour the American / Australian model of secularism to the European model).

Secular Government: People in power making decisions based on the best available evidence, not showing preference to, or discriminating against any faith.

Secular Society: People in the general population making decisions based on the best available evidence, not showing preference to, or discriminating against any faith.

So, what's so bad about a secular society? Or is what I have written wrong on a more basic level? Perhaps my understanding of the two concepts could be clarified.

philologos

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Secular Government: People in power making decisions based on the best available evidence, not showing preference to, or discriminating against any faith.

Secular Society: People in the general population making decisions based on the best available evidence, not showing preference to, or discriminating against any faith.

So, what's so bad about a secular society? Or is what I have written wrong on a more basic level? Perhaps my understanding of the two concepts could be clarified.

Under your definition it sounds rosy.

Government alone is the way to go.

Secular society would mean that every individual in that society is secular. It requires individuals to be removed from religion or to remove themselves from religion. That's where I would see the difference. For the Christian, removing the greatest hope in the world (Jesus) from discourse would be absurd.

Your definition is more ambiguous. Personally, I would consider the best available evidence to point to Christianity, not to atheism.

sonicthebadger*

Jakkass wrote: »

Under your definition it sounds rosy.

...

Your definition is more ambiguous. Personally, I would consider the best available evidence to point to Christianity, not to atheism.

Though in fairness, by my definition, since you consider the best available evidence to point to Christianity then in a secular society you are quite right to act on that. So long as it does not discriminate against others.

philologos

^^ I don't see what is wrong by having an open square and pretty much saying let the best man win. The world is a trading place of ideas, and it always has been. Rather than seeking to make the whole society secular, it seems to allow public discourse is better.

By secular I'm referring to this definition:
of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations

I can't say a society that promotes this viewpoint exclusively ^^ would be a positive society to live in. I.E that individuals in society shouldn't do anything apart from reject religion and religious considerations.

That's the difference between a secular society, and a secular government. I've said already that a secular government can operate in a society that is certainly not secular. Examples USA and Turkey.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ I don't see what is wrong by having an open square and pretty much saying let the best man win. The world is a trading place of ideas, and it always has been. Rather than seeking to make the whole society secular, it seems to allow public discourse is better.

By secular I'm referring to this definition:
of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations

I can't say a society that promotes this viewpoint exclusively ^^ would be a positive society to live in. I.E that individuals in society shouldn't do anything apart from reject religion and religious considerations.

That's the difference between a secular society, and a secular government. I've said already that a secular government can operate in a society that is certainly not secular. Examples USA and Turkey.

To it's proponents secularism has never meant that. If that was the case Stalin and Mao would have been secularists.

Secular means separate from religion, not rejection of religion. A secular society means religion is separated from other facets such as politics, education and health and instead operates independently. It does not intrude upon public areas (by public I mean areas which are universal to all members of society) but in turn is free to operate without public oversight.

A secular society means both religious freedom and freedom from religion. It is the only truly free and fair way for society to function.

philologos

Secular government != secular society is my point.

Societies will never be wholly secular. They will contain some people yes who are. But there will always be a balance rather than anything else.

Governments will of course be. Personally, I wouldn't want a society to be wholly secular according to the afforementioned definition.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

Secular government != secular society is my point.

Societies will never be wholly secular. They will contain some people yes who are. But there will always be a balance rather than anything else.

Governments will of course be. Personally, I wouldn't want a society to be wholly secular according to the afforementioned definition.

That is not a definition I recognize, your definition describes an irreligious society one that is homogeneous in it's lack of religion, a secular society is pluralistic and contains many different religions and philosophies all free to operate freely and independently. The only thing they can't do is to unfairly influence the public space to the detriment of other religions/philosophies. There are more public areas than just government.

sonicthebadger*

So if the government can be secular but society cannot does that then mean that people in the society who choose to follow the rules and teachings of a religion should be excluded from government as this would effect their ability to function in said government?

philologos

^^ Found it by typing define secular into google which is from princetons dictionary.

sink

For instance the bible belt in the southern United States, is not a secular society. If you are not a Christian you are shunned, if you are an atheist you can be publicly attacked (i'm talking verbally here). London on the other hand is largely a secular society, you can be a Christian, Muslim, Atheist or even a Satanist and you will be able to play a full role in public life (most of the time).

philologos

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

So if the government can be secular but society cannot does that then mean that people in the society who choose to follow the rules and teachings of a religion should be excluded from government as this would effect their ability to function in said government?

Not at all. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists can be involved. Just that no view will be favoured merely on the basis of it being the view that it is. Rather it should be viewed by merit. Merit is what counts in governance.

Personally, I'm quite happy to defer to Government as long as there is no hindrance to my right to express my beliefs fully, and to live by them.

If you wanted a 100% pure secular Government perhaps you would insist on people of no faith. However, ultimately this isn't possible without insisting that people recant their faith before entering Government which is also unreasonable.

I don't think it's possible to have 100% secular Government, but to a high enough degree it is.

sink: I don't believe that London is a secular society. It's a pluralist one at least by the definition I've found at the Princeton dictionary. I wonder is it worth a thread in humanities sometime going through the difference between a secular and a pluralist society.

robindch

ColmDawson wrote: »

The problem is that while faith can influence people to act charitably (although I suspect that people who are charitably inclined would do so if there were no religion), it can also influence people to interfere with law, education and politics — all too often to the detriment of society.

Secularism is the belief that the state should not endow or respect any one religion any more than any other, and that the easiest way to do this is to respect or endow none.

The belief you're using here to justify secularism is useful, but doesn't really apply.

The real reason that secularism is a better way to go is because all of the crusading religions -- and there are few religions left today which aren't -- are selfish memes. ie, they're cultural constructs which have evolved over time for the sole purpose of acquiring more and more believers by acquiring more and more political and social power for themselves. In such a situation, if you don't keep religion out of politics, then you will create an society in which absolutist, crusading, acquisitive religions will, over time, render the state, at best, unstable or continually attending to its own internal miseries, or at worst, one which simply implodes because the feuding religions cannot agree to do anything. Take a look at Israel and North Korea for an examples of a states which are inextricably linked with selfish memes and in which significant sections of the population are dying as a direct results of the state's inability to keep its religions or pseudo-religions away from the running of the state.

Secularism isn't necessary simply to look after the rights of the non-religious, it's far more necessary to stop the religious from going at each others throats and destabilizing the state itself.

philologos

^^ The above would seems to refer to secularism at a government level rather than a societal level which is what we are trying to distinguish between.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ Found it by typing define secular into google which is from princetons dictionary.

I would take issue with that definition. It is not what proponents secularism are aiming for. The Oxford english dictionary gives the definition of secular as "Concerned with the affairs of this world, worldly, not sacred, not monastic, not ecclesiastical, temporal, profane, lay (secular affairs, education, music)" and "Sceptical of religious truth or opposed to religious education etc;".

It does not refer to a rejection of religion. It means matters not pertaining to religion or the metaphysical/supernatural. It means matters that are of this world i.e natural, physical, empirical.

philologos

Again, I can't say that a profane society is really one that I as a Christian would support either!

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, I can't say that a profane society is really one that I as a Christian would support either!

Well that's were we would have to disagree. I have no problems with you practicing your personal beliefs, you are free to do as you wish in a private capacity and no one should be allowed to impose. You however should not be allowed to impose on anyone else in the public sphere.

I defend your right to pray, to wear religious iconography, to build religious places of worship, to publicize your beliefs and to carry out any other private practice. I however defend the same for all other members of society. You should not be allowed impose upon anyone else your views and practices.

This is what I hold to be the true meaning of secularism.