non-secular atheism?

Delirium

Ok, I've had a read of the linked blog/article on the New Humanist UK site, which is basically about how secularism and atheism are not synonymous. Link -> View from America: Secularism and atheism are not synonyms

In the linked page, the term "non-secular atheist" is used (citing Mr.Hitchens as an example).

Now, in my head, the term would mean that an atheist would be in favour of having anti-religion laws. For example, outlawing Christianity. Would you folk agree with my interpretation of the term?

And following on from that, would any of you identify as a non-secular atheist (presuming my thinking is correct on the term of course;))

Personally, I'm all in favour of secularism when it comes to government.

fitz0

I can't seem to grasp the concept of what a non-secular atheist is. A non-secular anti-theist I can imagine but how can not believing in a god be enshrined in law?

Gbear

fitz0 wrote: »

I can't seem to grasp the concept of what a non-secular atheist is. A non-secular anti-theist I can imagine but how can not believing in a god be enshrined in law?

You can be a non-secular anti-theist and an atheist. Or a theist for that matter.
A NSATA would believe in banning all religion, actively campaign against it and not believe in God(s).
A NSATT would be striving to fight against religion even though they believe that God(s) exist.

All it means you don't believe in God(s). How secular you are tends to come next.

Generally speaking atheists are (imo) rational empiricists and secularists but there's no reason why that has to be the case all the time.

recedite

koth wrote: »

Now, in my head, the term would mean that an atheist would be in favour of having anti-religion laws. For example, outlawing Christianity. Would you folk agree with my interpretation of the term?

Yes, this person would not be in favour of the separation of church and state. If he gained political control, he would actively suppress all forms of religion. And then he would suppress all political opposition, not because its part of the definition, but just because that's the kind of guy he is......
Not sure Christopher Hitchens is your man though, even if he were still alive

philologos

fitz0 wrote: »

I can't seem to grasp the concept of what a non-secular atheist is. A non-secular anti-theist I can imagine but how can not believing in a god be enshrined in law?

Look into the history of the USSR. Atheism was enshrined in law for decades.

Ickle Magoo

Of course, there are also non-secular atheists. Those would be the ones whose metaphysical assumptions lead them to deny the legitimacy of the “Church.” As such, they make an inference about Churches (i.e., that they really should not exist) that is completely alien to the logic of the secular idea.

I'm not sure what definition of secularism the blogger in question is using...I thought it referred to a separation between affairs of the state and the influence of religious institutions in those affairs rather than made any claim on the legitimacy of religious organisations at all...presumably the confusion can be cleared up if I invest in the bloggers "fortuitously" written book?

Delirium

recedite wrote: »

Yes, this person would not be in favour of the separation of church and state. If he gained political control, he would actively suppress all forms of religion. And then he would suppress all political opposition, not because its part of the definition, but just because that's the kind of guy he is......
Not sure Christopher Hitchens is your man though, even if he were still alive

I haven't really read any of Hitchens writings so wasn't sure if he had a "make religion illegal" phase :P

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure what definition of secularism the blogger in question is using...I thought it referred to a separation between affairs of the state and the influence of religious institutions in those affairs rather than made any claim on the legitimacy of religious organisations at all...presumably the confusion can be cleared up if I invest in the bloggers "fortuitously" written book?

aha! so that's what I missed from the article, the book! :pac:

MagicMarker

I see 'non-secular atheist' and I think of someone who is an atheist but not a secularist.

Daftendirekt

I guess an atheist non-secularist would be an atheist who either supports the suppression of religion in society or doesn't oppose the privileging of religion in society.

doctoremma

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I guess an atheist non-secularist would be an atheist who either supports the suppression of religion in society or doesn't oppose the privileging of religion in society.

If you actively suppress religion in a society, via official policy, is the resulting society somehow not secular?

Daftendirekt

doctoremma wrote: »

If you actively suppress religion in a society, via official policy, is the resulting society somehow not secular?

Yes, but in a different sense of the word.

The word secular can be used to describe independence from religion (a secular organisation, for example), but secularism as an ideology claims that the state should be neutral on religious matters. I've always taken that to mean that freedom of religion should be guaranteed as well as freedom from religion.

So while states such as the USSR could be described as secular in the former sense, they aren't secular in the latter.