Formal Debate Peanut Gallery - Atheistic Secular Humanism...

[Freodin]

... I don't think Freodin has addressed the real heart of the debate: Where worldviews end and religions begin.

I beg to differ.

I agree in so far as this is definitly an interesting question you ask here. It isn't a question that hasn't been asked elsewhere before and that isn't open to debate. I said as much in my debate post: "...there are several methods to approach this term [...] None of these attempts are able to describe or define “religion” precisely."

I don't think though that this question is the "real heart" of the debate - quite the opposite.

The potential philosophical definitions of "religion" are rather wide, and the variants of common usage of this term can be even wider. So there will almost certainly be some instance within this bandwidth where almost anything - including secular humanism - can be said to be a "religion".

But it is not the vague similarities that we are questioning here... it is the differences.

I made very clear in my acceptance for this debate that the point is "is as much a religion as Christianity." Not "is a religion as football can be said to be a religion."

So I tried to find and define what makes Christianity - and the other "world religions" a religion... and what distinguishes secular humanism from these.

 

[stevevw]

You seem to be presenting religion as a panacea for all these social ills. Yet after thousands of years religion has shown that it is just as capable of contributing to social problems as it is capable of mitigating them.

No I'm not. I'm merely presenting a positive for religion for a change. It maybe you see it that way because you dont want to give any credit for religion and therefore take things to extremes all the time. People are quick to bag religion and only see one side of things. But when something positive is presented they will still find a way to extract some negative out of it. Is it so hard to acknowledge that religion does do good and perhaps a lot more good than people want to admit.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I beg to differ.

I agree in so far as this is definitly an interesting question you ask here. It isn't a question that hasn't been asked elsewhere before and that isn't open to debate. I said as much in my debate post: "...there are several methods to approach this term [...] None of these attempts are able to describe or define “religion” precisely."

I don't think though that this question is the "real heart" of the debate - quite the opposite.

The potential philosophical definitions of "religion" are rather wide, and the variants of common usage of this term can be even wider. So there will almost certainly be some instance within this bandwidth where almost anything - including secular humanism - can be said to be a "religion".

But it is not the vague similarities that we are questioning here... it is the differences.

I made very clear in my acceptance for this debate that the point is "is as much a religion as Christianity." Not "is a religion as football can be said to be a religion."

So I tried to find and define what makes Christianity - and the other "world religions" a religion... and what distinguishes secular humanism from these.

That's a fair point. In general, I'd agree then: secular humanism is not a religion in the same sense as Christianity.

But if the worldview/religion barrier/spectrum isn't the heart of the debate, I'd still contend that it's the more interesting and substantial element of the current debate. But I feel like that's also something that's best addressed as wider discussion than as a formal debate, for the simple reason you've addressed: it's not an either/or question.

Perhaps a good formal debate would be something more limited: Does religion, more narrowly conceived to exclude all philosophical propositions and worldviews (atheism, etc.), still include non-theist religions like Theravada Buddhism or Jainism (or even Christian sects like the Nontheist Friends or theologies like Paul Tillich's), or mystical philosophical systems like overlap with preexisting polytheism but are distinct from it, like neo-Platonism or Taoism, or ethical/social systems with religious elements like Stoicism and Confucianism?

And I would contend that unless we deny that religion is in some sense a social phenomenon almost universal to major world cultures and civilizations, then we have to concede that making "God" the sin qua non of religion, religious mentalities, and religious practice is in fact merely preferencing traditional western/Middle Eastern "religions of the book."

 

[Loudmouth]

No I'm not. I'm merely presenting a positive for religion for a change. It maybe you see it that way because you dont want to give any credit for religion and therefore take things to extremes all the time. People are quick to bag religion and only see one side of things. But when something positive is presented they will still find a way to extract some negative out of it. Is it so hard to acknowledge that religion does do good and perhaps a lot more good than people want to admit.

The real motive behind the "secular humanism is a religion" argument is to make secular humanism look bad by making it look like a religion.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The real motive behind the "secular humanism is a religion" argument is to make secular humanism look bad by making it look like a religion.

That makes no sense. If a person is a believer in a religion, then they don't think calling something a religion necessarily makes it look bad.

Rather, what they're doing is trying to place their faith and their opponent's faith on an equal epistemological basis, so that they don't have to do the legwork of actually proving their faith while being able to dismiss their opponent's arguments because it is all, after all, about "faith."

I think that strategy is just as silly as the former, but it's what's actually going on.

 

[Loudmouth]

That makes no sense. If a person is a believer in a religion, then they don't think calling something a religion necessarily makes it look bad.

Rather, what they're doing is trying to place their faith and their opponent's faith on an equal epistemological basis, so that they don't have to do the legwork of actually proving their faith while being able to dismiss their opponent's arguments because it is all, after all, about "faith."

All you have done is replace religion with faith.

The motive of the argument is to make secular humanism look bad by making it look like it is faith based. It is a strategy of "drag them into the mud with us, and beat them with experience". That is what the tu quoque argument is all about.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

All you have done is replace religion with faith.

The motive of the argument is to make secular humanism look bad by making it look like it is faith based. It is a strategy of "drag them into the mud with us, and beat them with experience". That is what the tu quoque argument is all about.

Yes, but again, the attempt is to drag them into the mud with us. Calling it a religion/faith only makes it look bad if you already think that calling something a religion/faith is bad. Just calling secular humanism a religion/faith doesn't make secular humanists look bad, it just levels the playing field so that everyone is now a religion/faith-based. The next step isn't ad hominem attack, but rather, now that it has been defined as a religion/faith and not a coherent scientifically-based and philosophically-informed worldview, it can be safely ignored (in the same way fundamentalists ignore all other religions).

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, but again, the attempt is to drag them into the mud with us. Calling it a religion/faith only makes it look bad if you already think that calling something a religion/faith is bad.

I think you proved that yourself.

The next step isn't ad hominem attack, but rather, now that it has been defined as a religion/faith and not a coherent scientifically-based and philosophically-informed worldview, it can be safely ignored (in the same way fundamentalists ignore all other religions).

By labelling something as a religion, the effort is to make it of less value and worthy of being ignored. Have you ever heard of someone trying to label christianty as just another secular, evidence based moral system?

 

[Paradoxum]

Would you consider Theravada Buddhism a religion? They believe in supernatural realities, and are open to the existence of gods, but they don't have Bodhisattvas like Mahayana Buddhism to whom they can pray for supernatural assistance in their quest for enlightenment. And yet except for that, they have all the elements of religion- including regular communal services, monasteries, etc.

If they believe in transcendental supernatural stuff, then yes.

 

[Freodin]

That's a fair point. In general, I'd agree then: secular humanism is not a religion in the same sense as Christianity.

But if the worldview/religion barrier/spectrum isn't the heart of the debate, I'd still contend that it's the more interesting and substantial element of the current debate. But I feel like that's also something that's best addressed as wider discussion than as a formal debate, for the simple reason you've addressed: it's not an either/or question.

Perhaps a good formal debate would be something more limited: Does religion, more narrowly conceived to exclude all philosophical propositions and worldviews (atheism, etc.), still include non-theist religions like Theravada Buddhism or Jainism (or even Christian sects like the Nontheist Friends or theologies like Paul Tillich's), or mystical philosophical systems like overlap with preexisting polytheism but are distinct from it, like neo-Platonism or Taoism, or ethical/social systems with religious elements like Stoicism and Confucianism?

That is certainly a worthy point for a debate. But it is not, as I already said, a point that has never been discussed before, and I think it is more suited to a scholarly debate than a layman's debate in an internet forum.
Perhaps you think you are up to it... I know that I myself am not.

And I would contend that unless we deny that religion is in some sense a social phenomenon almost universal to major world cultures and civilizations, then we have to concede that making "God" the sin qua non of religion, religious mentalities, and religious practice is in fact merely preferencing traditional western/Middle Eastern "religions of the book."

The western philosophical discourse about "religions" is of course centered on the "western" concept of "religion"... which is one of the problems with defining / integrating some "eastern" systems within this concept.

But I think that this can be (mostly) circumvented by not focusing on "God / gods / deities", but rather resorting to a broader concept of "the supernatural / higher power".

Yes, but again, the attempt is to drag them into the mud with us. Calling it a religion/faith only makes it look bad if you already think that calling something a religion/faith is bad. Just calling secular humanism a religion/faith doesn't make secular humanists look bad, it just levels the playing field so that everyone is now a religion/faith-based. The next step isn't ad hominem attack, but rather, now that it has been defined as a religion/faith and not a coherent scientifically-based and philosophically-informed worldview, it can be safely ignored (in the same way fundamentalists ignore all other religions).

As there are enough Christians who loudly proclaim that Christianity is NOT a religion, but "a lifestyle / a relationship with Jesus / God" (choose appropriate), it is in many cases an attempt to "drag them into the mud".
In the case of many US conservative Christians making this argument, it is based on the reasoning: "our constitution forbids religion in schools - secular humanism is a religion - ban teaching Evilution in our schools!"

You can see the hints at that reasoning in David's intial post already.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

As there are enough Christians who loudly proclaim that Christianity is NOT a religion, but "a lifestyle / a relationship with Jesus / God" (choose appropriate), it is in many cases an attempt to "drag them into the mud".
In the case of many US conservative Christians making this argument, it is based on the reasoning: "our constitution forbids religion in schools - secular humanism is a religion - ban teaching Evilution in our schools!"

You can see the hints at that reasoning in David's intial post already.

Now those are both definitely fair points.

 

[stevevw]

The real motive behind the "secular humanism is a religion" argument is to make secular humanism look bad by making it look like a religion.

I dont think its to make it look bad. If we were doing that then we are shooting ourselves in the foot for saying that our religion is also bad by that association. I think its more to do with the acknowledgement that humans do base things on faith and it doesn't have to be about religion or have that religious tag on it.

But my initial point was that people are quick to criticize religion but hesitant to admit the positives. This just shows some bias and seeing things one sided. I think most religious people acknowledge that religion hasn't set a good example and dont deny the many cases where people have done wrong things in the name of religion. But secular society and non believers dont have that same acknowledgement when it comes to the many good things religion does. It seems they want to focus on the negative and non of the positive.

Why this is I suspect is because an admittance will lose them some ground on the stance they have been taking lately which is trying to expose religion and God as bad. Especially on this site where atheists will want to prove a point that the bad examples show how believing in a God is delusional and only leads people doing bad things. This to mean is going beyond the simple debate that something can have both a good and bad side to it. It seems to be also about a personal position about belief. It seems that some react more about the subject than what should be there. Its like it is challenging their personal position and people are basically rebellious about admitting there is a God who they may be accountable to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No I'm not. I'm merely presenting a positive for religion for a change. It maybe you see it that way because you dont want to give any credit for religion and therefore take things to extremes all the time. People are quick to bag religion and only see one side of things. But when something positive is presented they will still find a way to extract some negative out of it. Is it so hard to acknowledge that religion does do good and perhaps a lot more good than people want to admit.

For a change? We are inundated with positive messages about religion and its perceived necessity. Even when people do horrible things, citing religious inspiration for their actions, leaders are eager to absolve religion of any blame, ensuring the public that they can remain confident in religious institutions. Although we are now able to criticise religion more openly than ever before, there is still a tendency to view religion as intrinsically good.

 

[stevevw]

For a change? We are inundated with positive messages about religion and its perceived necessity. Even when people do horrible things, citing religious inspiration for their actions, leaders are eager to absolve religion of any blame, ensuring the public that they can remain confident in religious institutions. Although we are now able to criticise religion more openly than ever before, there is still a tendency to view religion as intrinsically good.

It should be seen as mainly good because I believe there is a lot more good than bad. When you take all into consideration and especially nowadays religion does a lot of good. But despite all that you rarely here any atheists or non religious people say one thing good about them. They are to busy bring up things from 3000 years ago. If we went over all the non religious acts in history and today that were bad I dont think we would have enough time to mention them all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It should be seen as mainly good because I believe there is a lot more good than bad. When you take all into consideration and especially nowadays religion does a lot of good. But despite all that you rarely here any atheists or non religious people say one thing good about them. They are to busy bring up things from 3000 years ago. If we went over all the non religious acts in history and today that were bad I dont think we would have enough time to mention them all.

As Hitch once said:

Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thanks to the fact that we live in a more educated world.


I think when the clergy hasd much of a monopoly over scholarship and learning, especially theology and ethics, then they felt they had the authoritarian right because they were the most well equiped to dictate, and to safeguard man's future. Lets not forget they worked in the context of very limited science in comparison to what we have now.

Our problem now is lack of synthesis, I feel, because people are often desiring to argue rather than cooperate, and undermine one another rather than look to the bright side.

We are also as a result surrering from the institutionalised shadow play of interfaith relations, with believers going along with "this opposed to science" and scientific apologists saying "this is opposed to faith and ethics" because the religious argue so adamantly that science is nihilistic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thanks to the fact that we live in a more educated world.


I think when the clergy hasd much of a monopoly over scholarship and learning, especially theology and ethics, then they felt they had the authoritarian right because they were the most well equiped to dictate, and to safeguard man's future. Lets not forget they worked in the context of very limited science in comparison to what we have now.

I would agree with that, in that the spread of education to people outside the ecclesiastical fraternity precipitated the undermining of their authority, and was instrumental in building the wall that now separates church and state. One may speculate that this is why many ultra-conservative Christian dominionists seek control over the school curriculum and why they felt the need to establish their own universities.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

we have another post up: #4

 

[stevevw]

As Hitch once said:

Yeah but hitchens always tried to find something wrong that was his aim in life. It was a cynical view. If you look at what many religious charities do they are not out there in the market place but are in the back allies and gutters helping the needy get on their feet. They are visiting the lonely and tending to the sick behind the scenes. They have been doing this for years without much recognition. I believe its the secular society thats out there with their sunglasses on and their cool party style saying hey look at me this is where its at. I can give you what your looking for, trust me Ill show you the way, aren't I so great..

 

[BL2KTN]

The new post by CallMeDavid is so poorly formatted that I'm not reading it. Paragraphs, proper use of caps... these are minimums for having your opinion read.