[SeaGypsy]

I doubt it is really possible to argue something so new as secularism is responsible for something well underway well before it's emergence. Environmental travesty was common across medieval Europe, which was anything but secular.
Perhaps it can be argued secularism & Anglicized business standards have contributed greatly to speeding along the process, formalizing a method of bypassing religious & cultural difference.

[onlooker]

I would have to agree with Ibon, Secularism and Scientific Pragmatism opened the door for the Industrial Revolution and the commodification of the entire planet and natural world. It is doubtful that mankind maintaining a religious mind frame would have embarked on such a prolific assault upon the Earth for Religious man saw the world as God's creation and thus an assault upon creation is akin to an assault upon God. Now relative to statements made before here, since religion is ultimately about faith, one can argue that religious peoples may have shifted their faith in such a way as to allow in good conscience the pillaging of the Earth. I guess that question cannot be answered in so much as the period of Enlightenment preceded the Industrial Revolution and so mankind was already secularized to some degree by the time of the onset of the Industrial age.

[Ibon]

Now relative to statements made before here, since religion is ultimately about faith, one can argue that religious peoples may have shifted their faith in such a way as to allow in good conscience the pillaging of the Earth.

On other threads we have dug deep into the failures of religions to address human overshoot largely because the origins of all modern religions happened when our biosphere, still healthy, was invisible as a moral or ethical concern.

Religious man has failed as bad as secular man. Humans after all where god's chosen children.

So a good starting point here on this discussion is to recognize that in reference to stewardship of our planet neither the secular nor the devout can caste the first stone.

[ralfy]

The world population is likely dominated by secularism, i.e., belief in secular religions such as capitalism coupled with the desire to avail of middle class conveniences. In the same manner, major conflicts are likely driven ultimately by realpolitik.

[SeaGypsy]

I think it's much more primitive Ralphy, it's about totemism & sex. Secularism arising with mercantilism to avail bourgeois aspirations on a global scale.

[Pops]

I would say that secular thought wins the genocide prize If by genocide we are referring to the whole scale obliteration of natural ecosystems in order to expand human landscapes.

Actually I'm pretty sure we were talking about why the godless media won't name the god of the terrorists. Well the islamic terrorists anyway.

[Pops]

Seculars are as inclined to believe in their superiority to the extent of forming genocidal intent to the same extent religious mutters are.

.
Turns out that most religions are based on the idea that it is not acts that count but faith, "whosoever believeth in me..." etc. Jesus died for your sins, Allah forgives all sins, yadda yadda.

Kinda hard to say non-religious people have no moral authority to look to except themselves, when a major selling point of religion is to provide "forgiveness" from the invisible beyond...

I have to live with my sins.

Point is, all of us to one extent or another are social beings. Socialization is the basis of morality so except for a few sociopaths, most of us know right from wrong. How we justify our actions is the point. If your justification is from the invisible beyond it really doesn't matter the name, you have carte blanche to act in any way your invisible god deems righteous.

I have no doubt the shooter at the CO clinic had the blessing of the voices in his head just as the shooters in San Bernadino had in theirs, and all the christian militia groups and KKKers and whatever all had theirs too. To lay terrorist crime off on which god flavor the terrorist of the moment prefers not only excuses the crime but perpetuates it.

[Tanada]

I would say that secular thought wins the genocide prize If by genocide we are referring to the whole scale obliteration of natural ecosystems in order to expand human landscapes.

Actually I'm pretty sure we were talking about why the godless media won't name the god of the terrorists. Well the islamic terrorists anyway.

Actually I just used that as an example of the divide between devout and secular thinking in an attempt to start the conversation and see where it went. So far the back and forth between you and Seagypsy has been an excellent example of the conversation I was hoping for.

[Ibon]

I would say that secular thought wins the genocide prize If by genocide we are referring to the whole scale obliteration of natural ecosystems in order to expand human landscapes.

Actually I'm pretty sure we were talking about why the godless media won't name the god of the terrorists. Well the islamic terrorists anyway.

I recognize that and my inputs were just a reminder of a greater genocide that is often ignored but constantly unfolding exponentially worse than what humans are doing to each other. This merits reminding so I throw it in the dialogue, hopefully not excessively.

[Newfie]

Ug, what a thread.

First I think you need to think more about what defines a "religion." In the very pragmatic sense here in the USA it is the IRS. Beyond that bit of trivia it is more about assigning power to some "other" whomever/whatever that may be. Here is the defining question..."does it provide you with a guide by which to live your life, conduct your affairs?" If the answer is yes then it has the potential to become a religious tenant for some group of folks.

In those terms I would cast capitalism -Smiths "Invisible Hand" as a religion.
One could make a similar comment about democracy or communism. Most people don't elevate democracy to a religion, but a few do. That can cross over into "nationalism", just look at the Marine Corps recruiting adds to see the similarities.

My Wife is a psychoanalyst, I find that in her profession, or in counsellors in general, there is a certain tendency towards religiosity, their way has special healing powers that only the chosen can grasp. Thank God she is not of that ilk, others are.

So the belief in "other" can be some kind of God or it can be in some idea "invisible hand" or the power of the group and its shared tenants, as in the Marines, or in some special sauce. The defining feature is the belief in something that defines how you are to live, typically accompanied by some doom if you don't.

I saw this in the Ethical Culture movement where most folks were either agnostic or more likely outright atheist. They still profess a belief system, in this case in humanities ability to do good and fix the world.

I think it true that atheists, because they lack a God, may realize that they are ultimately responsible for their own actions. There is no one else to blame things on other than humans. In a sense they become their own God having no one else to do the job. Taking that burden is humbling and in my experience atheists are pretty humble folks, they may appear else wise, but that's because they feel believes are in denial about responsibility and are slacking. Being an atheist is a pretty lonely way to live. Those who like ceremony and ritual have few outlets. Ethical Culture tries to fill that gap, but doesn't quite get it.

I am a long time open atheist and member of Ethical Culture but I also have some very old and deep friendships with believers of the "born again" variety. Some of us were alcoholics in our youth. Some of them found redemption in religion. I, for whatever reason, have always been able to not need that crutch and I never became a true alchoholic. Booze never got that hold over me, although we drank beer for beer for years.

I have a good friend who was a seminarian who now is an atheist. I think that is not uncommon. For many religion looses its allure once you've looked into it sufficiently. I also have a cousin who is a cistercian abbot, after retiring from the priesthood. I find talking with him very easy and I believe we agree on far more than where we disagree.

[Pops]

The IRS?
LOL, I like it!

You have more experience with organized un-religious congregation than me newf. But my point is not whether or not all people have beliefs but simply that beliefs based on the supernatural are not accountable, testable, or subject to reality checks.

Capitalism can be challenged on its merits in the real world, ditto democracy, the IRS, the pledge of allegiance, snorting coke, paying hookers or most any social, ethical or moral situation.

Not so invisible beings, events, places, history, etc. Start quoting whatever supernatural -ology and you can automatically can feel shielded from argument because after all it is religion. Call it the Westboro defense.

Again, onlooker's assertion is the perfect, simplistic sunday school example of the easy demonisation that is the worst result of religion. "Atheists are narcissistic assholes because they have no guide for their actions." (maybe teen sunday school)

Let me reply as the asshole that deserves, if some need to consult a bible to decide whether or not to jump the neighbor's wife, I guess religion is a good thing.

We each make our own moral judgements. I think lots of people pay lip service to studying the bible, asking god for direction and what have you. But then upon weighing the threat of damnation against the promise of the biblical knowledge of thine neighbor (and believing that faith overcomes all transgressions) the believer goes right ahead. Then, depending on belief, says a prayer, tosses a few extra bucks into the plate, goes to confession, etc. and Voilá! Forgiveness.

Atheists really have no out. Whether or not I jump the neighbor or not I'm stuck with my decision, it is on me. I'm not saved, not forgiven, there is no grace. This is it, this is my shot at consciousness, if I gum it up with a bunch of regrets there is no do over. After a few go 'rounds feeling bad about myself stealing from the cookie jar and what all, it comes to dawn. It is an epiphany all right, but there are no voices, no choir in the bathroom.

I'm not anti-religion as in all believers are evil. More that religion allows people to assume they have the inside track because you-know-who is on their side and everyone else is a narcissistic asshole. I grew up in a tiny, old-timey church who to my young eye were a very loving bunch of folks. But that little church family was not caring and loving because of their ability to quickly reference what God thought about this or that situation. They were good people who congregated.

[Newfie]

Pops,

I agree with most of what you say. I wasn't responding to you or challenging you. I guess I was talking to myself, out loud.

Might as well as so few read my posts.

Joking aside, I find that when I write about somethings I think differently than when I just talk or think about it. So this place helps me work out my ideas and beliefs.

[Newfie]

I would say that secular thought wins the genocide prize If by genocide we are referring to the whole scale obliteration of natural ecosystems in order to expand human landscapes.

Actually I'm pretty sure we were talking about why the godless media won't name the god of the terrorists. Well the islamic terrorists anyway.

Actually I just used that as an example of the divide between devout and secular thinking in an attempt to start the conversation and see where it went. So far the back and forth between you and Seagypsy has been an excellent example of the conversation I was hoping for.

Ibon, by my accounting capitalism and consumerisim count as religion. They both offer up ways you should act based upon some belief system not of of your own internal compas.

Tanda/Pops, there is no need to resort to secular/devout differences as explanation. Biology will do. We are acting like eusocial insects and primitive tribesmen. We are acting as we always do. When there is a groups we dislike, wo whom we compete, we find some means to distinguish ourselves from them so as to justify killing them. We give them some pseudonym like kike, jap, Hun, took. IS, ISIL, "Head chopper" just doesn't have the same ring, it doesn't roll off the tongue. "Muslim" or "Islamic" work better.

This is just humans doing what humans do. Our termite hill is competing with their termite hill for space. Get used to it, it's the wave of the future.

[kosoman]

In terms of the secular world-view opening the door to the global holocaust currently happening in the natural world thanks to a completely materialistic mindset abetted by the industrial and technological revolutions.

I think this could have only happened within a Christian context, (hence it began in Europe with the renaissance). The Idea that God became man and actually entered history gave history a whole new meaning. The idea of progress was introduced, which the secularised European kept but without the religious baggage. The idea of progress was a deeply held one (especially in the 18th and 19th century) and it still is but two world wars, nukes, environmental destruction has made western man a bit less confident in this rather peculiar idea.

The biggest tragedy was that the islamic/chinese/hindu civilizations, after having opposed european civilization for centuries eventually succumbed (to beat the enemy, become like the enemy) and ironically it is they with their massive populations that will be the final death nail of the world as they try to emulate the West.

[kosoman]

One last thought. It seems to me that the only civilization that can still muster any sort of opposition, however confused and random, is the Islamic civilization. The Chinese have completely lapped up the hypnotic temptations of western lifestyle, as have the Indians.

To me, radical Islam, which is really a modern phenomenon, is the flailing swinging of the arms of a civilization trying to push back on what it sees as an alien encroachment of a dying traditional world view.

[Newfie]

I've wondered along similar lines. I think capitalism would have evolved elsewhere also, but we will never know. Road not traveled....

[ralfy]

Secularism in the form of capitalism can only be maintained if trends for resources and pollution are reversed:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

[Pops]

[Pops]

The Cistercians, who eschewed the aristocratic and sedentary ways of the Benedictines and, consequently, broke farther away from feudalism, became famous as entrepreneurs. They mastered rational cost accounting, plowed all profits back into new ventures, and moved capital around from one venue to another, cutting losses where necessary, and pursuing new opportunities when feasible. They dominated iron production in central France and wool production (for export) in England. They were cheerful and energetic. “They had,” Collins writes, “the Protestant ethic without Protestantism.”

Being few in number, the Cistercians needed labor-saving devices. They were a great spur to technological development. Their monasteries “were the most economically effective units that had ever existed in Europe, and perhaps in the world, before that time,” Gimpel writes.

Thus, the high medieval church provided the conditions for F. A. Hayek’s famous “spontaneous order” of the market to emerge. This cannot happen in lawless and chaotic times; in order to function, capitalism requires rules that allow for predictable economic activity.

http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liber ... capitalism

[Newfie]

Pops wrot

You have more experience with organized un-religious congregation than me newf. But my point is not whether or not all people have beliefs but simply that beliefs based on the supernatural are not accountable, testable, or subject to reality checks.

Ethical Humanisim IS a religion. The belief system is that humans, not some Supreme Being has responsibility for defining how we should act. Religion does not require a Supreme Being, just a code of conduct set down by others.

I quite agree that "

beliefs based on the supernatural are not accountable, testable, or subject to reality checks."

I'm just saying that the "silent hand" of capitalism falls into that category of "supernatural."

Ethical Humanisim tries to rise above this but, in my experience, too often fails. They profess "faith" in humanities ability to do good, to work it out. They are good hearted people who want the best for everyone. Unfortunately the world we live in is cruel and heartless. They can't come to grips with hard side of life.