1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Can secularism be oppressive to any religious believer?

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by F1fan, Aug 24, 2021.

  1. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Dec 27, 2014
    Not sure why the scientific method is 'secular' unless in the sense that chimneys are secular or cornflakes are.

    The 'scientific method' also didn't 'dismiss unevidenced mythology'. One of the primary reasons experimental methods became popular was due to a link to theology.h ey were widely mocked as useless at first, even the novel Gulliver's Travels contains a world that is mocking people who are caught up in useless scientific speculation.

    Lining the fruits of the industrial and scientific revolutions to 'secularism' is very dubious as they very much emerged in a Christian context.

    These don't give you meaning and purpose, which is why we have to invent meaning and purpose. A godless mythos is still a mythos.

    Secular Humanists basically just adopted a godless form of cultural liberal Protestantism. Just keeping the values while rejecting the supernatural bits hardly makes 'true' rather than being just another myth. Liberal Protestantism turned into the Providential Deism of peole like Jefferson then people just replaced the Providential Deist god with a secular Idea of Progress (that basically casts Science and Reason as Divine Providence via meliorism).

    "Science and reason" lead to as many illiberal ideologies as they have liberal ones which is not surprising as where they take you depends on your values.

    The key Enlightenment value was Progress, and simply since The Enlightenment 'Progress' has probably been responsible for more deaths that all religions combined in human history: from The French Revolution to Peter the Great to Communism to the Iraq War and Afghanistan (although it is fair to note that the Enlightenment idea of progress was not exclusive to secular thinkers).
  2. danieldemol

    danieldemol Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Apr 24, 2011
    Spiritual but not religious
    So if I told you a naturalistic model of a puddle's origin is inevitable would you take it to mean puddles invented themselves?
    Or if I told you a naturalistic model of the sun's origin is inevitable would you take it to mean the sun invented itself?

    If no then why would you take, "a naturalistic model of life's origins is inevitable" to mean life invented itself?

    In my opinion.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Apr 23, 2021
    No, it was pretty new. Philosophers started thinking outside the "divine box" and seeing human being as autonomous and with certain freedoms from religion and its authority. Human rights came out of this.

    I do consider divine right as a form of theocracy because it assumes its authority from a God. Let's note that many people did not fair well under these leaderships.

    Right, religion offers no advantage as a basis for governing.

    Yet they used it nonetheless. Perhaps it was a way for the cruel to dupe themselves so they felt less guilt about killing a bunch of villagers. When God is on your side you have less reason to rethink your acts.

    However humanism evolved to be a basis for human rights and dignity what better alternative is there?

    There might be a decent dictator out there.

    Humans evolved this way because those who formed groups/tribes and cooperated with each member survived over those who tried to do their own thing. The human brain evolved to conform for the group norms for the sake of survival and for belonging, and even meaning eventually. So this is biological, and the person has little choice in how these impulses project onto consciousness.
  4. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Dec 27, 2014
    Human rights evolved over centuries, specifically via Medieval Canon .

    Freedoms from religion were also not some magical new creation, but have long roots in Christian thought. See for example: Defensor pacis - Wikipedia

    The tract Defensor pacis (The Defender of Peace) laid the foundations of modern doctrines of popular sovereignty. It was written by Marsilius of Padua (Italian: Marsilio da Padova), an Italian medieval scholar. It appeared in 1324 and provoked a storm of controversy that lasted through the century. The context of the work lies in the political struggle between Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor and Pope John XXII. The treatise is vehemently anticlerical. Marsilius' work was censured by Pope Benedict XII and Pope Clement VI.

    Defensor pacis extends the tradition of Dante's De Monarchia separating the secular State from religious authority. It affirmed the sovereignty of the people and civil law and sought to greatly limit the power of the Papacy, which he viewed as the "cause of the trouble which prevails among men" and which he characterized as a "fictitious" power. He proposed the seizure of church property by civil authority and the elimination of tithes. In his view, the Papacy would retain only an honorary pre-eminence without any authority to interpret the scriptures or define dogma.

    As its name implies, it describes the State as the defender of the public peace, which is the most indispensable benefit of human society. The author of the law expresses will of the people, not of the whole populace, but of the most important part (valentior) of the citizens; these people should themselves elect, or at least appoint, the head of the government, who, lest he should be tempted to put himself above the scope of the laws, should have at his disposal only a limited armed force. This chief is responsible to the people for his breaches of the law, and in serious cases they can sentence him to death. The real cause of the trouble which prevails among men is the Papacy, the development of which is the result of a series of usurpations.[1]

    Marsilius of Padua - Wikipedia

    In Defensor pacis, Marsilius sought to demonstrate, by arguments from reason (in Dictio I of the text) and by argument from authority (in Dictio II) the independence of the Holy Roman Empire from the Papacy and the emptiness of the prerogatives alleged to have been usurped by the Roman pontiffs. A number of Marsilius's views were declared to be heretical by Pope John XXII in 1327.[4]

    Most of Defensor pacis is devoted to theology. Relying heavily on Scripture, Marsilius seeks to show that Jesus did not claim to possess any temporal power and that he did not intend his church to exercise any.[5] On the contrary, Scripture teaches that the church should be thoroughly subordinate to the state in both secular and spiritual matters. All authority in the church lies with the whole body of the faithful, the secular ruler who acts as the people's representative, and general councils called by the secular ruler.[6] Some of Marsilius's arguments on these themes had a marked influence during the Reformation.[7]

    A justification of authority that specifically splits church and state power is 'theocracy'?

    Let's note many people didn't fare well under secular regimes either.

    Most of the values you hold dear developed in a religious context, so to say it offers 'no advantages' seems a bit myopic.

    Any basis for power has advantages and disadvantages.

    And Marxists used their materialistic worldview to justify mass murder as the sanctity of human life was a religious myth.

    'Human rights' were one justification for wars in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan too. Just about any ideology can be used to justify whatever you want.

    Religion is no better or worse in this regard. The problem is humans.

    See, ideologies grounded in silly myths can be good after all ;)

    Yes, and humans evolved to understand the world via subjective narratives/ideologies/myths/fictions. We should embrace this rather than pretending 'our group' sees the world as it is and everyone else believes in childish nonsense.
  5. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Nov 15, 2016
    Life did not invent itself.

    Life occurred - no inventing, no inventor.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Nov 25, 2004
    Vedanta (reform)
    It's hard to imagine how a thing that does not exist can invent anything, much less itself. :rolleyes:
  7. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    May 5, 2007
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    The precursors of life, physical energy and atoms, existed before life was able to invent itself. Now, why time, space and energy exist, is a question for future.

    "1 THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
    What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
    2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
    That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
    3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
    All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
    4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
    Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
    5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
    There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
    6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
    The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
    7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
    Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."
    Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.