300 Spartans had the way! Frank milller: Were all spoiled.

[Valkenar]

Its not a question IMO of NOT "questioning" religion--religion is one of the most heavily questioned and commented on and oft villified areas of culture.

Questioned and commented on, yes. Villified, no. When was the last time the president said Christians aren't citizens or patriots? There is viliffication of religion, but it's far less prominent and accepted.

Questioning logic as a system is like questioning intuition as a system, nobody does either because both are inherent components of human cognition. Logic is the basis of analytic thought, but no human mind (that I've ever heard of) is really up to the task of operating exclusively on rational lines. Intuition bridges gaps in knowledge and understanding. The mind is much more complicated than this crude reduction, but in a nutshell, every religious person uses logic and every secularist uses intuition on a daily basis.

Anyhow, in our culture, when it comes to decision-making, "Your evidence is lousy, go find something better" is said all the time, whereas "Your dogma is lousy, go find something better" is taboo. That is the sense in which religion is regarded as unquestionable. This is a problem if you care about outcomes.

This is a tanger, but I really think that the human mind is poorly adapted to the modern world. The very idea of rigorous evidence is extremely new in evolutionary terms, and people just aren't equipped to use comprehensively integrate it into decision making. Leaping to conclusions based on a few poignant experiences or anecdotes really comes much more naturally to most people. Even our ability to really understand data is weak. Just look at how abysmal people's ability to understand randomness

I find that seldom do wholly secular ideas and what are essentially secular "faiths" get the same amount of detailed critical focus as religions do.

Secular ideas like what? Evolution is a secular idea that gets a ton of criticism from the religious. What about standardized testing, that is a secular ideal. The thing is, the equivalent to a particular religion is a particular set of conclusions based on a particular set of data. Secularism tends to come in much smaller packages than religion.

But just see if anyone--even the most die-hard secularist is interested in an in-depth discussion of how THEIR world-view, ethical constuction, and viewpoints fail to withstand a serious questioning.

It seems to me that most people of any mindset feel threatened if their basic ideals are questioned. You'll find a minority of people on both side who are open to true debate. Religious scholars are true scholars, they have open minds and they think about their theology. I enjoy speaking with them. Similarly, some atheists are just dogmatic religion-haters, and talking to them is pointless because they don't have open minds. I think the question here isn't about secular vs spiritual, it's about having an open or closed mind when it comes to your heartfelt convictions, and that's something that is rare to find.

I have equal doubt that the secular aganda is any better---their track record for education is equally dismal--just in different areas.

In what areas is there a secular agenda that has shortchanged education?

And no, of course everything that's wrong with the world is not religion's fault. Everything that's wrong with the world is the fault of people. Religion is just one of the ways that people do the wrong thing at times. Religion is also a way that people do the right thing at times. I'm not trying to demonize religion, just pointing out some of its worst features (refusal to entertain criticism being one).

[cxt]

Val

So in order for something to be "vilified" the president has to do it???????
You have people taking shots at religion on this very site/forum every chance they get.

At many, many points, relgious people DID in point of fact essentially state that "your dogma is lousy, go find me something else."
Just ask Martin Luther, the entire Protestant Reformation ALONE was relgious people asking for "better dogma."

Part of the problem here is possibly the use of different ideas about what consists of "secular" and "religious."

In my view--which is always subject to correction of course

Secularism is just another term for "idea"--an idea that is tied to a particular belief system that has little directly to do with specific relgious thought (but oddly enough often follows the same general direction of thought)--but is easily capapble of being just as dogmatic and intolerent as the most fanactical of relgious zealots.

You mention standardized testing---working in a education I find folks that are "true belivers", "heretics" and even "sectarians" in the idea of standarized testing.
And each group has its own "priests" that interperate the "scripture" for the masses.

(I myself have deep level of distrust as to just how good the idea is or just how its results can be trusted.)

Like I said above, Lysenko was the perfect seculerist---and his science was still lousy.

IMO the dogma that the State is better equiped to raise ones children and provide them with better moral direction than ones parents comes to mind.

(of course some folks should not be allowed to even have kids, let alone be responsible for them---hey, if Paris Hiltons folks were not major rich---would not a reasonble person conclude that they have done her serious dis-service in bringing her up? )

I don't see religions as being unable to accept critism anymore--or ANY LESS than any other group.

On that specific score though, IMO, distinctions need to be made as to which religion one is talking about.

[jorvik]

Well you know on stuff like this folks are never ,ever that open minded
look at things like "profiling"
We may know that the majority of crime are committed by a certain "ethnic" minority but what "Secularist" would have the balls to treat them like a cancer and eradicate them ....in olden days folks were a lot more certain in what they did. In my country there are all sorts of rights given to homosexuals that they really shouldn't have..the right to adopt ...and it causes me real concern...you cannot even use old arguments of nature over nurture.......and as for scientific christians and Darwinism ( Darwin is overrated in my book) what about Mendel..what a strange type of Christian he must have been

[Valkenar]

Val
So in order for something to be "vilified" the president has to do it???????

Of course not, but don't you think that the president outright condemning something indicates a certain level of social acceptance? I mean, you'd never hear the president say the same thing about a racial group.

You have people taking shots at religion on this very site/forum every chance they get.

The internet is a funny half-private half-public thing. This forum is not the same a news piece played on ABC. Sure, individuals among friends criticize everything under the sun.

At many, many points, relgious people DID in point of fact essentially state that "your dogma is lousy, go find me something else."
Just ask Martin Luther, the entire Protestant Reformation ALONE was relgious people asking for "better dogma."

I'm not saying that religion is invariant through history. I'm saying that right now, in the US, when discussing public policy, it is taboo to suggest that someone's religious ideals are flawed. It happens on occasion, but it's definitely not widely accepted in the public arena.

Secularism is just another term for "idea"--an idea that is tied to a particular belief system that has little directly to do with specific relgious thought (but oddly enough often follows the same general direction of thought)--but is easily capapble of being just as dogmatic and intolerent as the most fanactical of relgious zealots.

Well, I think secular has a stronger meaning than that, in that implies not only non-religious but also non-spiritual. Even if you want to use secular to mean strictly non-religious, there is a distinction to be made between secular ideas (lines of thought not originating with religion), and secularism as an non-religious approach to life.

Anyhow, I absolutely agree that people can become zealots about virtually anything. Sports teams, are a fine example. Totally irrational, totally secular, and utterly ingrained in the sport's fanatic. Still, most of the ideas anyone has in a given day are secular and very few of them are held with such conviction.

I don't see religions as being unable to accept critism anymore--or ANY LESS than any other group.

Not fundamentally, perhaps, but on an individual level it seems more prevalent for religious persons to regard their beliefs as unassailable than for secular persons. This makes sense, in that religious belief is <i>by definition</i> a matter of faith, and therefore not subject to criticism analysis. In some ways, I think religion is an easy way out if you don't like having your beliefs questioned, because you can always just answer "It's faith, stupid" and that's the end of conversation. You can be a secular humanist who behaves similarly, but then you're just a bad secular humanist. It's like saying you're a Christian, but not really believing in Jesus.

[Valkenar]

In my country there are all sorts of rights given to homosexuals that they really shouldn't have..the right to adopt

I strongly disagree with you on this subject, but I think you should start another thread, as a civil rights discussion is a guaranteed derail.

[jorvik]

to be frank I think that there are a lot of potential threads here

[IJ]

CXT wrote:

The rest of your diatribe about economics and "advancing knowloge" is another skewed rant that does not logically follow----many men and women of science also had equally strong relgious convictions, so belief seems to be little hinderence to scientific progress. Newton and Einstein, if memory serves, professed belief in what is essentially "god." In contrast the utterly secular Lysenko was a VERY poor scientist.

And my concern (already stated) is that you can't say that a good scientist was religious, and a bad scientist wasn't so therefore lets throw up our hands and declare we can't decide whether taking faith as sufficient evidence for grand claims about nature is good for science. It doesn't follow--in part because its irrelevant if one atheist was a bad scientist (what does that prove?) and because Einstein at least was NOT a religious dude in the sense we are discussing. In fact its very difficult to find quality scientists with supernatural beliefs (discussed extensively in Dawkins, for which interested parties are referred). As for my diatribe, it was an analogy, and a decent one. Capitalism (and the scientific method) produce economic gains (or new knowledge) better than communism and religion, respectively. Religion doesn't seek out new knowledge. What you need is already written down in your book. And Jorvick is attempting to prove it doesn't completely stifle curiosity, which isn't much of a claim to fame, even if true (thru his comments on Mendle).

"At many, many points, relgious people DID in point of fact essentially state that "your dogma is lousy, go find me something else."
Just ask Martin Luther, the entire Protestant Reformation ALONE was relgious people asking for "better dogma." "

This is more a semantic quibble than a challenge of the underlying principle. Did martin luther ask anyone to prove that resurrection, miracle and divine creation or intervention are feasible or likely? No, he maintained the underlying principle, that some of the most important facts of life are "because."

"I don't see religions as being unable to accept critism anymore--or ANY LESS than any other group."

Except that science has evolved, whereas, for example, Catholic or Jewish doctrine really cannot change. It's written down. That's how it is. You can pick or choose what to focus on but you can't convince the Pope that Jesus probably wasn't resurrected. That isn't christianity changing so much as it is Christianity ending. On the other hand, scientists have changed their fundamental perspective on the nature of space, time, matter, and all of that good stuff, and the big prize goes to the guy or gal who can change it MORE in the most logical way. That's the difference. As Justin wrote: "This makes sense, in that religious belief is by definition a matter of faith, and therefore not subject to criticism analysis." It's there. You either see it or you don't (gosh, science and religion are basically interchangeable because lysenko was a bad scientist, etc), and there's little more to be said about it here.

As for Jorvick's concern about homosexuals adopting, I would LOVE to see a rational debate (eg, derived from evidence and principles, rather than Old Testament, which again, you have to take on faith alone) about the merits and risks of adoption rights for homosexuals. Maybe some well designed research into the matter will be cited? Maybe Jorvick will make an argument as to why this right shouldn't be acknowledged evenly, or explain why the burden of proof rests on the discriminatee (homosexuals) and not discriminators (those who would limit their rights). Perhaps this will help shake concerns stated here that secular ideas and secularists can't handle critique or debate?

[jorvik]

quote
"As for Jorvick's concern about homosexuals adopting, I would LOVE to see a rational debate (eg, derived from evidence and principles, rather than Old Testament, which again, you have to take on faith alone) about the merits and risks of adoption rights for homosexuals. Maybe some well designed research into the matter will be cited? Maybe Jorvick will make an argument as to why this right shouldn't be acknowledged evenly, or explain why the burden of proof rests on the discriminatee (homosexuals) and not discriminators (those who would limit their rights). Perhaps this will help shake concerns stated here that secular ideas and secularists can't handle critique or debate?"

absolutely

.but let us also look at the disadvantaged in our society and the advantaged.why should the disadvantaged be looked after by the advantaged.surely that is a religious concept ..."I am my brother's keeper" .let us be totally secular about this .if you don't work then you don't eat .........look at criminals, what is the racial mix, the social mix.if for example they are mainly black then the obvious choise is to get rid of all blacks.....I mean after 200 years if they haven't got their act together after "slavery" ( much of it done by blacks against blacks).then what place can they expect in modern western society....oh, and the same against Islam ...........silly religiuos practices like looking after your fellow man

[Bill Glasheen]

Perhaps this will help shake concerns stated here that secular ideas and secularists can't handle critique or debate?

No... Don't wrap your lifestyle in the argument du jour. In my mind it'll muck your point of view up even further.

Religion embraces and religion discriminates. Secularism embraces and secularism discriminates. The thing going for religion is that in general it tends to be with respect to ideas as opposed to people per se.

- Bill

[jorvik]

Quote
Religion embraces and religion discriminates. Secularism embraces and secularism discriminates

Yeah that about sums the whole thing up to me.you can't have it both ways
Well said Bill

[cxt]

IJ

But that is exactly the point--if a hard core secular guy can do really BADscience and any number of people of faith can do really GOOD science then faith/religion per-se is probably NOT the real driver--but rather an INDIVIDUAL matter.

Besides since for most of its history the USA was definatly Capatilist and most definatly Christian---there is NO reason to conclude that the 2 can't easily and quite effectively co-exsist.
At worst the USA overtly relgious history seems to have done it little provable harm over the years.
Your left playing "what if" games and speculating--while the facts tell a quite different story.

On the whole Martin Luthor thing.

1-That was, in context, a direct posit to SOMEONE else concerning something quite specifc to THAT conversation.
Your not only taking it out of that specific context your framing it in a manner it was most certainly NOT designed for.

Rhetorically "dirty pool" as it were.

2-Its not a "sematic quibble" its a direct answer to the ACTUAL question in that discussion--and a quite good one I might add.

Again, you need to look to the frameing of the questions your asking---who says that religions are supposed to gather "new" information?
In context that would seem to be sciences job

Religion, like its close cousin Philosophy answers quite different questions than science does--and its age or "nothing new" has NOTHING to do with its functionality on that score.
Hey the Socratic method is vastly old--you want to try and establish that its no longer effective because there is little "new" about it????
You want to bag on the value of learning Kant or reading Hobbs, or reading Shakespeare or because "nothing has changed" in each persons work??
Good luck!

Of COURSE religion is subject to critical analysis---your doing right now after all.

Its just your in effect foundational wrong in terms of RESULT.

Its like this--you can offer critism of a French text because it lacks instruction in German--and you'd be right, in-so-far- as most French texts don't.
Where your way wrong is that they are not supposed to do so.
In context, offering critisim of religion because it does not follow the rules of science is just as wacked--ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO EITHER.

I also seriously disgree that as a matter of fact "doctrine" can't change--in direct context with your "Christian and Jewish doctrine" example.
Has it utterly escape your notice that "Christian" doctrine ITSELF represents a rather dramtic change from traditonal/historical "Jewish" doctrine?????

[cxt]

Val

I think you would be really hard pressed to deal with ethics or much of anything else (outside of a hard science") that does NOT, in some fashion "originate" or follow some religion.

When a die-hard atheist and a really serious Christian come up with what are essentially the same "rules" for how to treat ones fellow man (and women of course ) it would seem to me ultimately matter little exactly where the ideas come from.

And on an indivdual level I would sadly agree, people do tend to react badly when people question their religion.

But my experience is what you already suggested, that pretty much EVERYONE reacts badly to having their belief structure violated.

Ironically for a VERY long time the "default" Christianity in Europe belived that Jesus was NOT a "god" in any sort, essentially they did not ascribe to Jesus being anything other than a mortal man.

There was a time when every other Bishopric in Europe was Arian Christian or vacant.

[Stryke]

When a die-hard atheist and a really serious Christian come up with what are essentially the same "rules" for how to treat ones fellow man (and women of course ) it would seem to me ultimately matter little exactly where the ideas come from.

best post on this thread .

folks need to get past the window dressing , and start living what they claim to beleive in . Be it science , ethics , morialty , religion , philosophy , or a lifetime subscription to the Mickey Mouse club .....

[AAAhmed46]

When a die-hard atheist and a really serious Christian come up with what are essentially the same "rules" for how to treat ones fellow man (and women of course ) it would seem to me ultimately matter little exactly where the ideas come from.

best post on this thread .

folks need to get past the window dressing , and start living what they claim to beleive in . Be it science , ethics , morialty , religion , philosophy , or a lifetime subscription to the Mickey Mouse club .....

agree.

[IJ]

There are a couple posts in a row that suggest that because secularism isn't perfect, and religion isn't totally hopeless, that they're basically interchangeable. How sad! Bill said both can discriminate; we might as well end our discussion I guess. Cxt elaborated a little:

"But that is exactly the point--if a hard core secular guy can do really BADscience and any number of people of faith can do really GOOD science then faith/religion per-se is probably NOT the real driver--but rather an INDIVIDUAL matter."

Yeah, your point is that a single test (secularism vs religion) isn't 100% precise for predicting the quality of someone's scientific work. But what test is??? Jesus, HIV tests have false positives and false negatives, and we still pay attention--they're pretty good (99.9%) but in certain circumstances most of the positives are actually false! Should we throw up our hands?? No. What about SAT scores? IQ tests? Judges perception of shodan candidates? They aren't perfect, so we might as well not make any attempts to distinguish better from inferior, from what's being written here.

"You want to bag on the value of learning Kant or reading Hobbs, or reading Shakespeare or because "nothing has changed" in each persons work??"

Wow. Um, the problem with your analogy is that it's not relevant. Religion involves (generally) a book of inarguable truths, for example, the resurrection of Jesus. Our understanding of that even can't be forwarded by religion because it refuses to budge on this issue. It can't be swayed. Any evidence that was produced to refute creation, for example dinosaur bones, can always be dismissed as created by God in week 1. No progress. Shakespeare on the other hand wrote literature (fiction). It's to be enjoyed and experienced and pondered over--it makes no indisputable claims. And shakespeare wouldn't be the comparator anyway--it would be the canon of literature. The Bible can't be added to, it's done; people are adding to english literature all the time. When english literature advances, there's no real fuss; if religion changes its mindset (what if the pope were to embrace evolution or agree Jesus wasn't reborn) it would be a concession that what was written was wrong, a partial conversion to secularism, not a religious advance.

"Religion, like its close cousin Philosophy answers quite different questions than science does--and its age or "nothing new" has NOTHING to do with its functionality on that score."

Right. Religion doesn't make any testable claims about the origin of the universe, the earth, man, the creation of species, the existance of miracles, the intervention of supernatural beings in daily events, and so on. Wait--OF COURSE IT DOES. Do you seriously propose that all factual claims of religion should just be given a pass because they answer different questions than science? C'mon, what does that even mean? Either we're descended from apes or we're not. That is an issue science addresses (better) and religion addresses (inflexibly from an ancient mindset). Only one is right. If you want to start dropping religious claims about the origin of species, that's fine--you're on your way to a scientific mindset, and congratulations. But let's not pretend that religion is in some kind of separate, evidence proof category.

"Has it utterly escape your notice that "Christian" doctrine ITSELF represents a rather dramtic change from traditonal/historical "Jewish" doctrine?????"

Nope, I noticed that. It wasn't however like people published a paper suggesting DNA encoded genes, and then everyone weighed relative merits and evidence and debated to find the best theory. They're competing, nearly evidenceless claims about the nature of the universe, of which you are to chose. You either build your claims about the molecular evidence you have, OR, you just insist that a complicated hierarchy of supernatural beings with specific likes and dislikes exists and deserves praise. You don't see the difference?

Jorvick wrote, rather disturbingly:

"But let us also look at the disadvantaged in our society and the advantaged.why should the disadvantaged be looked after by the advantaged.surely that is a religious concept ..."I am my brother's keeper" .let us be totally secular about this .if you don't work then you don't eat .........look at criminals, what is the racial mix, the social mix.if for example they are mainly black then the obvious choise is to get rid of all blacks.....I mean after 200 years if they haven't got their act together after "slavery" ( much of it done by blacks against blacks).then what place can they expect in modern western society....oh, and the same against Islam ...........silly religiuos practices like looking after your fellow man."

Here is a claim that morality is religious, period.... and apparently by extension, that people without religion, what, don't have morals? That, without religion, we wouldn't have thought of this stuff? Seriously?? That pure secularism is the same as brutal Darwinism (which, by the way, can explain why we take care of each other, whether our kids or others, so that's complete silliness even if we were lions or prarie moles and not men and women)? That secularism would just vote to exterminate a race because there is disproportionate crime just a few generations after slavery ended, or at any point, for that matter?

Did you write this post on crack?? Would you like to justify what you wrote with any kind of evidence that secular humanists, darwinists, those without religion, or scientists, are especially prone to heartless homicide and that religious people are holding back the genocide that they'd initiate? Or, that they're not, in fact, the people who are more often proponents of social aid programs in this country than are religious conservatives??