Secular Religion
I was discussing religion and related subjects with an acquaintance yesterday, and he said I have a lot of secular religious or quasi-religious beliefs. I was skeptical of this claim, and we wrangled a bit, but didn’t have time to wrangle thoroughly. So I’ll talk to myself on the subject here, and you can listen in.
The argument was that I (and most people – it’s a general point) hold certain beliefs in a quasi-religious way: moral beliefs for instance. I think murder is wrong, and I believe it’s true that murder is wrong, and that is a commitment without reasons, hence religious. But I dispute all of that. All of it. For one thing, I don’t really think it is factually true that murder is wrong; not in the sense of being true throughout the universe. I think it’s factually true in the sense that it’s factually true that it’s wrong for humans, and that (or because) humans generally consider it wrong, for good reasons; but that’s a limited, parochial, contingent sort of truth, so not like religious beliefs, which tend not to be limited to this earth and this species, but to take in everything. Then, the commitment isn’t without reasons; it’s not a logical truth, but it’s not based on nothing, either. There are good reasons for saying that murder is wrong that do not rely on any supernatural beliefs. Then, I don’t think all beliefs that are short of logically necessary are religious or quasi-religious – unless one defines religion in some special or tricksy way, and that is just what I won’t do. I refuse. I’ve refused before, many times, and I’m going to go on refusing.
The other example of one of my secular religious beliefs is that Shakespeare is better than Enid Blyton. I don’t buy it. I do believe that, yes, but I also know perfectly well that that idea is a purely human idea, that relies on all sorts of contingent products of the development of language and what words have resonance; it’s the very opposite of something inscribed in the nature of the universe. It has no meaning at all even to other species on this planet (unlike murder perhaps, which could at least be argued to mean something for some non-human species), let alone anyone anywhere else. So I fail to see what is religious about it. I can see calling it something else, including something pejorative, but not religious. Unless, again, religion is re-defined in a tricksy way.
If I understand the thought, it is that all beliefs (or commitments) that are not completely grounded are religious, or quasi-religious. But what is it that is religious about them? It seems to me rather that they share one feature with religion, the ungroundedness; but just ungroundedness is not enough to characterize or define religion. You need more than that. You need the supernatural, you need a deity. (Of course one can always say ‘No I don’t’ and define religion as ungrounded beliefs; but then it covers a huge amount of territory, and isn’t what most people mean by religion, so the discussion becomes idiosyncratic and somewhat confusing.) Many promoters of religion of course like to define religion as just a feeling of benevolence, or an attitude toward the universe, or a heightened sense of compassion, for the purpose of promoting religion, reverting to the much narrower theistic meaning when the coast is clear. But that’s a ploy to entice people to join the flock, and I refuse to go along with it, because if we do that we acquiesce in the bait and switch.
This is the distinction between onto-religion and expressive religion; I have no quarrel with expressive religion, but I do have a quarrel with the ontological kind, especially when it gets aggressive, as it so often does these days.
The matter interests and concerns me because I dislike credulity: on a very gut level, I dislike it (so there’s another quasi-religious belief, perhaps). That means I really don’t want to have mindless or uncritical or unthinking or unexamined or superstitious or taboo beliefs. But I don’t think I do – not in principle anyway, not that I would refuse to examine or think about if challenged. I no doubt have lots that I haven’t noticed, but not any that I’ve carefully placed inside a shrine.
Isn’t this apples and oranges? Whether Shakespeare is better than Blyton is an opinion. People can have different opinions. The problem with religions is that they make statements they claim are facts:
– God created everything in six days
– homosexuality is bad
– accept Jesus as your savior and you will have eternal life
– strap this bomb onto yourself and you will get 72 virgins.
Etc etc. These are factual statements that cannot be justified by any rational external evidence. (And in many cases are contradicted by the evidence.) I can say I don’t like Shakespeare and you might think I’m nuts but you would accept that that is what I think. If I say Jesus was not the son of God, a Christian would just think I am completely wrong.
Well, I think it is, yes. Onto-religions at any rate make truth-claims – statements they claim are facts, and those are what most people mean by religion. I don’t claim that it’s a fact that Shakespeare is better than Blyton; it’s a value judgment; but then are all value judgments religious? If they are surely the word becomes so baggy as to be useless. It just describes everything, and so nothing.
I’ll agree in an eye-blink that I’m absolutely crawling with value judgments; but I’m damned if I can see what makes them religious, or even quasi-religious.
Don’t forget about the gobs of money (er…donations), tax-evasion, amusement parks, faith schools and funny hats!
Oh, and on top of it all, you never gotta admit that you were wrong.
Faith schools…mmmm…I could teach everyone about the difference between Shakespeare and Enid Blyton. I really don’t think I can resist.
Perhaps I’m being simplistic here, but surely the factor that stops my personal convictions, beliefs or preferences being in any remote way religious is that I take full personal responsibility for them. No supernatural validation. I happen to dislike liver (as a food, I don’t have a problem with it as an internal organ. [Or maybe I do, otherwise why do I punish it?])but I don’t call on Nobodaddy for back-up to prove it is sinfull.
If I tell you that Emmylou Harris is vastly superior to Shania Twain, that’s me talking and if I fail to marshal my arguments adequately, that’s my failing. (I’d still be right, though.)
Isn’t the key point about religion that it can ultimately appeal to an unquestionable authority?
There I was, thinking it safe to return to the comment box – OB did seem very scary cross yesterday – and you post a very interesting piece, which could turn into a discussion on the internal logic of an atheists approach to morality – Moral Realism-(which I’ve agreed atheists can have without reference to religious belief) and then you have a post by someone accusing the really religious of, as usual, lying.
This is the same poster who accused a religious group of white people leading a congregatio n of brown people and asking for dirt on them. I’ve only ever heard racists talking of brown people before this post.
It’s easy to find out who the Potter’s House are. Just “google” the Potter’s House.
They do such terrible things as send medical missions to Africa, raise funds for the Asian Tsanami, aftermath of Katrina, and act as you’d expect Christians with an African-American background to act. I suppose another black mark must be that they are American and led by an African-American. I thought better of this site and its commenters till then.
Jeffrey,
I know you are a regular visitor to this site, so isn’t it a shade disingenuous of you to pretend not to know what we are all too polite to say regarding the source of your objection?
Well I’m not always too polite to say it. Sometimes I say it simply on the grounds that I don’t want the trouble of going into the (very slow and cumbersome) database to delete or edit his comments, which I’ve had to do several times. Surely that’s not a newsflash, JM.
And speaking of “the internal logic of an atheists approach to morality” – you keep urging me to do further posts on the subject, but you still haven’t answered the question I’ve asked you more than once: what is it that you take God to add to morality, given that you’ve said you use your own judgment to make moral judgments? You still haven’t addressed the problem.
Evaluations concerning murder or Shakespeare are not findings of fact. Neither are they acts of faith. Depending on how important the evaluation turns out to be to the one making it, it might take on a kind of universality – I, for one, see no possible situation in which murder (=unjustified killing with malice and premeditation) is tolerable. Now, the rub comes with the “unjustified” part, invoking some demand for an account of why the killing in question should not be done, and there we will see disagreements over the value of individual acts. Thus, the terrorist extremist is opposed to unjustified killing (murder) just as I am, however we differ on what counts as a justification. Once a demand for some account is given, we are in the territory of reason (practical, not fact finding reason) and not in that of faith. If the terrorist acts out of religous faith, there is an end to rational debate on the justification of the killing. I can give an account of why Shakespeare is a writer of genius superior to many other writers. It is not an act of faith, although it will be understood only by those sufficiently trained in their taste to follow the account.
Actually, I don’t know what you’re too polite to say. I know that most of the commenters are atheists who think that Christians are deluded fools who believe in a person which does not exist and whose consequential beliefs are dangerous. I put up with this because most of the posts are interesting/provocative and I learn things from the discussions and posts.
In the argument OB had with Norm over rights to lie in connection with David Irving, my sympathies were with OB. I don’t like lying and I don’t like random accusations of lying levelled at ‘really religious’ people. I also despise racism and racists. Posts which are redolent of racism make me angry.
Dear OB
I thought that I had responded to you in commenting on Plato and E. I am sorry that you do not think that to be the case. I take responsibility for my own moral judgements, but I find that consideration of the teaching in the Gospels, or Isaiah or throughout the Bible brings me up short and sets a higher bar for me, which I try to reach. That some atheists can do this without external reference is admirable. More admirable than Christians.
I’m sorry about the slashes and spelling mistakes but my typing is rather ‘hunt and peck’. If I’d known posters would be judged on stylistic grounds I would have put more grammatical effort in.
Finally, B&W is also a site run by philosophers. I rather hoped that therre would be a bit of philosophy in the posts.
Mr. Mushens,
You wrote, “…the commenters are atheists who think that Christians are deluded fools who believe in a person which does not exist and whose consequential beliefs are dangerous.”
I can only speak for myself, but your statement is fairly correct. In the course of any discussion, a religionist is always afforded one big get-out-of-discussion card – faith. You could have one invisible super-hero or ten, and the escape route is the same. “Batman did it.” “Batman works in mysterious ways.” “Batman and Aquaman command you to act thusly.”
That’s where the dangerous beliefs kick in. Go ahead and ramble off a list of good deed done in the name of ‘GOD’. Do a daily podcast. Elect one of your people President. It does not erase the many terrible things done in the name of the same diety. They are fruit from the same tree.
That’s the danger. I don’t need ancient mystical texts to support a Tsunami aid ogranization. However, it will take plenty of convincing that I should torture a 12 year old with a power drill before I kill him and leave him on the side of the road. People who have faith can take the shorter road to that.
Talk about incoherence. One commenter makes patronising and quasi racist comments about an organisation seeking dirt on it. I point to where details could be found and point out that this organisation actually does good things. Good deeds are good regardless of who did them. Another then turns this round dismisses the good deeds and instead links it with Islamist death squads. I’m a Christian not an Islamist. I think atheists could take a long look at their own immorality. An article in G2 in todays Guardian (link not provided) had a long angsty piece where proclaimed atheists lied about their beliefs to get their children into Church aided schools (they wanted nice middle class schools but were not prepared to pay for private education)and then moaned about how unfair it was to have to compromise their beliefs. All too typical of the self satisfied smug middle class professional atheists. I bet they’re cultural relativists as well.
Dear Don
You’re quite right. I feel a bit sheepish for having got angry. The comments made were deliberately offensive, which is OK, because that’s a free speech right, but also wrong , which makes the commenters, not the site. a couple of twits.
Best wishes
Jeffrey,
That’s very decent of you.
Of course, as an atheist, I feel no need to reciprocate.
( I should do one of those smiley things there, but they make me ill.)
Cough, cough
I’ve been out all afternoon, and look at all this. The trouble is, JM misread the cryptic comments Don and I made about a certain frequent commenter here who has a habit of making wild statements some of which are actually libelous and could get me sued if they were left, and others of which are just too damn unpleasant and bordering-on-racist, and who consequently gets his comments deleted a lot. Those comments were not about JM! None of whose comments have ever been deleted.
Now. To answer a couple of things.
“but I find that consideration of the teaching in the Gospels, or Isaiah or throughout the Bible brings me up short and sets a higher bar for me, which I try to reach.”
Ah – I see. That, I have no trouble understanding. As you know I take issue with some of the teaching in the Gospels, but that’s a detail. Other than that I take your meaning entirely. I think there are other writings that can do the same thing, and that the morality in question is not inherently theistic, but as for its inspirational quality, I quite agree.
Posters are not judged on stylistic grounds! But that was part of the misunderstanding, so I trust you realize that now.
“Finally, B&W is also a site run by philosophers. I rather hoped that therre would be a bit of philosophy in the posts.”
It’s not, actually. I run B&W and I’m not a philosopher. JS is the webmaster, and he’s not a philosopher either. JS is a sociologist and I’m just a hack. Anyway, the important point is, I’m obviously (I hope it’s obvious) not responsible for what people say in comments, except in the sense that if it’s too bad then I delete it, but even that I can’t be responsible for when I’m not online.
Ophelia:
I obviously didn’t explain my point well enough. I am saying that value judgments are not per se religious statements. Religious statements are statements that are said by authority to be fact, while providing no evidence. Surely that is the definition of a religious statement?
Value judgments such as “don’t kill people” are evolutionary traits – evolved values that helped their owners to fit in with the tribe, and therefore helped them to propagate their genes. These are evolved human traits that were later appropriated by religions. They are not inherently religious traits. The person you were debating with had it back to front – when religious people have beliefs such as “murder is wrong”, they have a secular or quasi-secular belief.
“Brown people” sounds a bit crude. I prefer “darkly pigmented.”
Skeptico said:
These are evolved human traits that were later appropriated by religions. They are not inherently religious traits. The person you were debating with had it back to front – when religious people have beliefs such as “murder is wrong”, they have a secular or quasi-secular belief.
This is a profound point that deserves a lot of thought.
Thanks, Skeptico!
I think a lot more exposure to evolutionary studies is needed. That gives us insight into the origin of things like violence, rigidly defined sex roles and religion, which can lead into insights about how why are not pleased to have any of these things today.
And that can lead to insights about how to live with those things, how to make use of them and how to change them.
Skeptico, no, you explained your point well enough! I was arguing with the original suggestion, not with your comment.
The more I think about the original suggestion, the less I agree with it – but that could be because I don’t understand what it in fact is. Further discussion would be needed for that. To be continued (or not).
“Secular humanists suspect there is something more gloriously human about resisting the religious impulse; about accepting the cold truth, even if that truth is only that the universe is as indifferent to us as we are to it.” Tom Flynn
Good one.
Now…the same acquaintance said to me the other day that he thinks there is something poetic and profound about the human longing for god (he’s an atheist himself), and he wouldn’t want to see it disappear. I have no problem with that (depending on how god is defined though – if it refers to a Big Powerful Thug who will make everyone do what I think is right – then no), I even agree with it (see parenthesis). But that’s longing for, not assertion of the existence of. I can certainly understand the longing for something or someone higher, better, wiser, kinder than humans (though, again, there are obvious dangers – we consider ourselves higher, better, wiser, kinder than chimps, say, but that doesn’t translate to treating chimps well, so perhaps neither would such a god treat us well); I can also understand longing for an instantiation of the idea of complete goodness.
But I also prefer the resistance to the religious impulse.