Does Secularism need a Doctrine?

eddyc

Is there a need right now for an alternative doctrine to religion.

Does secularism need a manifesto, a reason for living a life that respects others , a reason for morality etc..

I only say this because the reason many people turn to religion in the first place is because is it gives them a sense of purpose in life, a reference for morality and a code of ethics that they can consult to make them feel useful, kind moral and such.

Religious ideals are very strong in society at large today and I feel that many people think that atheism is a kind of abandoning so called good moral principles. A turning away from morality to individualist and selfish ideals.

I don't believe this is true and morality is inherent to all people religious or not.

I take the view that religion does more damage than it does good so if one were to de-convert people from whatever religion would it make a stronger argument if one was to give people something that they could replace their religious morality with a morality that was secular based.

Or is this a bad way to go about things

I can see that replacing one doctrine with another could be a bad idea. Replacing one dogma with another even.

But religion does seem to see itself as having a monopoly on morality. Should there be an offensive on the secular side to say that morals are inherent human principles and not some divinely received law statute.

Zillah

1: But why must I not do X?
2: BECAUSE GOD SAID SO AND YOU WILL BURN IN ETERNAL FIRE OTHERWISE.

1: But why must I not do X?
2: Because I personally feel, subjectively, that it'd be a bad thing to do.



Doesn't have quite the same "appeal".

Black Swan

A philosophy for our "Brave New World" does not exist already, pray prey tell?

Tar.Aldarion

If you want to try being secular with a code you could be buddhist or go to those humanist churches. No need for anything like that. You'll not indoctrinate me into your secular religion!

limerick_woody

Surely the best thing to hope for is for people to have an honest, critical think about religion. For me, it's basically a bunch of old men in daft clothes and funny hats encouraging people to chant in unison. Surely if anyone opened the bible and actually looked critically at the contents, it would be exposed as the joke that it is. Millions of secular people manage to live their lives just as ethically as the religious and dont need a pat on the back from an imaginary friend. I'm not sure a secular manifesto would do any good, and we all have one built-in anyway, we all know what good ethics are, i'm not sure having them written down would benefit anyone.

For me, the only thing keeping people religious is our lazyness and a lack of critical-thinking skills. It's easier to believe in the some great purpose to everything. It's comforting to believe in the afterlife and the eventual reunion with long-dead loved ones. As secularists we have managed to move-beyond this but i'm not sure we can offer anything comforting to the recently bereaved with a religious pursuasion. It won't do anygood if we have a manifesto that effectivly tells people that when they die, they are dead and not, in fact, enjoying each-others company for eternity. The alternatives to religion are stark. No eternal torture for people who don't believe what they do, no reunion with loved ones and nothing to (not) answer prayers.

Dades

As limerick_woody suggests, there's more to giving up religion than moral guidance. Secularism just doesn't have the comfort factor that religion was designed to offer.

eddyc

I agree that secularism does not have as much of a comforting message as some religions do on the surface.

There are however ways to look on life that do not involve magic and irrational beliefs that can bring people together and make society as a whole better.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread Buddhism does seem to offer a path in life that can feed a spiritual yearning and generally improve peoples outlook without the need to believe in nonsense. This would be the western interpretation of Buddhism, not the stuff thats practiced in the east as some of that is pretty weird.

Is there a way that secularism can be communicated to the religious in a positive way , instead of the negative , your basically wrong and you have been living a lie kind of way.

Do people have to come to disbelief on their own?

Is there anything that can or should be done about the growth of fundamentalism in the world?

Galvasean

eddyc wrote: »

Is there anything that can or should be done about the growth of fundamentalism in the world?

We CAN kill them all. I'm not sure if we should...

eddyc

Galvasean wrote: »

We CAN kill them all. I'm not sure if we should...

I'm sorry, did that come across as hostile?, that was not my intention. I am just interested in exploring what other people think on the matter.

Dades

I don't think Galvasean was being literal.

Schuhart

eddyc wrote: »

Does secularism need a manifesto, a reason for living a life that respects others , a reason for morality etc..

I only say this because the reason many people turn to religion in the first place is because is it gives them a sense of purpose in life, a reference for morality and a code of ethics that they can consult to make them feel useful, kind moral and such.

I'd have similar concerns on this front. I think what attracts people to religion is, indeed, the kind of things that you mention. I think what keeps them there is the inability of secularism (if we can avoid for a moment exactly what we mean by secularism) to address those concerns at the individual level as well as religion. For what its worth, I tend to focus on this concern in my personal study and all I can say is (in my opinion) it ain't easy. But I'd agree we should and must persist.

If you are interested, I find Sam Harris to be a writer who reflects similar concerns.

eddyc wrote: »

But religion does seem to see itself as having a monopoly on morality. Should there be an offensive on the secular side to say that morals are inherent human principles and not some divinely received law statute.

I'm actually not sure that morals are inherent human principles. Without religion, I'm not sure there is any objective basis for morality. I'm open to contradiction on this point, but I've found no sound alternative basis for an objective morality.

On the other hand, if you say God put morality into creation at the start, well there's your objective basis.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

I don't think Galvasean was being literal.

It is an option...

edit: albeit not an ethical one.

sock puppet

Schuhart wrote: »

I'd have similar concerns on this front. I think what attracts people to religion is, indeed, the kind of things that you mention. I think what keeps them there is the inability of secularism (if we can avoid for a moment exactly what we mean by secularism) to address those concerns at the individual level as well as religion. For what its worth, I tend to focus on this concern in my personal study and all I can say is (in my opinion) it ain't easy. But I'd agree we should and must persist.

If you are interested, I find Sam Harris to be a writer who reflects similar concerns.I'm actually not sure that morals are inherent human principles. Without religion, I'm not sure there is any objective basis for morality. I'm open to contradiction on this point, but I've found no sound alternative basis for an objective morality.

On the other hand, if you say God put morality into creation at the start, well there's your objective basis.

There doesn't have to be an objective basis for morality. If we were solitary creatures then we wouldn't need morals. But we live in a society and in order to ensure the survival and advancement (this is key as we could survive on our own) of the human race we need rules. A person can choose to live as a functioning member of society and adopt the same morals as everyone else or else live as an outcast. Since we're social creatures not many people would want to be part of the latter group.

I personally don't believe murder or any other crime is inherently wrong but to allow them go unpunished would lead to a total breakdown of order. So I would describe myself as a moral person. I believe certain actions contribute to the advancement of the human race and others contribute towards its decline. I think it's silly to say if actions are right or wrong because morality only exists as defined by us.

Schuhart

sock puppet wrote: »

I personally don't believe murder or any other crime is inherently wrong but to allow them go unpunished would lead to a total breakdown of order. So I would describe myself as a moral person. I believe certain actions contribute to the advancement of the human race and others contribute towards its decline. I think it's silly to say if actions are right or wrong because morality only exists as defined by us.

I substantially agree with you, and the problem really just relates to me not clearly saying what I mean by 'morality' in this context.

We can derive pragmatic rules from our collective self interest. However, that is different to the theist view of morality, where (to put it simply) good is something real that is created by God and put into the mix while he's making the Universe. Atheism, to my mind, means we are abandoning any notion of a 'greater good' in the sense of a divinely related purpose. What is right is, as you say, what we collectively determine to be useful for us - no more and no less.

Hence, I think we have to give an unambiguous answer to theist questions. Atheism means no morality, other than what we would arrive at through considering our self interest. Atheism means no purpose to our life, other than what we decide it to be. That means there is no inherent reason why a society could not decide that its collective self interest was to enslave others, and that the only purpose in life was to achieve material satisfaction regardless of the impact on anyone else.

That's not to say that this is how we behave - clearly we don't. But I think we have to admit to theists that the only reason that atheists behave in a moral manner is because that's what suits us.

eddyc

Schuhart wrote: »

I substantially agree with you, and the problem really just relates to me not clearly saying what I mean by 'morality' in this context.

We can derive pragmatic rules from our collective self interest. However, that is different to the theist view of morality, where (to put it simply) good is something real that is created by God and put into the mix while he's making the Universe. Atheism, to my mind, means we are abandoning any notion of a 'greater good' in the sense of a divinely related purpose. What is right is, as you say, what we collectively determine to be useful for us - no more and no less.

Hence, I think we have to give an unambiguous answer to theist questions. Atheism means no morality, other than what we would arrive at through considering our self interest. Atheism means no purpose to our life, other than what we decide it to be. That means there is no inherent reason why a society could not decide that its collective self interest was to enslave others, and that the only purpose in life was to achieve material satisfaction regardless of the impact on anyone else.

That's not to say that this is how we behave - clearly we don't. But I think we have to admit to theists that the only reason that atheists behave in a moral manner is because that's what suits us.

Perhaps the reason why most atheist people don't want to enslave or do people harm in other ways is because it is not only in our self interest but the interest of our community. After all it is a lot more difficult to survive on your own than it is to survive in a society. Its easier to catch,grow food. Procreate etc... Without society we cannot live, therefore there must be a morality inherent to that system of life that does not require a divine hand.

A little off topic but Its also interesting that people were/are able to justify things like slavery and empire on the false pretense that the conquered are somehow inferior to the conqueror or that they were doing them a favor.
That's another example of wishful thinking.

Schuhart

eddyc wrote: »

Perhaps the reason why most atheist people don't want to enslave or do people harm in other ways is because it is not only in our self interest but the interest of our community. After all it is a lot more difficult to survive on your own than it is to survive in a society.

Again, I substantially agree with you. But I do have a quibble - surely this means that the bedrock of morality is individual self interest. The only reason I will consider the community interest is because its the best way of securing my personal position.

eddyc

But it is a win win situation, the species survives because I want to survive, a kind of wholesome self interest.
Others benefit from my selfishness.

Similar to I would feel bad if I didn't help that person so I am going to help, it is in a way a selfish act, but at the same time it isn't.

Schuhart

eddyc wrote: »

But it is a win win situation, the species survives because I want to survive, a kind of wholesome self interest.
Others benefit from my selfishness.

Again, I'm not questioning the essential thrust of that, and that concept of selfishness can even be quite broad. But reflect back on when you said

eddyc wrote: »

....I feel that many people think that atheism is a kind of abandoning so called good moral principles. A turning away from morality to individualist and selfish ideals.

Aren't those 'many people' basically right? All we're saying is that those individualist and selfish ideals may best be secured by doing things that look moral.

I suspect (but don't particularly want to take on the theist side of the argument) that religious folk would say this is exactly what they find unsatisfactory, as selfishness may not be a reliable basis for morality.

From my point of view, I agree that where atheism leaves us is something that deserves study and debate. I know that we want it to leave us somewhere good and I choose to believe that it can be made to leave us somewhere good. I do, however, have concerns that this is not an automatic outcome.

eddyc

It is a tough one alright I agree, let alone that from the atheistic viewpoint, religious people don't even get a moral code from their religion anyway, or if they do they're probably not very nice people.
If I were hell bent on f-ing someone over but wouldn't because of supernatural reprisal I would be an immoral person in the first place and I'm sure many religious people would agree with that.
So then we are left with the question, if meaning to do someone harm but not doing it because of the bible or whatever is a bad thing then where does that sense morality come from.
Perhaps it is a complicated process (like Dawkins has said but never really elaborated on), something society finds acceptable in a given time, in a given place and a particular circumstance.
Or maybe there is an intuitive idea at work.

Schuhart

eddyc wrote: »

If I were hell bent on f-ing someone over but wouldn't because of supernatural reprisal I would be an immoral person in the first place and I'm sure many religious people would agree with that.

Indeed, but bear in mind they would also say that, even leaving aside divine reprisal, the fact of conceiving morality as a divinely created thing gives them an objective standard (although clearly from our perspective its based on their subjective belief in a religion). I'm probably not making this point well, but hopefully I'm getting it across.

Just taking Christianity as a case in point, am I right that some denominations hold that all you have to do to be saved is accept the divinity of Jesus. So any charitable work you do is a good thing, but not actually going to get you any more 'saved' than you are.

That said, I agree that a valid argument that I don't think believers handle well is the one of why something moral is more moral just because I think God told me to do it.

eddyc

True, and religion does tend to thrive in those cracks between understanding.
The church once pretended to have the explanation of how life came to be on the planet, of where the human race stood in the hierarchy of animals and where they go when they die.

Science has explained to us where we came from and where we go when we die (although it is easier to deny death altogether, case in point being the belief in some kind of an afterlife, by many agnostics even) but there is yet to be a definitive answer to where our moral belief system comes from.

Perhaps the answer lies in biology or philosophy or psychology or the insights of Buddhism, maybe all of them.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote: »

Indeed, but bear in mind they would also say that, even leaving aside divine reprisal, the fact of conceiving morality as a divinely created thing gives them an objective standard (although clearly from our perspective its based on their subjective belief in a religion). I'm probably not making this point well, but hopefully I'm getting it across.

Just taking Christianity as a case in point, am I right that some denominations hold that all you have to do to be saved is accept the divinity of Jesus. So any charitable work you do is a good thing, but not actually going to get you any more 'saved' than you are.

That said, I agree that a valid argument that I don't think believers handle well is the one of why something moral is more moral just because I think God told me to do it.

I can understand the theist point of view, that morality is a matter of options for the atheist. Not that we are necessarily immoral, but only that we are able to choose the basis of our morality - utilitarianism, self-interest, any theoretical system - and then change it at any time without constraint, unlike them.

The hidden flaw in that reasoning, though, is that people are also free to choose their religion, and to change it. While theists naturally make the assumption that there is only one true religion, and therefore only one correct morality*, the truth is that there are thousands of competing religions or variants thereof, which completely cover the spectrum of theoretical moralities available likewise to the atheist - and that's before you start interpreting God's wishes for yourself.

Of course, both atheist and theist actually tend to remain with the morality of their local culture in any case. In the case of theists this usually also means sticking with their natal religion.

*having said that, some religions are positively schizophrenic about morality. Christianity, for example, offers New Testament love for mild matters, and Old Testament judgement for things you feel strongly about.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

eddyc wrote: »

Science has explained to us where we came from and where we go when we die (although it is easier to deny death altogether, case in point being the belief in some kind of an afterlife, by many agnostics even) but there is yet to be a definitive answer to where our moral belief system comes from.

Perhaps the answer lies in biology or philosophy or psychology or the insights of Buddhism, maybe all of them.

I'd agree that there is probably something benefit to be got from all of them.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The hidden flaw in that reasoning, though, is that people are also free to choose their religion, and to change it.

Again, I've no essential problem with what's being said. However, I'd suggest the process of changing from one religion or variant of a religion to another may not be quite the same as a secularist deciding to change the basis for morality - even if it has much the same result. But I think this takes us into the realm of what it is that keeps people in religions - and whether it can be replicated at all in a secular way.

And, of course, maybe it can't. Maybe religious faith cannot be replaced by any godless ideas, and we should stop even considering the possibility.