Secularism on the Rise in the West

[Tis_Bearself]

Do you think this is much more common on comments but not in face to face conversations?

Oh definitely. I’ve gotten together in person several times with these people and it never comes up. We have other interests in common and we talk about those.

I’m almost certain that religious ranting is triggered by the same things that set off political ranting, such as being worried about the future or seeing something that annoyed you on TV or having to deal with family who bickered with you over your opinions, or a combination of the above. Also, some people just enjoy it and think it’s part of normal Internet discourse. I’ve even met people who thought it was part of normal in-person discourse, though I’m not buddies with them because I get tired of listening to them (and usually, they are tiring a lot of people out besides me).

 

[arvo]

Indeed - discussions are quite normal, interesting and may be even entertaining (it is pleasure to listen the experience of faithful people, of different cultures etc.) if both parties are on equal footing and the logic/reason/strength-of-argument are what determines outcome.

But when the talks starts about power “I will not try to persuade you about evil of abortion/divorce/homosexuality, but, instead, I will vote into law the prohibition of all those things and you will have to obey by the full force of the government institutions. Uhh and I will be soooo happy that you are subjugated, humiliated and silenced”. Well, such attitude and actions certainly create reaction. We are accustomed in the business transactions to the politeness and attention but when things start to go around politics and rude power, then much of this is lost.

That is why I am for social-liberal policies. And more secular states. I have many liberals in my community and they can be quite nasty sometimes (e.g. currently one catholic community are under investigation about use of 10+hour youngsters labour is in our country), but I can say safely - the only thing they are afraid of is - that the society can go against the reason, against logic, against science, against middle way.

 

[Athanasiy]

It seems to me that the presence of Muslim immigrants encourages many Europeans to reflect on their Christian heritage.
Europe has hosted many refugees and provides many examples for the positive transformation of Islamic societies, but many of the most important values have been recognized, and Muslims to a certain extent have become allies of conservative Christians in the preservation of many moral and ethical values.
There is undeniable beauty in families rich in children, in decent attire.
There is beauty in abstaining from debauchery and living a healthy lifestyle.
There is beauty in modesty, in content, in many other noble virtues.
All this beauty is in authentic Christianity, because it is Christianity that is the light and truth for the world and all other religions.
The Christian heritage in past centuries has transformed a person into great transformations, and today of course we also need more bright personalities - preachers and teachers who can reach the heart of modern man.

 

[commenter]

It’s completely wrong to equate religious believe to scientific understanding. One of those is falsifiable and the other isn’t.

Scientific understanding increases over time because humans investigate the universe and learn over time. Religious belief changes over time because people have new opinions. They aren’t remotely equivalent.

Scientific “understanding” doesn’t necessarily increase over time. Not only does it go down rabbit holes, like Lysenkoism, etc, but it also is exploited by evil governments such as Nazism.

Science “understanding” is related to or measured by an outside source of values. Were the medical experimenters in the concentration camps doing “good” science, as long as they followed the scientific method?

The classic work on science as an instrument of power - that is, science as religion - was the Abolition of Man, by C. S. Lewis.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Scientific “understanding” doesn’t necessarily increase over time. Not only does it go down rabbit holes, like Lysenkoism, etc, but it also is exploited by evil governments such as Nazism.

This feels like a category error. IMO science and religion attempt to answer separate questions. Science attempts to answer “how?” while religion/philosophy attempts to answer “why?”.
“Science” has little to no moral direction outside the those who do science.

Were the medical experimenters in the concentration camps doing “good” science, as long as they followed the scientific method?

Where do you think a big chunk of our knowledge on hypothermia came from? Or the space programs in the US and USSR?

 

[AlbMagno]

Where do you think a big chunk of our knowledge on hypothermia came from? Or the space programs in the US and USSR?

This would be another category error. The question wasn’t if the experimenters were doing useful science, but whether they were doing “good” (ethhical) science.

 

[CoffeeFanatic]

I’ve seen this trend for years in the area of the so-called Bible Belt where I live. This also appears to be the trend around the country (I’ve traveled to and have family in all areas of the US). Most people are ignorant of various world religions and what they believe and they don’t have what used to be considered a basic Sunday School knowledge of Christianity. Very few are churched in the younger generations. Most have not read the bible (though I do believe this is due to there being many out there who are functionally illiterate- which is its own serious societal problem). Sin is an alien concept even to many who profess religion.

I equate secularism with ignorance. People are certainly not replacing religion with any kind of critical thinking or scientific anything, that’s for sure. In fact, there is more reliance on horoscopes, non-religious folks engaging in casual witchcraft for fun, a denial of basic biology, and in increase in the belief of a flat earth and that we never landed on the moon.

Many who claim to believe in God can be called ‘moralistic therapeutic deists’ now. The common beliefs these people share are the following (and it sounds like 95% of the people I know these days):

1. A God exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism

 

[Dr-Pepper]

I’ve noticed that too. I was looking at pew research polls again. 77 percent of people who have no religion believe in god or a higher power( which I find odd. This is it for
Buddhism too. Buddhism doesn’t have a god, but 68 percent believe in a god or higher power

 

[goout]

…
Will Christianity make a comeback in the west?
…

As in “Christendom”? Where society and culture are leavened with generally accepted Christian values?
No, Christendom is dead and buried and it will only fade further into secularism.

Will the Church endure? Yes. Will the faithful be fewer and more persecuted and hopefully more intensely faithful? Yes
We are waaaay past midnight with the death of western Christian culture.
But hey, Christianity goes through the cross, non negotiable. So it is. Don’t conflate successful western Christian culture with being a committed disciple of Christ.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

This would be another category error. The question wasn’t if the experimenters were doing useful science, but whether they were doing “good” (ethhical) science.

Fair enough. I found the ethical implications of whether or not to use such data even years or decades later to be a tough one.

I suppose the key take away us that “science” doesn’t have ethics or morals good or bad. It’s the scientist and related societies that do.

 

[Sarcelle]

In a secular country, no religion is in political power to force other people to adhere to their doctrinal rules, so you are free to practice your religion freely. How is secular government infringing on your religious freedom to practice?

Heard of China? It’s very much a secular country.

They don’t leave people to practice their religion in peace. They go after Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and Falun Gong practitioners.

Secular does not necessarily equals tolerant.

 

[Sarcelle]

What is an ideal secular society and what are its values?

There is no agreement about what constitutes secular values. You seem to equate secular to good. How do you define good?

To the Chinese Communist party, cracking down on those they see as insurgents ensures a smoothly running society. To them, a smoothly running society is good.

Religious values also widely differ. Running a society according to religious values may or may not result in an ideal society. Depends on the values itself.

Secular does not always mean good because the definition of what is good in the secular sense is very much open to the zeitgeist.

 

[Sarcelle]

Two major points of secular systems include:
1: No form of authoritarian rule. Either in the form of a dictator or government. The power is always with the people who consent to be governed and for the people to assign governance with a built in process of peaceful transition of power.
2. All laws are to go through the assumption that the lawmakers would not know what person they would be in the society they are creating laws for. They are to view these laws through everyone affected by these laws, as a woman, man, gay, straight, race, religion, etc.

Whose definition is that?
Yours?

Secular meaning atheistic right?

There is nothing in secular/atheistic society that prevents dictatorship.

If you look at so called secular societies such as the Soviet Union, you get Stalin. The most totalitarian societies are also the most secular yet human rights abuses are rife.

 

[Dan_Defender]

If you look at so called secular societies such as the Soviet Union, you get Stalin. The most totalitarian societies are also the most secular yet human rights abuses are rife.

True and I would add that there has never been a successful atheistic society in the history of the world. And Russia is a majority Christian country now. So the atheistic secular rule failed miserably there.

 

[Pattylt]

So the atheistic secular rule failed miserably there.

Mainly they failed because they were not a system of government of the people. They were a religion of the cult of personality…in Russia, first Lennon then Stalin. Yes, they tried being atheistic but you can no more force atheism than you can force any religion upon people.

Secular societies today aren’t based on any religion…though many started as a state religion. Just because they do not answer to a religion doesn’t mean they are basing it upon atheism itself. They are basing them upon a freedom of and from any religion.

I’m not sure why our societies are becoming more secular. They aren’t becoming more atheistic as most still believe in God or a higher power. At some point the unity of communities used to be based on their churches but fewer and fewer are joining or staying in organized religion. It could be due to our mobile society…people no longer staying in their church because they moved away. Perhaps as life became more comfortable the need for religion wasn’t felt like it was needed. Perhaps as people became more scientifically educated, too many churches seemed to conflict with science or was perceived as being anti science.

Whatever the multi reasons were, families aren’t centering their lives around their church and church community as they used to. They broadened their horizons, so to speak. Religion will not end. It may become smaller and those within more serious but it will always be waiting in the wings…

 

[Freddy]

Sarcelle:

If you look at so called secular societies such as the Soviet Union, you get Stalin. The most totalitarian societies are also the most secular yet human rights abuses are rife.

True and I would add that there has never been a successful atheistic society in the history of the world. And Russia is a majority Christian country now. So the atheistic secular rule failed miserably there.

You are comparing apples with oranges. An atheistic society would be one where the people who comprise that society are atheists. Or don’t consider religion to be important. Like the Scandinavian countries or the UK, France, Australia etc (Importance of religion by country - Wikipedia).

Atheistic rule is where those in power reject religion whatever the population believe.

And secular rule is where religious beliefs per se are not considered when making decisions that affect the population.

As Patty said, you can’t order people to become atheists any more than you could tell them that they must become Christians. The beliefs, or lack of them, of those in power do not reflect the society over which they have control.

 

[Sarcelle]

And secular rule is where religious beliefs per se are not considered when making decisions that affect the population.

These decisions would have to be based on a system that defines what is defined good and what is defined as bad.

So what system should this be and who gets to decide it?

 

[Sarcelle]

I’ve been told several times to my face that religious belief was not only stupid but dangerous.

So it’s not just online but in real life.

 

[Pattylt]

I’ve been told several times to my face that religious belief was not only stupid but dangerous.

So it’s not just online but in real life.

I apologize for their uncouth and intolerable comments. They are wrong. There is nothing stupid about Christianity and dangerous people can be any religion including atheists! Intolerance is ugly no matter who’s doing it.

Some of the smartest people I’ve ever known were quite religious. I may not believe the same as a religious person but I don’t question their IQ unless something else led me to that conclusion!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And secular rule is where religious beliefs per se are not considered when making decisions that affect the population.

These decisions would have to be based on a system that defines what is defined good and what is defined as bad.

So what system should this be and who gets to decide it?

I presume you don’t live in a theocracy. So how does it work where you live? I guess pretty much the same as where I live.