3 ms·

> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted. This is

> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted. This is a poisonous reversal of reality, to the extent that I wonder if you're just trolling. Fact is, more religious people, especially the evangelical Christian sect that is most vocal and influential in America, is not about examining implicit beliefs, nor is it open to debate. It's about falling into line, and adopting a strict set of ideological beliefs that are not negotiable. In fact, religion is often explained in terms of faith as an opposition to analysis: after all, if your first principle is that you believe in something, why question further? In contrast, modern secular culture, although not immune to tribalism and ideological blindness, is much more open to building belief through analysis and understanding, i.e. the scientific method.

tonymet 5y ago
Did not intend to troll. The “cognitive tools” are the ability to discern which beliefs are religious in nature: taken on faith, ritualistic, ethical , etc. Again I’m not saying that religion is better or worse. Actually this is a defense of religion as a framework for defining belief. I’m arguing that secularism when taken on face value lacks the tools to recognize it’s own belief system.
- samhain 5y ago
  I agree with the parent, you’re argument almost appears disingenuous to the point of looking like a troll or bait. This perspective is substituting any belief with a religious belief which is a false equivalency. It’s unfortunate that the grandparent is the top comment right now.
  - tonymet 5y ago
    Can you share profound beliefs that you don't believe are religious in nature? I know trivial beliefs e.g. today was 85º – we can agree that calling those religious would not be useful.
    - samhain 5y ago
      Check your original comment. You did not qualify that only “profound secular beliefs” are religious in nature. Rather, you speak in general saying “secular beliefs are religious.” So now you’re moving the goal posts. Using your original logic, -any- belief can be religious in nature. “Today was 85” -is- religious from your original position because perhaps people ritualistically check the weather every morning like a prayer. The weathermen are like priests disseminating knowledge, and small talk is used to find other weather checker cultists. It does not matter what belief Id offer up, because it will match your original definition because your original definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Other comments have already said this in fewer words. If you are unable to identify what it would look like if you were mistaken, then you shouldn’t be confident that you are correct. So how could someone identify the difference between a secular belief and a religious belief?
    - morelisp 5y ago
      The Church-Turing thesis? That ZFC is consistent? That the driving force of history is primarily material relations between groups?
- vincent-toups 5y ago
  "I’m arguing that secularism when taken on face value lacks the tools to recognize it’s own belief system." Truly a bonkers assertion when secularism includes enormous institutions to fund and perform tasks as various as the hard sciences to the most abstract philosophical investigations and the entire gamut of cultural production around and between. The average person doesn't much participate in these institutions but the average Catholic hasn't read Humanea Vitae either.
- conformist 5y ago
  It decidedly does not generally lack these tools. A main point of many popular secular(ist) believe systems, e.g. such represented by humanist societies, is to question implicit assumptions and understand what fundamental philosophical believes one has, and they are built around how to do this. People are often not secularist because they don't reflect, usually they have specific reasons that they are aware of and that they might question in the future.
remarkEon 5y ago
>In contrast, modern secular culture, although not immune to tribalism and ideological blindness, is much more open to building belief through analysis and understanding, i.e. the scientific method. I think this was true, at a certain point in or for a window of time, but it certainly isn't true today. There are well known axioms that are not-to-be-challenged, and doing so risks expulsion (i.e. Excommunication). So maybe what's happening is Secularism is going through its own phase of Fundamentalist Revival.
- hackyhacky 5y ago
  That's certainly the way Fox News tries to portray secularism. In my experience, it has no basis in reality.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    There has to be a name for the rhetorical strategy that goes something like "your opinions or observations are sufficiently similar to media_influencer_I_dont_like regardless of their actual origin, and thus I'm able to discount what you are saying outright". Every time this topic comes up, even when it's in a more interesting and philosophical thread like this one, the Fox News bogyman always gets trotted out. TFA is from ... The Atlantic, if you haven't noticed.
    - hackyhacky 5y ago
      You are misinterpreting my comment. I am discounting their comment because it does not correspond to my experience at all, not because it comes from Fox News. I am, instead, using Fox News to possibly explain the origin of that opinion, since it certainly cannot come from observation of reality.

tonymet 5y ago

Did not intend to troll. The “cognitive tools” are the ability to discern which beliefs are religious in nature: taken on faith, ritualistic, ethical , etc. Again I’m not saying that religion is better or worse. Actually this is a defense of religion as a framework for defining belief. I’m arguing that secularism when taken on face value lacks the tools to recognize it’s own belief system.

samhain 5y ago
I agree with the parent, you’re argument almost appears disingenuous to the point of looking like a troll or bait. This perspective is substituting any belief with a religious belief which is a false equivalency. It’s unfortunate that the grandparent is the top comment right now.
- tonymet 5y ago
  Can you share profound beliefs that you don't believe are religious in nature? I know trivial beliefs e.g. today was 85º – we can agree that calling those religious would not be useful.
  - samhain 5y ago
    Check your original comment. You did not qualify that only “profound secular beliefs” are religious in nature. Rather, you speak in general saying “secular beliefs are religious.” So now you’re moving the goal posts. Using your original logic, -any- belief can be religious in nature. “Today was 85” -is- religious from your original position because perhaps people ritualistically check the weather every morning like a prayer. The weathermen are like priests disseminating knowledge, and small talk is used to find other weather checker cultists. It does not matter what belief Id offer up, because it will match your original definition because your original definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Other comments have already said this in fewer words. If you are unable to identify what it would look like if you were mistaken, then you shouldn’t be confident that you are correct. So how could someone identify the difference between a secular belief and a religious belief?
  - morelisp 5y ago
    The Church-Turing thesis? That ZFC is consistent? That the driving force of history is primarily material relations between groups?
vincent-toups 5y ago
"I’m arguing that secularism when taken on face value lacks the tools to recognize it’s own belief system." Truly a bonkers assertion when secularism includes enormous institutions to fund and perform tasks as various as the hard sciences to the most abstract philosophical investigations and the entire gamut of cultural production around and between. The average person doesn't much participate in these institutions but the average Catholic hasn't read Humanea Vitae either.
conformist 5y ago
It decidedly does not generally lack these tools. A main point of many popular secular(ist) believe systems, e.g. such represented by humanist societies, is to question implicit assumptions and understand what fundamental philosophical believes one has, and they are built around how to do this. People are often not secularist because they don't reflect, usually they have specific reasons that they are aware of and that they might question in the future.

remarkEon 5y ago

>In contrast, modern secular culture, although not immune to tribalism and ideological blindness, is much more open to building belief through analysis and understanding, i.e. the scientific method. I think this was true, at a certain point in or for a window of time, but it certainly isn't true today. There are well known axioms that are not-to-be-challenged, and doing so risks expulsion (i.e. Excommunication). So maybe what's happening is Secularism is going through its own phase of Fundamentalist Revival.

hackyhacky 5y ago
That's certainly the way Fox News tries to portray secularism. In my experience, it has no basis in reality.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  There has to be a name for the rhetorical strategy that goes something like "your opinions or observations are sufficiently similar to media_influencer_I_dont_like regardless of their actual origin, and thus I'm able to discount what you are saying outright". Every time this topic comes up, even when it's in a more interesting and philosophical thread like this one, the Fox News bogyman always gets trotted out. TFA is from ... The Atlantic, if you haven't noticed.
  - hackyhacky 5y ago
    You are misinterpreting my comment. I am discounting their comment because it does not correspond to my experience at all, not because it comes from Fox News. I am, instead, using Fox News to possibly explain the origin of that opinion, since it certainly cannot come from observation of reality.