The Dangers of Secularism

Eric Hoffer, IIRC in his book The True Believer points out the similiarities in Communism and religion. I think of Communism as a secular religion. Marx was a prophet of sorts and proclaimed the inevitability of an ideal state. Though it was in some ways a caricature of religion it seemed that it inspired a fervor of belief that was similar.I don't see this religion or secular thing as something we have a choice about. As humans developed science and technology beginning with language, fire, and later agriculture our lives changed as did our impact on the planet. It's just not religion it's our biological success and our technology that threatens us and many other species.We are changing and secularism is only one part of that change. I don't see that the Catholic church to take one example is adapting well to the human population problem. And because most Christians seem to look forward to the world coming to an end the problems of pollution don't seem to rate too highly with them. Maybe George Bush and his business buddies feel like since the world will be destroyed soon anyway why should we try to preserve it or take care of it? Might as well profit from it while we still can as presumably in the new earth God won't allow raping and polluting the earth for profit? If the end times are near better get what you can while it's still possible. In this case it seems to be secularism that leads to policies that better sustain our environment.Humans have problems with religion and with secularism as well as technology and many other things. I'm not sure how to sort this all out and could anything be done to change this anyway?lfen

Well I don't think religion is the root of all evil. Well yeah, but I see that applying equally to religion. Mark Twain does a very good job of this so I won't even try to satirize the sad efforts people have made to save one another's souls through wars, torture, burning at the stake, etc. Humans are prey to many deadly enthusiasms.lfen

Well, men and gods and animals have been very mixed up together for millenniums. God doesn't speak for himself, it's always someone speaking for him. Men have been elevated to gods, and God has incarnated as men, women, and other things.I'm wondering if you are also dealing with some form of existentialism and rationality versus a older sense of an authoritative order that can be appealed to as an objective standards. Certainly some fundamentalist on this site have suggested that the problem with naturalism and rationality is that it allows a subject sense of morality whereas their religion whether Islam, Judaism, or Christianity claims an objective morality that is a standard outside of human judgement. Though the only way they arrive at this is by their human judgement so I don't see they have eliminated that factor anyway.lfen

Robin,Yeah, I don't think either of is going to be accused of being overly optimistic.I do understand that this pessimism about the phenomenal world does lead some of us to look for philosophical or religious consolation.I have always been impressed with the clarity of the story of the Buddha and the contrasts of the life of wealth and power failing to provide consolation in the face of disease, old age, and death leading to his transformation as he awakens to Nirvana and discovers an existence beyond samsara.lfen

Are there still kibbutzim in Isreal? As I understood it the kibbutz was a true communist society.lfen

Commune, yes. I sort of think they might be roughly equivalent to a small town government? Seems about the same level. I don't know what happened to communes in the United States. There might be a few religious ones that have continued. I just don't know.lfen

Robin,Will Durant in the first vol. of his Story of Civilization, which was published I believe in the 30's, but certainly before WWII, predicted (dare I say prophesied?) that Japan would go to war. And I'll try to recall and recap his reasoning which seemed right on to me. Japan had watched England force opium on China and force China to do it's bidding and it learned the lesson of the western colonial capitalist powers. It was basically if you don't want to be raped then you have to be a rapist. Japan didn't have the raw resources to fuel industrial expansion and so would have to expand and take them.I blame the colonial powers for what happened to China and Japan. Look to what the US is doing in the middle east right now and ask yourself what the consequences of that will be in the future. And much of the problems there now go back to the arrogant British colonial manipulation of the region and now that the US is the Imperial power in the world we are following in their footsteps, and Rome's, and etc. etc. Such is the inevitability of empire until we too bankrupt ourselves with military and foreign spending and then like England, France, etc. ect. settle back and try to make our way while the next empire (China?) plays out the imperial dynamic. Religion or secularism won't changed that.As to Germany many historian point to the very harsh conditions that France imposed at the conclusion of WWI and the fact that Germany was in very bad financial straits. The US at the end of WWII certainly took a different approach with West Germany.I don't believe secularism is all good and religion is all bad. That is an obvious oversimplification. But I think you didn't properly identify the bad stuff that secularism could be charged with.lfen

wELl, the role of history and dialectal materialism in Marxism strikes me as an un rational supernatural explanatory force. It's not personal but it does seem to share some functions with religion. Certainly people converted to communism as "true believers". Some were disillusioned Christians and Jews, and I think some communist became disillusioned with communism and converted to religion so the role of communism and religion had the same role for some folks, that is to say they represented ideal salvation systems that offerred a simplistic explanation of suffering and a guaranteed formula to be followed to be freed from it.I think the notions of the super race and super man in Nazism had similar functions. Maybe a term like quasi religions would be better to point out the similiarities. But what about Buddhism which doesn't refer to a creator God?lfenedit: corrected a spelling errorThis message has been edited by lfen, 05-20-2005 12:23 PM

Robin,I was and am dimly recalling my impressions of Hoffer's True Believer. I do think that fervent Communist Party members were "true believers" and their belief and faith in communism had a "religious" quality to it. I guess I think of secularism as more like rational atheism rather than fervent communisim, or facism is all.I'm fine with the distinctions you make. Your definition of religion applies to most religions but I'm not sure if Buddhism fits those criteria or not. I think not but I may not quite be getting how you are using them. Do you think Buddhism is a religion?lfen

Robin,I'd have to ask if you are asking about popular Buddhism or ... don't know what to call it, core? Buddhism. Popular Buddhists people pray for the same reasons anyone prays.Here's another explanation: Middle Eastern religions were/are religions of states or tribes and are sectarian. "If we righteously obey our God, he will lead us to victory". Buddhism prays for all sentient beings to be saved. It's not factional or sectarian.lfen

Brian,I think you are speaking of nirvana? Samsara is meant as a discription of our ordinary experience. Nirvana is more supernatural in Hinduism than in Buddhism. Samsara refers to this world of birth and death, things coming into being and ending and the suffering and grief and dissatisfaction this entails.One understanding of Nirvana is the state that the Buddha realized and the assertion is that it is can be realized in this life. There is also para nirvana, the beyond nirvana. These can be non ordinary states of consciousness so I don't think strictly speaking supernatural.The different realms can be thought of as supernatural but for example Chogyam Trungpa explained them as metaphors for various human states. I think it's typical of Buddhism to not insist on literal interpretations. In the West we can speak metaphorically of demons, but fundamentalist insist that demons literally exist. You can find attitudes like this in Buddhism but I don't think you have this idea that those who disagree with you are going to suffer eternal damnation cause there is no concept of eternal damnation in Buddhism.lfen

Robin,Popular Buddhism is indeed a religion. The educated version is more a philosophy, or schools of philosophy. The core version is neither. Huxley called the nondual the perennial philosophy. It is not about concepts of mind but rather a transfomation of minds experience as the subject to the universe of other objects. The sense of subject disappears and with it the sense of objects, of duality. The phrase attributed to the Buddha is in my rough paraphrase; the turning about of consciousness in it's deepest seat.This "awakening" is not an insight or peak experience that happens momentarily in a state of heightened consciousness with the ego function temporarily overridden. It is a profound radical reorganization of the brain. This is not about what happens after death, or the end of the universe, or the beginning of the universe. It is about what is now, who I am NOW. What Is Now.This Awakening is recorded by practioners of different religions though it is the basis of Buddha's teaching and hence Buddhism. But in Islam this teaching is preserved by the Sufi's, and in Christianity by the contemplatives. It also happens outside of formal religion.The Buddha sought an answer to suffering so in that sense it could be called a therapy but so could going to chuch or praying. It is not a pyschological therapy. It is not a philosophy though it can source philosophy. It is not poetry though it can be expressed in poetry.In the following lines by Hakuin, the opening of the gate refers to that transformation. Buddha called it the opening of the mind's eye, or awakening.

Well, that's more karma. Samsara can be extended to reincarnation, and most likely usually is, to include literal death, and literal birth over and over, yes. But the births and deaths also refer to the cycle of hopes, disappointments, successes, and failures and so samsara can be taken to refer to our ordinary life and the suffering entailed in living it. Reincarnation and karma do appear to me to require some supernatural process.I think one question might be how did Buddha and people of his time construe their ordinary lives. Did they assume reincarnation? Reincarnation can be very challenging in Buddhism because the Buddha taught there is no permanent self and this has led to the question of what reincarnates. I think it's possible strip Buddhism of it's popular religious concepts and the core of what is left is natural though not the same as contemporary science sees the natural order. I think the issue is consciousness.lfen

I'll have to look at the book again then. Mysticism covers a range of attitudes and beliefs. I know Roberts makes a distinction between contemplatives and mystics. I tend to think of mysticism as intense religious experiences but then the mystic returns to ego consciousness. Contemplatives are more grounded in the present reality but learn to see through the apparently realness of the ego.It's been decades since I read Huxley and have no idea how accurate my recollection is of the book. I had thought he was talking about the nondual. There is philosophical Taoism and religious Taoism. The latter has stories about as wild as any religion's, whereas the former is grounded in present reality.lfenedited typosThis message has been edited by lfen, 05-22-2005 01:40 PM

Well if by pin down you mean get an agreement as if something is or isn't religion that is probably doable.I think religion has complex sources and at the edges shades into philosophy and psychology. So a definitive definition may not be possible, only a provisional one.I was thinking earlier if the concept of anomie has any bearing on your arguement? Religious based societies would be low on the anomie scale. I myself don't know how to factor out all the impacts from diverse changes.Religion has been a large part of human culture for a long time. I think we are seeing only the beginning of changes. I don't know how to predict the outcome.I'll just sum up my position as religion can be for good or bad as can secularism. I've never held the position the religion is only bad, but I don't hold that about secularism either.lfen