The Dangers of Secularism

Greetings all,Let me put in my two cents. I grew up in the USSR of the 1960-s - 1980's. That society was not quite secular, as far as I understand. Big portraits of Lenin were mandatory in each and every single public office room. Children were taught by all teachers, from kindergarten to graduate school, that Lenin was the greatest being with model features, to be worshipped and followed, and to be forever rmemebered for all the love he has for us (except that we did not wear T-shirts with words "Lenin Loves Me," of the Jesus T-shirt sort). The so-called "Moral Code of the Builder of Communism" officially existed, and had to be on public display in schools and many other public buildings.The modern USA is certainly not a secular society, either. It is my impression that very few people here are Christians, but the vast majority feed on US nationalist mythology, which really works, holding this complicated, problem-burdened society together. I don't want to sound like a prophet of doom, but I think it is very dangerous and may result in some kind of global disaster soon, and I am not sure whether we can do anything about it.Having never lived in Western Europe, I can't tell whether Europe is secular - from what I read, it seems to be; yet, in Eastern Europe there is a rather strong grassroot movement against secularism, in favor of either a quasi-Christian or a nationalist totalitarianism.Generally, I think most human societies throughout history were not secular, regardless of what particular religion dominated there, if any.First Christians were certainly Communists. The Greek word "koinonia," used in Acts 2:42 and often translated into modern English as "fellowship," in fact means "having no private property," "being in a state where everything belongs to the entire community."OK, that becomes like something big, pretending to be worth more than the promised two cents, so I'm off. Best wishes and thanks for the coffee,Richard

Robinrohan, I'd suggest you throw your dictionary in the garbage. Of course religion is much more than worshipinng gods or the supernatural. Isn't Buddhism a religion? Of course it is, although Buddhists believe neither in God nor in a supernatural. They view the universe as a constant flow of the "dharma," eternal unchanging particles (quarks, gluons, etc.?), which may combine and recombine, causing all the infinite variety of the manifestations of being. That's a very "naturalist" view, as far as I understand, and yet hundreds of millions of Buddhists worldwide pray, worship in temples, etc. They have their religious community, the hierarchy, religious authorities and sacred texts, like any religion. Confucianism is another example of a very materialistic, naturalist, atheist religion.

I think religion is a system of individual and collective actions aimed at practicing one's faith. On the other hand, faith is, as Paul Tillich defined it, "the ultimate concern" of a person or a group of people. For example, if my ultimate concern is the spread of Jeffersonian democracy over the world, than that is my faith. If my ultimate concern is to "dwell in the house of the Lord forever," that that is my faith. Practicing, living out faith in democracy is, IMHO, a religion, as much as practicing or living out faith in the Lord and in "dwelling in His house forever" is a religion (Judaism or Christianity). A person may have more than one religion, because there might exist several (at least two) competing "ultimate concerns." The supernatural may or may not be the ultimate concern.

Robin, any belief system can be something else than religion if it really is a belief system, not "living-out-faith" system. For example, a Christian can believe in democracy or in science or in benefits of vitamin C, and he/she can really build a whole system of beliefs in one or more of the above things. Yes, his/her faith, his/her ultimate concern (Tillich) will still be finding eternal salvation and eternal comfort with Christ. A Christian will, thus, measure all of the above across his/her faith. Similarly, a religious person whose faith (Tillich's ultimate concern) is democracy or class struggle or his/her own pleasure will measure or weigh all belief systems (e.g., in science or in Christ or in the benefits of vitamin C) against that ultimate concern. --R.

Robin, no, I don't think it is bad to have "ultimate concerns." Moreover, I think it is wonderful when a person has faith (the ultimate concern), for example, when one is a devout follower of one of the world religions (unless, of course, that person is harming others while following his or her faith).As for the scientific method being a faith, well, maybe there exist some scientists who are, indeed, making it their faith. Yet, I am positive that not all scientists are like that. Personally, I am a scientist and a science teacher, and I do greatly appreciate the scientific method. I do not, however, consider it my "ultimate concern," because my ultimate concern, my faith is the Christian faith. Practically, for example, if I was asked, do I prefer that people learn 1,000 times more about the natural world by virtue of employing the scientific method, or would I rather prefer that people find comfort in Christ, I'd say - of course comfort with Christ. On the "yet another" hand, however, things like peace, non-violence, love, concern about fellow human, stewardship of our planet are very intimately connected, IMHO, with BOTH the rational scientific method and the emotional search for divine salvation.

Robin, yes, certain religions can be dangerous. A faith in national or social supremacy (messianism) is very dangerous IMHO. --R.

Robin, I don't think every single person is religious. In some people, there are no clear "ultimate" concerns. What's the prevalence of religious vs. non-religious people, I don't know.Among government systems, some seem to be definitely more religious (i.e. operating on the basis of faith) than others. I suppose the government of Switzerland or of my native Ukraine are examples of non-religious governments, while the government of the former U.S.S.R. or of the present-day U.S. are certainly religious.Richard

Robin, the US government (or should I say leadership) pursues goals that are based, IMHO, on the presumption of the US national and social supremacy over the rest of the world (messianism). That, as far as I understand, is a faith, so the actions of the top US leadership are religious (faith-based). Such a presumption is not characteristic for many other governments, including the two I named (Swiss and Ukrainian).The rest of your questions - to Prof. Paul Tillich, the author of the book "Dynamics of Faith," from where I borrowed the definition, "faith is the ultimate concern."Sorry, I beg permission to bail out of this discussion because of time constraints. See y'all later. Richard