The Dangers of Secularism

In that case, ProfesssorR, what would be an example of a belief system that was not religious?

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.

Ah, nice example, consider it plagiarised. Brian

Here you say that religion is an action that one performs, and faith is what you believe in that you think is of most importance. This ultimate concern is apparently some kind of goal.If your faith is Jeffersonian democracy, then the action that is the religion would, I suppose, be doing things that help maintain or create Jeffersonian democracy. I suppose the distinction you are making is that a non-religious belief system would not be about something of ultimate concern. If a Christian believes in the benefits of Vitamin C, that would not be a religion unless it competes with his Christianity.And if an atheist believes in Vitamin C, that is not a religion as long as the Vitamin C is not perceived as the atheist's ultimate concern.So you are saying that if anybody has an "ultimate concern," then they by definition are religious, and if they don't, they are not religious.And since you've mentioned the dangers of religion, you believe that it is dangerous to have an "ultimate concern."If a scientist's ultimate concern is the scientific method, and his religion consists of the action of trying to maintain and increase the practice of the scientific method, then he is religious and possibly dangerous.I conclude that, by your view, it is better not to have ultimate concerns. It is better that our concerns be local or temporary and of not that much importance to us.

Well I plagairized it I suppose. I just can't remember where I read it. It crops up in Buddhist discussion of reincarnation and non self often. It could even be attributed to the Buddha.lfen

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.

The following is where I got the idea that you think religions are dangerous: Are you not here suggesting that the "US nationalist mythology" is a religion (by your definition) and a dangerous one?So it is only certain religions that are dangerous, not religion per se?

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

I don't disagree about the danger of some religions, but here's the issue: I opened this discussion in response to what appeared to me an unbalanced idea on this forum, which was that religion was the root of all evil (or something along those lines).My point was to show that secular systems can produce evil as well as religious systems. The general response to this idea was that what I said were secular, such as Fascism and Communism, were not secular at all but were in fact religious.You were the only person who offered a definition of religion that would include Fascism and Communism--as well as much else.The question is whether such a broad definition is legitimate or not. You've lumped together with your definition Christianity, Fascism, Communism, Judiasm, etc., and also the American nationalist myth. I thought you were doing so in order to say that they were all the same sort of thing--that is, religions--and that they were all dangerous.I find that I am mistaken.So what is the purpose of this extremely broad definition of religion?Are you saying that there is no such thing as the "secular," except for those areas that are not that important to us?Are you saying that everyone and every governmental system and every culture is religious? Don't we all have "ultimate concerns"?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-24-2005 04:17 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-24-2005 04:19 PM

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

I fail to understand how the Swiss government is secular while the US gov't is religious. We're talking about governments here, not culture.Apart from that, I have problems with your definition anyway. For one thing, "ultimate concern" strikes me as a little vague. Does it mean (a)the most important matter to that person alone, or (b)the most important matter generally to people?The traditional Christian, for example, feels that salvation is the ultimate concern not only for him but for everyone (if the others but knew it).But someone whose ultimate concern was his own pleasure need not think that pleasure should be everyone's ultimate concern. On the contrary, he might feel that it would be better for him if everyone else's ultimate concern was something else, something that would serve his need for pleasure.If the answer is (a), then I would think that everyone would be religious and perhaps practice several religions simultaneously.Suppose the following:There is this man whose ultimate concern is to make money. It's the most important thing in the world to him, and is thus his religion. But he also loves his family very much, and the welfare of his family is equally important to him. So he has two religions, according to your scheme.There's this other person whose ultimate concern is make a great scientific discovery. But he also loves his cats, and the welfare of his cats is his other and competing religion.This arrangment strikes me as descriptive of everyone.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-25-2005 03:05 PM

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

Well, if you don't have time to talk about it, then I will feel free to dismiss your definition of religion, which strikes me as bizarre anyway, and proceed to support my idea that secularism can be dangerous.First I would like to respond to the idea that Marxism is a religion. I disagree, and I think a Marxist would disagree as well.I'm using the word "religion" to mean a belief in something supernatural.I think a Marxist could explain quite plausibly that there is no supernatural belief in his system, as follows:The idea that society would inevitably evolve in some fashion is not supernatural. It is no different than saying that when a ball is thrown into the air, it will always come down. Inevitably the ball will come down. Society evolves in the Marxist fashion due to natural laws that are operable in all societies, not to some supernatural Force pushing it. Let's not confuse legislative laws with laws of nature. A law of nature is not legislative. It is just a description of what things always do. The same way with "laws"--that is, descriptions, of society. They evolve from feudalism to capitalism to socialism, etc.So the description of the evolution of society in history has no element of supernatural belief in it. The fact that this "societal law" is presumably wrong does not affect communism's status as totally secular.

The US government was originally based on Christianity. So, I don't think that our laws are entirely secular.

the founding fathers were mostly Deists, not Christians.