The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Building Secular Communities: Now With a Less Inflammatory Title
burbo
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Hey Folks,
I wanted to talk with you jokers about Secular Community. What's the Point? Do we need it? How do we get it? A good starter for this discussion comes from this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/opinion/david-brooks-building-better-secularists.html
In this article, Brooks talks about how having secular values is all well and good, but secularists are taking a huge burden on themselves. Essentially, they have to create an entire comprehensive and cohesive ethic from scratch, vs. the prefab ones that come from religion. In addition, he says, focusing on rationality is not really sufficient. Humans, you see, aren't really rational creatures. We are driven by our emotions. So we have to come up with stories and organizations that bind us together and speak to our emotions and higher ideals.
What do you guys think of this? Is it bullshit? Are the ethical frameworks we all just sort of arrive at good enough? Are we connected enough just drinking with our buddies and rooting for the same sports teams? Is rationality actually enough, for humans, to be ethical and fulfilled?
Some organizations think the answer is no, and are trying to build communities from secular principles. Groups like:
http://americanhumanist.org/
The American Humanist Association. You may remember Humanists as what your grandpa used to identify as when he was too much of a pussy to call himself an atheist. Do people these days still talk about humanism?
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/
The Center For Inquiry. A place for all your Asperbergers friends to get into endless circular debates about the nature of existence.
https://sundayassembly.com/
Sunday Assembly. Church without the God bits. Isn't half the appeal of being secular that you don't have to go to church?
What do you guys think? Have you tried out Secular community? Does it sound stupid? Was it fun?
Just a note: This not a thread for religious discussion, or even atheism discussion. Its about secularism, which is uninterested in the topic of religion, just like a fashion discussion is uninterested in insect biology. It's orthogonal to that.
I wanted to talk with you jokers about Secular Community. What's the Point? Do we need it? How do we get it? A good starter for this discussion comes from this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/opinion/david-brooks-building-better-secularists.html
In this article, Brooks talks about how having secular values is all well and good, but secularists are taking a huge burden on themselves. Essentially, they have to create an entire comprehensive and cohesive ethic from scratch, vs. the prefab ones that come from religion. In addition, he says, focusing on rationality is not really sufficient. Humans, you see, aren't really rational creatures. We are driven by our emotions. So we have to come up with stories and organizations that bind us together and speak to our emotions and higher ideals.
What do you guys think of this? Is it bullshit? Are the ethical frameworks we all just sort of arrive at good enough? Are we connected enough just drinking with our buddies and rooting for the same sports teams? Is rationality actually enough, for humans, to be ethical and fulfilled?
Some organizations think the answer is no, and are trying to build communities from secular principles. Groups like:
http://americanhumanist.org/
The American Humanist Association. You may remember Humanists as what your grandpa used to identify as when he was too much of a pussy to call himself an atheist. Do people these days still talk about humanism?
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/
The Center For Inquiry. A place for all your Asperbergers friends to get into endless circular debates about the nature of existence.
https://sundayassembly.com/
Sunday Assembly. Church without the God bits. Isn't half the appeal of being secular that you don't have to go to church?
What do you guys think? Have you tried out Secular community? Does it sound stupid? Was it fun?
Just a note: This not a thread for religious discussion, or even atheism discussion. Its about secularism, which is uninterested in the topic of religion, just like a fashion discussion is uninterested in insect biology. It's orthogonal to that.
burbo on
0
Posts
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Or anything really. I'm pretty entitled!
Yes, it is bullshit. It's also missing the point spectacularly.
If somebody's attitude towards atheism is "Man, I really miss church. We should have an atheist church," then I suspect they kind of miss the point of atheism.
The notion that atheists do nothing more meaningful than drink and watch sports (this being a metaphor for leisurely pursuits) is as much bullshit as the notion that atheists have no grounding for a moral framework. It sounds like a religious person saying, "Religion gives me meaning in my life; if I didn't have religion, I would have a void inside of me. Therefore, people without religious have a void inside of them."
That lack of religious faith doesn't leave a void, it leaves just a little bit more room in one's life to follow other pursuits - volunteerism, hobbies, family, work, art, writing, study, whatever. This isn't significantly different from a religious person who pursues such extracurricular activities.
"Secularism," when evoked as an charter principle for an organization, is very much interested in the topic of religion. The uniting force behind those organizations is a mutual answer to the question, "Wither religion?"
For an organization to be truly uninterested in the topic of religion, it needs to have some other goal as part of its charter. An excellent example of this would be Doctors Without Borders. It is explicitly secular, but that secularity is secondary to its goals as a health care organization.
The founders weren't sitting around and saying, "Okay, we're humanists. How can we spread the gospel of humanism?" They were saying, "There's real work out there that needs to get done. How can we get that work done?"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think that you, and some of the other people in this thread, are missing the point of what some of these community organizations are trying to do, and what I was trying to talk about. You are taking the phrase "secular community" and focusing on the "secular" part, wheras I am trying to focus on the "community". I agree with you that for something to be uninterested in the topic of religion, it needs to have another focus. That focus being building community relationships, and thinking about and answering the "BIG QUESTIONS". The only reason why secular really needs to be stated is that these facets of life have traditionally been dominated by non-secular organizations.
So what I am really trying to get at, and it appears the flippant way I wrote the original post distracted from this, is can you do this? Is it worthwhile to do this? If so, how do you go about doing this?
I don't know who David Brooks is, aside from the guy who wrote this article, but I didn't read anything in the article that would just invalidate it as a point of discussion.
I think that there are a lot of people who feel a deep ingrained need to build organizations together where they can build a moral and ethical framework, get support from each other in doing that, participate in traditions and rituals, and be able to do so based on concerns that are related to this life, this reality, and our objective, measurable existence.
Now is a really interesting time to be doing such a thing, because a lot of the questions about "where do we come from, what is our purpose, etc." can have pretty exciting answers that are based in science. They are also beautiful, and meaningful, and can speak to us on a kind of "spiritual" level. I think that things that we know now have the power to connect us together, and be a powerful presence in our life. Maybe it can be used to create something good.
Athiests don't need to be a community to do this, we let scientists do it for us.
I don't see the need. Athiests community primarily aren't about being athiest focused - we simply focus on other activities the group wants to do or is about. Athiests don't need to duplicate what the religious community does to tie their community with their divine purpose. We build communities outside that framework.
Also, if you're looking for a model of an organization that lets people find those big answers through science and spirituality, have you looked into Unitarian Universalism?
Actually, scratch the word "organization" with regard to that religion...
I really wonder where you think you are. The answers to your questions are sitting here, right in front of you.
Scientists don't really answer these questions in a way that is useful to most people. There generally needs to be a translator, to take it from the realm of data and jargon to give it context, meaning, and metaphor. People need things in a pretty package, and they want it to relate more directly to them.
That's kind of interesting. I actually like that formulation, because that is what this forum does, in a sense. Don't you think it loses a little something by being, you know, on the internet?
They do it thoroughly enough for most people to understand what they're doing. They're required to find those answers since religion and the gods aren't necessary for gathering that information.
Various outlets do it for them. The internet, reporters, tv shows and what have you. The athiest community isn't required for this, humanity does it on its own.
Ummm, no they pretty clearly do not. You really think that most of U.S., much less most of the world, has a detailed understanding of the universe and our place in it? You are kidding yourself.
They understand the basics about it, what you're talking about has more to do with education difficulties - which is a separate subject. Detailed knowledge of subjects like that aren't any different with religious communities, you'll find just as many don't know specifics about religious teachings and pretend they know all the answers when they aren't as educated on the subject as they think they are. I've seen religious know-it-all's get schooled on their own religion by athiests. I'm unsure what you want the athiest community to do exactly.
Does David Brooks shit in the woods?
I haven't read the book by Phil Zuckerman and maybe it is bullshit too but it seems to me that nations with large secular populations manage to do shit just fine. It really isn't much of a struggle.
I grant you have a point here. Science communication is a really big deal, and it is impressively difficult to do effectively, which is why people like Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson get to be famous, and why we have crap like antivaxxers.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Or perhaps, if such values are common in one way or another to all religions anyway, we could simply pick and choose what values to adopt and dispense with the divinity. This is in truth what most 'believers' do anyway, humanism has just made it explicit.
Do you believe religion does 'answer' any of these BIG QUESTIONS in a 'useful' way?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
But what the religious people are able to do is get people to feel very connected and dedicated to the principles they are being taught, despite the sometimes rudimentary understanding of it. I bet that in the general population, people kind of know that the big bang is a thing, but it's a "theory" which to them is the equivalent of a guess. They think that how everything works is pretty much a big mystery. They don't take the knowledge, and understand how it relates to them, specifically. If they did, then the majority of the world wouldn't be adherants to religions that are in direct conflict with that knowledge.
Here's a brief description of what secular communities could do: Teach the human origin story in a way that is comprehensible, and beautiful, in a way that connects for people. Teach them stories that emphasizes values that are good to have. Provide communities that support the principles of living ethically and socially pressure each other to do so. Support humanitarian operations in the community. Create and practice support rituals during life events, such as births, deaths, weddings, etc. . .
I know that a lot of these different things exist piecemeal. Wouldn't it be nice for it to all to be in one place, with people you know, love, and support, who've watched your kids grow, etc. I get that maybe this kind of thing doesn't seem appealing to you, but can you really not see how it would appeal to some?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
But what the religious people are able to do is get people to feel very connected and dedicated to the principles they are being taught, despite the sometimes rudimentary understanding of it. I bet that in the general population, people kind of know that the big bang is a thing, but it's a "theory" which to them is the equivalent of a guess. They think that how everything works is pretty much a big mystery. They don't take the knowledge, and understand how it relates to them, specifically. If they did, then the majority of the world wouldn't be adherants to religions that are in direct conflict with that knowledge.
Here's a brief description of what secular communities could do: Teach the human origin story in a way that is comprehensible, and beautiful, in a way that connects for people. Teach them stories that emphasizes values that are good to have. Provide communities that support the principles of living ethically and socially pressure each other to do so. Support humanitarian operations in the community. Create and practice support rituals during life events, such as births, deaths, weddings, etc. . .
I know that a lot of these different things exist piecemeal. Wouldn't it be nice for it to all to be in one place, with people you know, love, and support, who've watched your kids grow, etc. I get that maybe this kind of thing doesn't seem appealing to you, but can you really not see how it would appeal to some?
Its not really a question of secularism vs. not secularism, don't get hung up there. Its a question of, "Can we do secularism better?"
Yeah definitely. That's why people like them would probably be pretty important kinds of figures in such a secular community.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
Like I said to the other guy, I'm not comparing secularism to non secularism. I'm wondering if secularism can be done better.
the point is this stuff exists; 'Sunday School for Humanists' strikes me as sort of an oxymoron, frankly
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
That's not detailed knowledge, though. Religious communities are more than about believing in deities, it's about community based around those beliefs. That's why they're able to get a deeper feeling of community. It's a group activity in itself. Athiests don't have that per se, but they do get it from finding communities with other goals.
Science is about guessing and evidence. It's constantly evolving, what we know today will be obsolete in 50 years. They don't have to take that knowledge about how it relates to them, it's a different process than a religious community who are defined by that religion. It's much easier to find out how science works with the internet, where people can find the hard science or the layman translations with a quick Google search. Or watch shows like documentaries, look through entire networks are focused on these subjects (Discovery etc), Bill Nye The Science Guy, Mythbusters, Cosmos. Not that religions don't have their own confusing and contradictory theories, Christianity has several sects that believe in different things. You'll get a different answer from a Catholic than a Mormon and that intensifies within those communities.
You don't have to be an athiest to believe in science. There's nothing wrong with being religious.
The first isn't required for athiests, this is a society issue - not an athiest one. Science isn't conflated with values, that's not how science works.
Athiests don't need athiesm to do that. Being an athiest isn't an umbrella for a community like religion is, there are exceptions but that's all they are. General athiests will discuss religion and athiesm with others and that'll be it. No rituals, no traditions, no orthodoxy are needed.
Don't need athiesm for that. People create their own rituals and traditions, they do what they want - that's all that's required to be an athiest. Making the athiest community identical in structure to religions is the opposite of athiests are about and it'd provide another reason for the religious to think athiesm is another religion, which it isn't.
I can see that appealing to some, but athiests really don't need to duplicate religious culture to that. We kind of had that with the hippies, I guess? But they were defined by being hippies, not by being athiests.
There are athiests who use athiesm to define them and they're assholes. I'd rather not do that on a large scale. We don't need it.
Just make efforts to weed out this kind of thinking then.
The issue is that for myself I do not really want to answer these things in a community setting, I get together with people to do other things besides discuss the big questions.
I really do wish science journalism that breaks new ideas down to what a broader audience can understand was more prevalent.
At that point you are basically publishing a small book or paper to explain stuff to the public, and we have to face facts that people don't "fucking love science" all that much when you have to read papers about fields and various mathematical equations.
I mean the answer to 'magnets, how do they work?', when you drill all the way down, is that we don't know. We can measure it quite accurately, predict its effects, and say some stuff about unification of forces, but ultimately we don't have a pat answer.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Notice, if you will, the lack of topicality that characterizes both specimens. Reflect on what may have driven these authors to barf on the thread instead of taking literally the exact same amount of time to simply press the "report" button and bring the thread, or the offending post, to the attention of the moderators - who showed up anyway, because LOL.
Dude (or dudette, I don't know), you are saying all of this crap about atheism, and I wrote specifically about how this isn't about identifying as atheist. It's about doing all this stuff outside of the context of religion. Its not about being atheist, its about doing it in a grounded, scientifically sourced, earth based way. You are telling me all this stuff about being all about atheism, when that is what I explicitly and directly was describing wasn't the point.
The pretty package isn't a problem. It's what people need. Not everyone is going to have the access, desire, or education to directly understand the published science. Science is not a delivery mechanism, it's just not. People need things that touch their emotions. Maybe for some of us, science does that, but for most it just doesn't, and that isn't something we can or should be trying to fix. This is what art is for. This is why art is important. It's about making that specific type of art, the origin story and related pieces, informed by science.
Ok, you don't want to discuss it in a community setting. But what about outside of discussions, how about celebrations? How about rituals (weddings, births and the like). Do you want these to be solitary? Do you want them informed and contextualized by our understanding of our beautiful universe?
You don't need the equations and papers though! This stuff can be, and in fact already is, comprehensible with the proper metaphors and explanations. This is the whole point, about having persistent communities that can teach people these ideas over time, using beautiful metaphors and explanations that connect them, that they can relate to, while still saying "there is actual math for this that you can learn, if you want to know". And it wouldn't be like learning a new subject it would be like contextualizing the universe of which you are a part. It's a different thing when you are teaching people "the story of you". It's a total fallacy that nature of our universe can only be understood in a technical context.
Saying "Magnets work because there is a force of magentism" is not any less pat than saying "God exists because there's always been a God". There is no explanation that you can't continue to ask "Yeah, but whyyyyyyyy?", and our current scientific explanations go pretty fucking far back, and can explain like literally every single thing that humans have the capacity to observe. That's not nothing.