Why aren't there more Secular believers?

[Quintessence]

People inject their own personal bent on politics whether it’s religious or secular. If they didn’t, there would be no need for parties or elections.

Let’s please not pretend religious principle is the only thing that creates a personal bent.

This is part of why I don't believe in secularism; it's a cultural myth of convenience. It seems to me that secularism just serves to establish what that culture thinks religion looks like. And religion as some well-defined aspect of human life and living that is somehow separate from individuals and cultures as a whole is a relatively modern and Western academic artifice.

 

[Kfox]

Just curious... Why aren't there more people who are believers in God, in whatever capacity, that are more Secular?
Even when I used to identify as a Christian, I considered myself Secular.

I know there are a lot of people who are "Nones," out there, but I don't think this position automatically qualifies one as believing in Secularism.
Just like there are many atheists out there that are Humanists, but not all atheists are Humanists.

I sort of believe that there are a lot more people out there who are Deist-type with their God beliefs, they just don't know it and have
probably never heard of it.

Any thoughts?

How are you defining secular and Christian?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, sure. So religion and beliefs can influence one's beliefs in politics. I can understand that.

There is a difference I believe in simply believing in something, having it influence your opinions and thoughts, and openly forcing your beliefs onto others or proselytizing because of those "beliefs."

Like for example, Kandiss Taylor, who recently exclaimed that "we shouldn't be electing anyone in government...who isn't Christian."

And also, to quote her, "I don't have to give you 'freedom' of religion. Freedom of religion is there for us to worship Jesus. It's not for you to come force anything else upon me," she said.

Why? Because you're crazy? It's the kind of notion that so many Christians (not all), like this, feel entitled because they feel their beliefs are true, and for me makes embracing Secularism all the more logical.

I think it comes down to a lack of empathy, IMO coming from a notion of Christian exceptionalism.

They don't see other religions and their religion as two expressions of the same thing, so - to them - the Golden Rule doesn't mean that Christians' desire to worship as they see fit should also imply support for religious freedom more broadly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is part of why I don't believe in secularism; it's a cultural myth of convenience. It seems to me that secularism just serves to establish what that culture thinks religion looks like. And religion as some well-defined aspect of human life and living that is somehow separate from individuals and cultures as a whole is a relatively modern and Western academic artifice.

Rather than thinking of secularism as this idea that religion is a distinct thing that should be kept out of politics, I think it's helpful to see it differently:

Legitimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed. Anyone putting forward a new law/policy/program/etc. should be prepared to justify it to the entire population, not just people who believe in a certain way.

Secularism isn't about leaving one's religion at the door. It's perfectly fine if an official's religious beliefs motivate their official actions. The problem arises when the official can't justify their actions to others without appealing to their religion.

IOW, secularism is just transparent, accountable government. That and an absence of special treatment - positive or negative - on the basis of religion.

Edit: think of it through the lens of the "reasonable person" test: everything that the government does, and especially laws that limit freedom, should be justifiable to any reasonable person. And "reasonable person" includes Christians, Muslims, polytheists, atheists, deists, freethinkers, etc., etc., so that justification can't rely on anything that isn't universal to all of those reasonable people.

 

[Audie]

How are you defining secular and Christian?

Secular christian is like such a total oxymoron.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Secular” means not participating in religion, or not involving religion. So a person who accepts the divinity of Jesus, but doesn't go to church or pay much attention to religious doctrine , could be called a secular Christian. They believe in Christ (Christian) but don't participate in religion (secular)

This is how I used to be. Even further, there are non-theistic God beliefs out there. I am fairly certain that most believers in these kinds of concepts would be secular most likely.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Rather than thinking of secularism as this idea that religion is a distinct thing that should be kept out of politics, I think it's helpful to see it differently:

Legitimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed. Anyone putting forward a new law/policy/program/etc. should be prepared to justify it to the entire population, not just people who believe in a certain way.

Secularism isn't about leaving one's religion at the door. It's perfectly fine if an official's religious beliefs motivate their official actions. The problem arises when the official can't justify their actions to others without appealing to their religion.

IOW, secularism is just transparent, accountable government. That and an absence of special treatment - positive or negative - on the basis of religion.

Edit: think of it through the lens of the "reasonable person" test: everything that the government does, and especially laws that limit freedom, should be justifiable to any reasonable person. And "reasonable person" includes Christians, Muslims, polytheists, atheists, deists, freethinkers, etc., etc., so that justification can't rely on anything that isn't universal to all of those reasonable people.

Well, there is no objective standard for religion, But that is so too for reason in regards to your post. In effect your non-religion is reason, but sorry to say. It is no more objective than religion.

 

[Audie]

Secular” means not participating in religion, or not involving religion. So a person who accepts the divinity of Jesus, but doesn't go to church or pay much attention to religious doctrine , could be called a secular Christian. They believe in Christ (Christian) but don't participate in religion (secular)

This is how I used to be. Even further, there are non-theistic God beliefs out there. I am fairly certain that most believers in these kinds of concepts would be secular most likely.

Non theistic god- beliefs

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Yes?

 

[Audie]

Yes?

Just allowing you a bit of space for reflection

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Reflection of what? There are, contrary to your beliefs, non-Theist god beliefs out there, depending on how you define Theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reflection of what? There are, contrary to your beliefs, non-Theist god beliefs out there, depending on how you define Theism.

Theism = belief in a god or gods.

"Non-theist god beliefs" is a contradiction in terms.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Theism = belief in a god or gods.

"Non-theist god beliefs" is a contradiction in terms.

No, not for the narrow version of a theistic god.
I believe in a god, but it is not a theistic one. Look up the word if you have to.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures."

Would this not be a more accurate view of Theism? If you are going by this sense, then there are several beliefs out there, namely Deism, that technically would not fall into the Theistic category. I am fairly certain any Theist-based god beliefs argue for a more personal-type of God or deity, that intervenes in human affairs and governs the universe in some way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures."

Would this not be a more accurate view of Theism? If you are going by this sense, then there are several beliefs out there, namely Deism, that technically would not fall into the Theistic category. I am fairly certain any Theist-based god beliefs argue for a more personal-type of God or deity, that intervenes in human affairs and governs the universe in some way.

The word "theism" is used in two senses. It can mean both god-belief in general as well as a specific sort of god-belief. Both senses are valid; telling what sense in which a person is using the word generally comes down to contextual clues.

It's valid to say that deism is a subset of theism. It's also valid to say that deism is separate from theism. Language is weird.

BTW: if you quote the person you're responding to, it can be clearer who your post is addressed to. Also, the person you quote gets a notification.

 

[Sargonski]

I agree, religion should stay in church. Forcing your religion on others through politics is a bad point of religion.

This is the difference between the Islamist and a muslim . The Muslim believes there is no coercion in Islam .. the Islamist wishes to force religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law) .. known as Strict Sharia .. what you have described as "politics" which is the same thing as politicians push legislation a certain direction.

Most people do not understand the question of a referendum .. say .. Banning alcohol for example. The question of the referendum is NOT -- Do you like Alcohol .. or Does God like Alcohol. The question of a referendum is "Do you have sufficient justification to force your personal likes and dislikes on others through Physical violence (Law) .. and sorry but .. "God doesn't like it" .. is not sufficient justification. . Prove that God does not like Alcohol ? and thus now we have law on the basis of logical fallacy .. which will not do cept in Kangarooland.

Jesus was completely against "Sharia" be it christian - muslim or Jew .. "Render unto Caesar what his" .. "Let ye without sin cast first rock"

BUT - and this is a really big BuTT so pay attention .. this is the "Foundation" "what The Rock's got cooking" on which the ministry of The Logos was based. From start to finish .. beginning to end .. "The Alpha and the Omega"

and BUT - this foundation was taught to Jesus by a Famous Rabbi .. on whose knee Jesus sat .. the Rabbi Hillel 100 years old at the time ... the name of one of the two schools of Jewish theosphy .. can't recall the other .. born 100BC this old guy. One day an unbeliever say to Hillel .. Tell me the meaning of the entire Torah standing on one foot. Hillel says to the fellow "Don't do to others what you hate - The rest is all commentary - now go and learn"

And so .. goes the Golden Rule .. in both positive and negative forms ye should adopt .. If you don't want others forcing their religious beliefs on you through physical violence .. then by blarmey you shouldn't be doing this to others .. .. Right ! ! You don't want to drink .. Don't .. but don't be forcing your perverse behavior my direction por favor .

Buddha had this rule .. as did Confucius .. Hammurabi .. as with Judaism .. claimed this rule was sent down by the Most High God .. Muhamad cited this rule .. and last but not least "HeyZeus" - latinized pronunciation of the sacred name .. in the most important Sermon .. telling us how we might obtain entrance into the kingdom of heaven Matt 5-7 "Spoiler Alert" ---- by following this Rule you exclaim !? .. why Yes my dear !! you have seen the light prior to the end of the tunnel.

Ready for it ? heaken back to Rabbi Hillel "Don't do to others what you hate -- rest is all commentary --- now go and learn"

Matt 7:12 .. your favorite verse and mine .. Rabbi Jesus say "Don't do to others what you hate (don't want done to you)" but now the final nail in the coffin "This rule sums up the Law and the Prophets" == U understand ? .. this is "Everything" .. the only thing you need to know from the Bible .. the foundation of our Constitutional republic .. the founding principle (respect essential liberty)

Thomas Jefferson - "The Legitimate authority of Gov't extends "ONLY" to acts which are injurious to others .. If it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg I don't care if there is one God or twently"

So as per the two principles of the Declaration of Independence .. by which law and the constitution are to be interpreted .. The Gov't has ZERO legitimate authority to mess with essential liberty .. and according to constitutional republic princples .. to avoid what both Classical Liberals and Republicans viewed as "Tyranny of Authority" .. to make such law "Banning Alcohol" the refferendum or popular support bar is not 50+1 .. and certainly not simple majority mandate .. the Bar is "Overwhelming Majority" = at least 2/3rds .. in cases such as a change to the constitution 75% is required.

So in closing .. Yes .. it is an anthema to the teachigns of Jesus to force religious beliefs on others through physical violence .. be it by Muslims .. Christians .. Jews .. or HIndoos .. Rastafarians will tell you this .. listen to them .. as you would "The Mahatma"

 

[endlessvoid2018]

The word "theism" is used in two senses. It can mean both god-belief in general as well as a specific sort of god-belief. Both senses are valid; telling what sense in which a person is using the word generally comes down to contextual clues.

It's valid to say that deism is a subset of theism. It's also valid to say that deism is separate from theism. Language is weird.

BTW: if you quote the person you're responding to, it can be clearer who your post is addressed to. Also, the person you quote gets a notification.

Like this?
Anyways, thanks for agreeing with my point. When used in the context I stated, I believe there can certainly be Non-Theistic views of god, or god beliefs. "Pantheism," despite having Theism in the name, would be another one IMO.

 

[sayak83]

Just curious... Why aren't there more people who are believers in God, in whatever capacity, that are more Secular?
Even when I used to identify as a Christian, I considered myself Secular.

I know there are a lot of people who are "Nones," out there, but I don't think this position automatically qualifies one as believing in Secularism.
Just like there are many atheists out there that are Humanists, but not all atheists are Humanists.

I sort of believe that there are a lot more people out there who are Deist-type with their God beliefs, they just don't know it and have
probably never heard of it.

Any thoughts?

I am pluralist i.e. I believe Govt can support all law abiding worldviews held by its citizens equally. No favoritism.

 

[Audie]

Reflection of what? There are, contrary to your beliefs, non-Theist god beliefs out there, depending on how you define Theism.

I'm not amused by equivocation or
semantic games.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

I don't recall asking.