misterpessimistic: So now I am not sure what we are trying to explain here.I was only trying to get a handle on what "secular" meant in this discussion, since your initial post made it seem to me that Jacoby was talking about something apart from the normal use of that word.Yes...but much religious 'research' I have seen is preposterous. It merely pats the faith of choice on the back.And at the same time, you refuse to look at the sources I'm citing. You don't consider the evidence presented at all because you've already presented a generalized rejection. And it hardly seems to matter to you that most of the research I've alluded to is not theology but anthropology, nor that my preference is for comparative religion rather than dogmatics.So you think that ONLY a religious social system would have produced the innovations you list?I think that they would only have achieved their present form under the auspices of religion. I won't argue that the clock never would have been invented if not for Benedictine monastic life, nor that theater would have never developed had it not been for the ritual demands of Grecian pagan religion. Obviously no cultural institution is physically supported by the systems of thought that gave it birth, and it's clear enough in our own society that social institutions quickly spiral off in their own directions.However, whether or not "Theatre could very well have stemmed from pre-language hominids using charades to communicate," I think that there are good arguments for why it would not have developed in such a fashion -- namely that the innovation of language would ultimately make that sort of communication superfluous. The continued existence, and more importantly, development of theater can be best explained by its applicability to problems that are not solved by language. My suggestion is not only that religion gave rise to institutions like Greek theater, but that religious concerns have continued for some time to shape those institutions. This is not to say that secular concerns have not also played a part in the development of those institutions, but I'm not at all sure that a purely secular concern could continue to support institutions like those found in the arts. And again, my reasons for thinking so are fairly involved, so unless you're truly interested I'll spare you the details.Many of the tenets of religion and faith are borne from the early development of our species, no?That depends entirely on what you mean. Is there a strictly biological basis for religion? I'd say, no -- that in order for there to arise a system of religion, there must also arise certain social or cultural prerequisites. Now, naturally, all culture rests on the prior achievement of biological development, but it seems clear to me that the contribution of noetic development is more central to the development of social and cultural institutions like religion.In the end, it is humans that are to be given credit.I'm not arguing for revealed religion, so I don't really see why you lay such stress on that point. I'm of a mind to follow the suggestion of Giambattista Vico out to its fullest -- that all religion is manufactured. That puts is roughly on a level with mathematics, logic and the sciences.Since we only have a linear conception of time, and religious institutions have dominated that time, it is easy to find 'research' to back the necessity of religious institutions.I think you may still be misinterpreting my point, and I'm not at all sure that I could give you the necessary framework without directing you to the work of other authors. Start here: the conceptual constructs available to any given person may be considered unlimited, but in practice the available constructs are largely determined by the social environment in which an individual is brought up. A room-full of typist monkeys might eventually produce the Gettysberg Address, but it's highly implausible that Abraham Lincoln would have had he not be subjected to certain forms of socialization: training in English is an obvious example; familiarity with certain political thought is another. Religion is, among other things, a particular sort of social and cultural environment, one that is capable of certain kinds of constructs that are either improbable or even impossible within other environments. Secular humanism would likely never produce something like "The Iliad" on its own; for that matter, without the prior influence of religion, it's unlikely that secular humanism would produce something like "The Lord of the Rings". And until you've had some practice attempting to view the world from the perspective of an ancient, it's difficult to realize precisely how improbably some modes of thought are without the proper intellectual environment. For the agrarian medieval, for example, trained by both his social indoctrination and raw experiences to view time according to the change of seasons and the amount of light available, it's difficult to conceive of a pattern of time that is distinct from the changing pattern of weather and season. Benedictine monks were more capable of conceiving that view of time because their minds were bent towards tasks that had to be organized to a scheme distinct from the phenomenological progression of time. That, as a primer.I am responsible and caring because I want that myself. Empathy rules my actions.But again, why? What substantiates the assumption that we should extend to others what we want ourselves? (We might even add that the "Golden Rule", as that principle is generally called, was initially a quasi-religious principle.) Reason alone does not support the notion that you ought to do anything, unless it can make reference to some underlying value.You honestly find no reason to be good to others aside from whatever god you believe in?Not because of what God I believe in (and indeed, if that were true, I'd have a problem: recall our discussion about what characteristics I felt comfortable attributing to God), but rather because I premise my ethical decisions on certain values that are ultimately unsubstantiated by reason.Mad, RELIGION is clearly and grotesquely arbitrary!!If you want to suggest that religion and secularism are equally grotesque and arbitrary, I'd give that tacit acceptance. What bothers me is the presumption that secular thought is clearly superior to religious thought, regardless of context, and without substantiation for that claim.The time was right in the 16-18 centuries for this to change...and guess what...it kinda did! Those that found themselves in America also found a new opportunity to make a drastic change in the way things had been done. Are you saying this is not the case? That it was some mistake of a side-track that produced this world we now live in?I think that's a question worth asking. I'm not more ready to accept the notion that secularism is the natural and right progression of human thought than I am to accept the contrary notion that secularism is nothing but an aberration. The starting point for me is a question that stems from your phrase "the time was right": what about the time made it right? A possibility that bears consideration, I think, is that the time was right because many institutional notions had become so stratified from their religious origins that those origins had become obscured. You may feel inclined to reject that notion out of hand, but consider this caution: if you hope to see secularism continue to progress, it is important that it no relapse into primitive religious thought. In order to ensure that, it is important that the structure of thought which supports secularism neither collapse nor unconsciously revert to older forms. And in order to prevent against that, it is important that those working in support of secularism understand its historical development, on the principle that those who do not know are likely (if not doomed) to repeat history.Do you say that the scientific discoveries of the 17 & 1800's are just a side-track and we should have stayed with Alchemy and Prayer, since those dominated our history prior to said discoveries?Of course not, although it's an obvious mistake to characterize the period prior to the 18th century as one of no progress. Alchemy itself was subject to progress (and again, I can provide you with a fascinating source on that).Are you against growth for our species?Not at all, and I would suggest that religion has and can feasibly continue to promote the growth of our society. (Neither religion nor science have hepled our species grow, I hasten to add; both may have helped it survive.)The real point for me is I do not need a list to tell me how to behave and treat others. I feel sorry for those that do.And my point is that a lot of the assumptions that go into your morality, your culture, your entire way of life may have roots of which you are unaware. You seem to have reduced this to an argument of religion v. secular. I'm not arguing for religion to the exclusion of secularism. My point is that, even if you don't care to adopt a religion, anyone so staunchly secular owes it to their own point of view to understand religion better, if for no other reason than to know where the lines are drawn. Most people in secular society have blinded themselves to religion and are thus more intimately tied to it than they realize.because as much as you accuse me of turning off oppositional views, you tend to do the same.Point me to some examples so I can correct my behavior. My intention has been to address oppositional views, accept them where they are correct and reject them where their reasoning fails. I like to know when I haven't met that goal, so by all means, rub my nose in it.No, I do not have the time you have to pour over book upon book...so, rather than ignoring your references, I reject them...I would think that a Socratic profession of ignorance would be more in line with a freethinker's view of the world than a rejection on principle alone.I came to booktalk to get away from having to debate those of faith...for they say nothing, over and over again.If that's what you think I'm doing, then you're free to ignore me (again).And thus, they should be kept separate.That looks to me like a non sequitar conclusion, despite the fact that I agree. I thought that I had made it clear in the past that I'm not arguing for theodicy, that I support the American seperation of church and state.for government is another means to find a common truth...I should hope not. I had thought that government was a means of ensuring social order, not any sort of implement in the search for truth. That the government is a means to finding truth seems to me like a horribly dangerous idea.See...wow...a secularist who places value on life! Hard to wrap around?The same point I had before: that moral and social decisions point back to underlying values, but that secularism itself is incapable of substantiating those values. I have no doubt that the vast majority of secularists value life, but I think that value has its roots in something other than secularism.This can be a very telling reason why you believe in the need for faith and I do not.I believe in faith because it is apparant to me that logic is only possible given a set of premises, and that while some premises can be substantiated by reductive and retrogressive logical exercises, they must ultimately lead back to premises which are accepted as a priori truths. That acceptance can either be entirely conjectural -- in which case, your entire view of reality is conjectural -- or premised on faith. I've never met a person who was able to maintain a purely conjectural view of reality without lapsing into madness, so it seems clear to me that every sane person relies in an essential way on faith.

I offer the fact our founding fathers had the benefit of John Locke's essay "A letter concerning toleration." That essay, to me, is the defining discussion of the topic of citizens' beliefs and State Power. Politics being Politics, then just as now, they simply did not know how to design a working political system to accomplish the goal of not having a State sponsored religion. Probably the reason we have gotten along as far as we have, as well as we have, is what De Tocqueville found.As I understand the irraducible minimum of Alex de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" he said the American experiment wouldn't work if there wasn't this "fantazamagora" undefined, unspecified, and for the most part unspoken commonality called, for better or for worse, Christian morality.Folks may react neuroticly toward the concept but for me that is the reality. Lawrenceindestin

Quote:What we may have uncovered by mistake is that some forms of human thought (for example, morality) depend on a religious framework.Morals may have originated that way in the ancient times, but a religious framework is certainly not required to develop and maintain a system of morality.Consider that religious morals change over time. In the Old Testament, female adulterers were to be stoned to death and the male left alone. Jesus abolished that form of capital punishment.Consider that many religious morals are in conflict. It is acceptable for Muslims to have multiple wives, but not Christians; it is acceptable for Christians to drink alchohol, but not Muslims.Consider that modern societies reject many religious morals. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all condone slavery, but no modern open societies do so. The U.S. Constitution explicitly rejects the First Commandment within the First Amendment.

LanDroid. My thread is incomplete. I've not gotten the gist of speaking succintly and clearly. I had trouble finding Ms. Jacoby's thesis statement. I concluded the last paragraph of the introduction was her thesis statement. If that is true, then she places the thrust of her argument on her "belief" that there is some magical ether out there named human reason and logic that is so beautiful and accurate she is astounded that clear thinking people could not see its wisdom except they are blinded by the dogma of organized religion. All she's done is made her belief better than someone elses belief.Whether you define morality as following the will of the majority, or following the perceived will of a god, neither definition proves that one or the other can get everyone going in the same direction at the same time, trying to accomplish the same purpose which is what government does. I believe it is unsupportable that secularist thinkers will do a better job of leading the people than those of any other belief. Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were secularists and there aren't many who believe they went in the right direction.My answer to you LanDroid is the issue is not about morality, it is about government. And government is nothing more than very human frail people with limited knowledge and prejudices. Edited by: lawrenceindestin at: 7/29/05 2:53 pm

Hitler's ChristianityMr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

LanDroid: Consider that religious morals change over time....Consider that many religious morals are in conflict...Consider that modern societies reject many religious morals....I don't see how any of those three points serve to undermine my suggestion that a religious framework may be necessary in the creation of morals. Until someone can demonstrate the development of moral systems apart from the conceptual premises provided by religion, it remains an open question. I would not, as yet, argue that a secular society is incapable of asserting standard codes of behavior, but it seems to me that those are likely to stand only as the writ of law, which differs in a number of key respects from morality.lawrenceindestin: If that is true, then she places the thrust of her argument on her "belief" that there is some magical ether out there named human reason and logic that is so beautiful and accurate she is astounded that clear thinking people could not see its wisdom except they are blinded by the dogma of organized religion.Interesting point. While I'm not reading the Jacoby book, I have been reading a great deal lately about the development of the Enlightenment attitude concerning reason, and it has become clear to me that Reason came to mean something during that period which it had not meant in previous eras. Our society is still tracing a trajectory more or less congruent to that charted by the Enlightenment redefinition of Reason.

Quote:I don't see how any of those three points serve to undermine my suggestion that a religious framework may be necessary in the creation of morals. That's OK, I really didn't expect you to see it... Quote:Until someone can demonstrate the development of moral systems apart from the conceptual premises provided by religion, it remains an open question. The U.S. has done so. As I mentioned before, we have moved beyond religious morality such as The First Commandment or slavery. A secular Gov't is necessary to prohibit the genocide required to enforce "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Outlawing slavery went against the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These principles have held over a long period of time.Quote:I would not, as yet, argue that a secular society is incapable of asserting standard codes of behavior, but it seems to me that those are likely to stand only as the writ of law, which differs in a number of key respects from morality.As I mentioned before, religious morality changes over time also. Later in the book, you'll read the following.Quote:The conventional local eulogy of the dead Free Thinker, Macdonald explained, states that "his religion was the Golden Rule". When the obituary notice contains those words, it is known that the deceased was an Infidel. P267 in softcover editionConsider the Golden Rule is a secular moral, it makes no appeal to supernatural authority. People base morals on how they want themselves or how their families to be treated.

LanDroid: That's OK, I really didn't expect you to see it...I'm a pretty dense guy. Maybe you should explain.Me: Until someone can demonstrate the development of moral systems apart from the conceptual premises provided by religion, it remains an open question.LD: The U.S. has done so.Not hardly. U.S. legality, which is, again, a thing apart from morality, is still based on the framework of moral and legal codes that were in place long before the European discovery of the New World and which were widely considered, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, universal or innate. Since that time the notion of innate or universal standards for human concept has been so decayed as to remain untenable. What has arisen in its place is a recognition that the morality of most modern cultures stands on a foundation established by the cultures from which it has developed -- in a broad sense, from the whole development of Western civilization, including the religious influences throughout. Until there is an attempt to refound the moral concepts that lay at root in any modern cultural unit on a thoroughly secular foundation, the suspicion that those moral concepts are actually dependent on latent, possibly forgotten, religious trains of thought ought to remain firm. I can understand why that notion would meet with a hostile reaction among atheists, but to my mind it's simply a matter of historical development.To frame the concept along different lines, imagine a mathematical argument founded on the supposition that D=c+e. The argument develops from there into increasing levels of sophistication, until it eventually arrives at an interesting and useful conclusion. Later examination, however, reveals that the foundational supposition, D=c+e, is unusable for one reason or another -- either because the mathematicians have the strong suspicion that it is not true or because use of that particular formula makes possible certain perceived "misuses" of the argument. Once we've excluded D=c+e, we find that our entire argument is left simply floating in mid-air, as it were; it has no foundation, and while we may still make some use of the conclusions at the far end, we have no justification for asserting their truth because the argument is missing some crucial steps. It's necessary either to find a new basis on which to settle the more advanced portions of the argument -- which may also lead necessarily to a revision of the upward portions of the argument -- or to lapse into a kind of mysticism that says, even though we cannot link the conclusion to the premises, we affirm the truth of our argument as a matter of sheer will.That appears to me to be more or less the case with so-called secular morality. It essentially takes whichever conclusions of a religious-based morality it deems good and upholds them. In doing so, it has largely ignored the need for a new understructure, nor has it considered the likelihood that even the "good" that guided the decision of which morals to retain is founded on a latent religious conception of the world.A secular Gov't is necessary to prohibit the genocide required to enforce "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."How does that commandment require genocide in its enforcement? Even historically, that's not so, as Jews have lived in any number of other religious contexts and have allowed persons of other faith to live within their own. There are, of course, examples in the Hebrew scripture of war and genocide against other nations and faiths, but those were typically fitted to the commandment after the fact -- I'm not aware of any instances of Israelite-committed genocide that extended directly from obedience to the First Commandment. (Plug: check out the Bible thread in the Additional Book Discussions forum; we're getting started soon.)For that matter, why do you think that it's exclusion from the U.S. legal code means that it's no longer a part of the majority morality in America? The latest statistic that I've seen has roughly 84% of Americans polled claiming to be Christian. Morality may be reflected in part in the legal sanctions of a nation, but never in whole.As I mentioned before, religious morality changes over time also. Later in the book, you'll read the following.Again, I don't understand what the mutability of morality has to do with my argument. I've argued all along that morality is the product of social forces and individual consideration. That naturally makes it subject to change. My argument has nothing to do with the supposed universality or eternal nature of morality asserted by some. My point is that morality stands on the foundation of concepts that developed in religious thought, even if the connections between the two is sometimes obscured by further developments in thought. And it's unlikely that I'll read more about anything further along in the book -- I'm not reading it.Consider the Golden Rule is a secular moral, it makes no appeal to supernatural authority.It also makes no explicit reference to its underpinnings. When faced with a question -- why? -- the Golden Rule immediately becomes problematic as a moral precept. Its historical antecedents were founded in religious thought, and it strikes me as highly likely that the Golden Rule is susceptible to the criticism that I logged before: that it was adopted by secular culture with little consideration as to its relation to its religious underpinnings, nor as to how it should be substantiated by secular thought only. The easiest way to substantiate it from a secular point of view is to take it as merely irreducible, that is, as reasonable, without any appeal to reason -- in other words, without really substantiating it. When that's the case, it becomes difficult to provide any argument for why we should take the Golden Rule as a moral superior to any other "morality" you might posit as from a wholly secular viewpoint -- from the social Darwinian maxim that we ought to act in the interest of our competing genes, for instance.

Quote:Until there is an attempt to refound the moral concepts that lay at root in any modern cultural unit on a thoroughly secular foundation, the suspicion that those moral concepts are actually dependent on latent, possibly forgotten, religious trains of thought ought to remain firm.I don't think it's possible to do that in a multi-cultural society therefore your statement doesn't have much credibility. However, the U.S. has made large strides in setting up secular morals - a constitution, banning slavery, reversing the First Commandment by forbidding heresy trials and oaths of faith to obtain political office, women's rights, etc. Rejecting certain religious morals indicates a religious framework is not necessary to set up or maintain morality. These morals did not originate in religious thought and some are opposed by religious authorities, therefore they are not maintained by a religious framework.Quote:Again, I don't understand what the mutability of morality has to do with my argument.You stated that secular morals are like laws that can be overturned on a whim. The mutability of religious morals weakens your complaint about secular morals.To your point, if religious authorities obtained political power, certain secular morals could be reversed such as prohibitions against teaching about Jesus in public schools. But it's interesting to consider that on the other hand, certain secular morals are so well established that it's highly unlikely they'll ever be reversed: both the New and Old Testaments condone slavery.Quote:...(The Golden Rule) was adopted by secular culture with little consideration as to its relation to its religious underpinnings, nor as to how it should be substantiated by secular thought only.The Golden Rule may have originated in religious thought, but it's also entirely possible religion merely co-opted ancient common sense. It obtains no power from supernatural authority. Moral men don't rape women because they don't want their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters to be raped. That's a mighty powerful force that doesn't require enforcement from a Gawd.

Ah...please do come around more often LanDroid!!!!I will add my feeble thoughts to your at another time...Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper