Militant secularisation

[billythewiz]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831

It's on the increase apparently. Varsi thinks that's a bad thing. The majority of people commenting on the story feel otherwise !

[aidanjt]

Militant secularism? LOL.

What a bunch of morons. People don't feel 'uncomfotable in their religion', they've just grown out of childhood fairy tales.

You're just not relevant anymore. We don't need absurd fables to explain how we came to being. Get over it.

[TheAnimus]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201202144894/

"Then all the Christians should go around getting all up in people's faces and demanding money for believing in Jesus in the same way that all those weird, angry scientists go around demanding money for believing in gravity.

[peterb]

Militant action by any group tends to be self defeating in most contexts - and is usually results in one group of people try to force their views on another. In that respect it is little better than bullying, and reprehensible whichever group is promoting it.

[Phage]

Isn't secularistaion a 'good thing' (tm)
One of things I've always admired about Turkey, France and the US is religious freedom, with a clear seperation of faith from government.

[Saracen]

Militant secularism? LOL.

What a bunch of morons. People don't feel 'uncomfotable in their religion', they've just grown out of childhood fairy tales.

You're just not relevant anymore. We don't need absurd fables to explain how we came to being. Get over it.

The thing is, there's little to no evidence that such "fairy tales", in one flavour or another, or to some extent or another, aren't actually correct, however ludicrous or implausible they might seem. Similarly, there seems to be little actual evidence that they are. As far as I can tell, there's very little (or no) actual evidence, period.

Believing in something doesn't make it true, and not believing it doesn't make it false.

It's also the case that Warsi, whether she meant it like this or not, makes another point, and it's entirely a different question. That is the argument that society is better off with religion, any religion, that without it. Maybe people are happier with a belief that gives them comfort, even if they're wrong. Maybe most of society acts more in a manner that benefits most of us if they believe, than if they don't. There are obvious exceptions to that, religious wars and religious justifications for wars being chief among them, but still, if we all had, and acted upon the basic tenets of most religions, like abhorring violence, not stealing, treating others with kindness and respect, protecting the weak and infirm, etc, then the world would be a much nicer place even if God doesn't exist.

So she might be right that religion is a good thing, even if the God is proclaims is non-existent, and that latter point seems utterly unable to be proven, either way.

[Saracen]

Militant action by any group tends to be self defeating in most contexts - and is usually resultys in one group of people try to force their views on another. In that respect it is little better than bullying, and reprehensible whichever group is promoting it.

True enough, but Warsi labelling it as militant doesn't mean it is, and it's a good way of painting it in a pejorative way.

[redddraggon]

Isn't secularistaion a 'good thing' (tm)
One of things I've always admired about Turkey, France and the US is religious freedom, with a clear seperation of faith from government.

I agree on nations being Secular, it's the way it should be, but I find Militant Atheists are just as bad as pushy "religionists", trying to force their views on other people.

[Phage]

I agree on nations being Secular, it's the way it should be, but I find Militant Atheists are just as bad as pushy "religionists", trying to force their views on other people.

Aye. Completely agree.
I am only disagreeing with her point that a religious society is necessarily better than a secular one. I would say the opposite was true.
She came so close to Godwinning herself !

[aidanjt]

The thing is, there's little to no evidence that such "fairy tales", in one flavour or another, or to some extent or another, aren't actually correct, however ludicrous or implausible they might seem.

There's a mountain of natural evidence which directly contradicts the creation myth. And there's nothing in nature which supports supernatural nonsense like walking on liquid water, laying on hands, transmuting water into wine, stone into bread, spontaneous resurrection, etc..

Believing in something doesn't make it true, and not believing it doesn't make it false.

Right, which is exactly why science uses evidence, rather than bare assertions and arguments from authority.

That is the argument that society is better off with religion, any religion, that without it.

Which is demonstrably false. The most peaceful and happy nations are the most secular and atheistic.

Maybe people are happier with a belief that gives them comfort, even if they're wrong. Maybe most of society acts more in a manner that benefits most of us if they believe, than if they don't. There are obvious exceptions to that, religious wars and religious justifications for wars being chief among them, but still, if we all had, and acted upon the basic tenets of most religions, like abhorring violence, not stealing, treating others with kindness and respect, protecting the weak and infirm, etc, then the world would be a much nicer place even if God doesn't exist.

So she might be right that religion is a good thing, even if the God is proclaims is non-existent, and that latter point seems utterly unable to be proven, either way.

Who says we need religion to to nice to each other? Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality, it's not even in the ballpark.

[chuckskull]

Firstly, last time I checked Secularism was the technical term for and means of achieving freedom of religion. It's on the rise? Oh how terrible, anything but freedom, terrible oppressive freedom. Seriously when did Secular become a dirty word?

Secondly, this woman has no idea what militant means. Seriously, anyone ever even heard about a secular suicide bomber? Secular hostage takers? Secular spree killers? Thought not. She's simply being insulting, attempting nothing more than trying to denigrate people who don't agree with her. Proving her own ignorance and prejudice.

Thirdly, heard that expression about glass houses? Militant Islam is most certainly on the rise, properly militant I mean, y'know AK's, public lashing, stoning, child suicide bombers and those lovely slow beheadings, wouldn't want them dying to quick now would we?. Not her silly definition of; 'sometimes they say things I don't like' boohoo. In fact she'd be killed for showing her face in the many Muslim nations, never mind opening her mouth. Funnily enough because they believe, like her, that secularism is a bad thing. That the government should decide what you believe and kill you if you don't comply. Oh the irony.

[Saracen]

There's a mountain of natural evidence which directly contradicts the creation myth. And there's nothing in nature which supports supernatural nonsense like walking on liquid water, laying on hands, transmuting water into wine, stone into bread, spontaneous resurrection, etc..

But, if it's "supernatural", then by definition, there wouldn't be anything in nature supporting it, would there? That's kinda the point.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you but I admit the possibility I could be wrong. Not least, I could be wrong because what's needed to detect the "supernatural" is something we don't have naturally, and haven't yet invented.

For instance, x-rays exist, yes? And we can now both detect and generate them. But, until the last few decades, we had no idea they existed. Much the same applies to gamma radiation. We can infer the existence of gravity from experiment and theorise about how it works, but as I understand it, nobody has yet explained the mechanism.

Most of what we know "scientifically" has become known to us the what's little more than a blink of the eye in the evolution of humanity, and we're a relatively young species on a relatively young planet, in therms of the age of the universe.

We could, and I stress could be failing to detect the supernatural in the same way that Galileo failed to detect radio waves. They were there, but he had no idea what they were, or how to detect them. I don't believe, personally, that the "supernatural" exists in that way, but note I said "believe", not "know".

....

Right, which is exactly why science uses evidence, rather than bare assertions and arguments from authority.
....

And has been known to be wrong in the past, and I'd bet will be found to be wrong on something else in the future, too. The whole point of science, surely, is to accumulate and assess evidence, to hypothesise based on experience and theorise, and test and experiment and revise, based on results. It isn't to presume to know the answer, just because you have no evidence, but to know what you don't know as well as what you do.

Sure, we have no (convincing at any rate) evidence that the supernatural exists .... and Galileo had no evidence of gamma rays either. Nor, in her early work, did Marie Curie, a mistake that (apparently) later killed her. And on that, we're talking about barely a 100 years ago.

....


Who says we need religion to to nice to each other? Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality, it's not even in the ballpark.

Nobody said that. Or at least, I sure didn't. I said if people lived by those religious mandates, the world would be a better place. Sadly, most don't. Still, they're not a bad set of objectives to aim for, whether for religious reasons or not.

[peterb]

Isn't the term "supernatural" used to explain what we don't understand? (My bold text)

Early 15c. "above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher realm," from M.L. supernaturalis "above or beyond nature," from L. super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since c.1799.

[chuckskull]

I think, what we can't(ever), rather than don't understand might be a better definition. By virtue of being within nature we can understand it, even if we do not yet. Once you're beyond nature, something set apart from our world or our universe as we'd say nowadays then we never can.

Although the big caveat being that many times we have called things that turned out to be perfectly natural, supernatural. Of course if you believe in ghosts, gods et al, then this is basically the mistake you think others are making, that these things are infact as intrinsic to nature as DNA and gravity and we're simply to small/insignifcant by virtue of our humanity to understand in all but the vaguest sense. Although then we start getting into serious Theology, God of the gaps etc and that's a whole other thread.

[TheAnimus]

I think the issue is what was once supernatural, is now Key Stage 2.

If you use a book thats a few hundred years old as your only source of knowledge, your going to get it wrong on the Quantum scale, so most people don't use the principia mathematica any more. Surely we've moved on from god too.

[Phage]

I keep seeing these two blokes in a large black car. I'm so suggestible.