The inevitable march of secularism? Not so fast

[Jeff Lebowski]

Honestly, I don't think he makes a very compelling argument. What does he mean by science? Social science or hard science? And what mechanism for rooting out religion was contemplated in the 19th century compared to now? He seems to be taking a very broad correlation (lots of fundamentalists in lots of places) to suggest that the influence of science is not irresistibly directional. That's likely true. But who claimed it was? Was there some deadline that we missed? The correlation between education and secularism, along with economic progress, seems to suggest that there is an effect if the scientific approach is disseminated in a meaningful way. That said Cardia is right, IMO, that we, as the beings that we are, require some sort of connection between us or with the 'other' in order to be happy and complete. As a result, religion will always be around.

Not sure I would interpret it that way. For me, the main point was that there is an assumption that the broad adoption of science (in all variations) would result in universal secularization. "The march of time is one-directional." That has not happened, especially if you take a global view. Furthermore, this linkage of science to secularization is arguably harmful to science. As societies lash back against secularization, they are often lashing back at science, i.e., throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That is unfortunate.

[creekster]

ok. Well, thats my argument. I will read it.

Honestly, I don't think he makes a very compelling argument. What does he mean by science? Social science or hard science? And what mechanism for rooting out religion was contemplated in the 19th century compared to now? He seems to be taking a very broad correlation (lots of fundamentalists in lots of places) to suggest that the influence of science is not irresistibly directional. That's likely true. But who claimed it was? Was there some deadline that we missed? The correlation between education and secularism, along with economic progress, seems to suggest that there is an effect if the scientific approach is disseminated in a meaningful way. That said Cardia is right, IMO, that we, as the beings that we are, require some sort of connection between us or with the 'other' in order to be happy and complete. As a result, religion will always be around.

P.S. Sorry I didnt read it first.

[creekster]

It is a short essay. You should check it out.

I don't think he is making the argument you just made.

ok. Well, thats my argument. I will read it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

These are just my own thoughts, and I freely admit I have not read any of the links here or watched the videos.

It is a short essay. You should check it out.

I don't think he is making the argument you just made.

[creekster]

This thread is suffering from a lack of definitions. Many of you are throwing around the word "religion" but filing to account for the fact that this term means very different things to the various people quoted and to those posting (I am guessing). There has been an obvious and substantial move away from organized adherence to specific sects while, at the same time, there is an increasingly tenacious grip by many on the idea of a spiritual belief in SOMETHING. So will science root out all 'religion?' Clearly not. Will it have an effect on the likelihood that a culture meaningfully supports a specific sect or organized belief system? Probably so, IMO.

Further, when these guys say that science should fear antagonizing religion and that science is at risk of being compromised by religion, they are not talking about organized religion with specific dogmas. They are, IMO, talking about people who abandon specific religious traditions in favor of a generic, broadband, means-whatever-I-want-it-to-mean, spirituality. Those people tend to believe they have freed their minds from organized religion, and are thus "scientific," while adopting in its stead a series of creeds based in modern trends which may or may not have anything to do with actual science. If science is overwhelmed by religious zealots, it wont come from mormons or catholics or buddhists; it will come from granola munching burning man acolytes who think they know how things ought to be rather than how things are based on empiricism.

Bottom line, both SU and JL may be correct here.

These are just my own thoughts, and I freely admit I have not read any of the links here or watched the videos.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Bro, I don't even know what an enfold is. I bet mine is small though.

I don't get it either.

[Pelado]

Bro, I don't even know what an enfold is. I bet mine is small though.

Humility - one of the reasons HFN is so beloved by secularists and religionists alike.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

can everyone just stop comparing their enfolds please

Bro, I don't even know what an enfold is. I bet mine is small though.

[old_gregg]

can everyone just stop comparing their enfolds please

[CardiacCoug]

Physician, heal thyself!

Yeah I prefer Sam Harris to Joel Osteen and always will -- although I enjoy an Osteen pep talk too!

[Clark Addison]

... There is a reason that angry atheists like Sam Harris have a much smaller following than positive religious people like Joel Osteen.

...

Tooblue that's a dumb video.

Physician, heal thyself!

[tooblue]

What's dumb is your last point: our universe and galaxy are designed for us, precisely because we exist in said universe and galaxy that gave birth to us, regardless the question of whether or not our existence is the result of randomness or ... whatever? We exist as designed by the universe and galaxy we live in.

“The mathematics itself suggests a movement in which everything … enfolds into the whole and the whole enfolds it in it … You could therefore say that everything is enfolded in this whole, or even in each part, and that it then enfolds. I call this implicate order, the enfolded order, and this unfolds into an explicate order. The implicate is the enfolded order. It unfolds into the explicate order, in which everything is separated … The implicate order would help us … to see that everything enfolds everything … everybody not merely depends on everybody, but actually everybody is everybody in a deeper sense. We are earth, because all our substance comes from the earth and goes back to it.” —David Bohm, p. 128, from his book 'On Creativity'

More related to Lebowski's thoughts, though perhaps abstractly:

[tooblue]

Even though the tenets of modern secular atheism sure seem literally "true" to me there is something about this ideology that must be false in a psychological/emotional sense for most people. There is a reason that angry atheists like Sam Harris have a much smaller following than positive religious people like Joel Osteen.

I guess the reason for this is that we are intelligent primates -- we aren't robots. We are social creatures who need to infuse our lives with sociality, positivity, and meaning and modernist secular atheist ideologies are depressing and isolating. Religion and religious causes might continue to play a huge role in helping humans find connection and meaning for many more centuries.

It's disturbing though for education and science to be a casualty of the religious backlash against secularism in many parts of the world -- I think both pro-religion and anti-religion sides would be good to leave science/evolution out of this battle. Places like Notre Dame and BYU are cool in this way because they bring science and religion into close proximity and people realize that peaceful coexistence isn't a problem.

Tooblue that's a dumb video. Obviously our home universe, galaxy, and planet are going to seem "designed" for us in a sense because it's all we have and it's the milieu in which we emerged. That doesn't mean there is an intelligent creator.

What's dumb is your last point: our universe and galaxy are designed for us, precisely because we exist in said universe and galaxy that gave birth to us, regardless the question of whether or not our existence is the result of randomness or ... whatever? We exist as designed by the universe and galaxy we live in.

[CardiacCoug]

Even though the tenets of modern secular atheism sure seem literally "true" to me there is something about this ideology that must be false in a psychological/emotional sense for most people. There is a reason that angry atheists like Sam Harris have a much smaller following than positive religious people like Joel Osteen.

I guess the reason for this is that we are intelligent primates -- we aren't robots. We are social creatures who need to infuse our lives with sociality, positivity, and meaning and modernist secular atheist ideologies are depressing and isolating. Religion and religious causes might continue to play a huge role in helping humans find connection and meaning for many more centuries.

It's disturbing though for education and science to be a casualty of the religious backlash against secularism in many parts of the world -- I think both pro-religion and anti-religion sides would be good to leave science/evolution out of this battle. Places like Notre Dame and BYU are cool in this way because they bring science and religion into close proximity and people realize that peaceful coexistence isn't a problem.

Tooblue that's a dumb video. Obviously our home universe, galaxy, and planet are going to seem "designed" for us in a sense because it's all we have and it's the milieu in which we emerged. That doesn't mean there is an intelligent creator.

[tooblue]