Secularization: Elimination of the Other?
Religion December 21st, 2007Should we try eliminate or enemies? I discussed this in the context of “A Boy Named Sue” – we can benefit from our enemies but my views are not shared by all secularists.
Assuming atheism has certain fundamental truths that need to be held in order to be an atheist, can we object to atheists trying to deprogramme religious believers on the grounds that it is indoctrination? A strong faith in something is after all the belief beyond question i.e. if strong faith is encouraged that is by definition indoctrination. How can we criticise secular indoctrination but allow religious indoctrination?
In fact I don’t accept that deprogramming aims to turn a believer into a secularist. The end goal is more to turn someone to be a weak agnostic (i.e. lack of personal belief one way or the other) or an implicit atheist (i.e. lack of caring one way or the other). How can the introduction of doubt for a belief be an indoctrinating itself? In short, it can’t – it is the reverse of indoctrination. Unless you doubt doubtfulness itself?
In my humble opinion, the attempt to convert a religious believer to a secularist (a sort of reverse Road to Damascus) would probably be unnecessary and counter productive. Introducing doubt into someone’s view and conversion to implicit atheism would be acceptable to me. Subjectively, we can benefit from diverse opinions but there is too much religious baggage in our society currently – we need further secularisation.
I do value freedom of belief but I put a higher value on the freedom of speech. Admittedly they can conflict.
Anti Citizen One
December 21st, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I should think the greatest contradiction in your post is that freedom of speech implies freedom of belief.
I would go so far as to say that freedom of speech proceeds from freedom of belief.
You cannot have one without the other.
Re: doubting doubt… thats the whole point, as Wittgenstein illustrates in his work On Certainty, for doubt to be meaningful it has to include a doubt on the very meangingfulness of the terminology of doubt.
I should have thought that atheism has only one fundamental belief, a-theism! nothing more nothing less – isnt that what atheists constantly bang on about – atheism doesnt compel me to certain actions?
Introducing doubt into someones view….
perhaps you mean presenting both sides of the argument? If so fine, thats what this whole debate has been about.
But to do so with the intent of a conversion towards an implicit atheism??
Why should you feel the need to transmit your atheism? Beyond self-justification I mean?
What difference does it make to an atheist whether I am an atheist or not – so long as I am not concerned to persecute you for your worldview?
December 21st, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Obviously I should point out that the same ougth to apply to theism. Why should I feel the need to transmit my theism? As long as my personal beliefs are not being persecuted – and I do not persecute those who do not share my belief – then I have no grounds to transmit it.
Where does this leave institutional religion?
Not quite in the dustbin I think, but in need of reform perhaps.
Does this entail the removal of religion from the media? Not if it is balanced.
Should religion stay out of politics?
Insofar as it may attempt to force its view, yes.
But where it is representative of a section of the community it is entitled as are all other social groups to express its opinions. Indeed in so called moral debates isnt it better that all opinions, including the ones we disagree with be represented?
Similarly in its own defence it should be entitled to political airtime.
I am amazed sometimes at the claims of secularists that religion is over-represented or there is too much religous baggage in society as a whole.
Some of this is down to anachronisms (this was once an explicitly Christian country) some of it though is down to the simple fact that many people whether they practise or not are happy to be christians or adherents to whatever religion and are happy that this element of society and culture is represented.
By no means do I advocate an increase, or a re-evangelisation of society. Free-belief means just that. If through my example other choose to share my beliefs so be it, and if the opposite then that is fine also.
I think the arguments of secularists have better cause in the United States or in Iran where democracy is a cover for theocracy and a percievable minority feel oppressed or excluded. But here in Britain where society is fairly phlegmatic about personal religious belief or non-belief I dont think there is much call for increased secularisation, but I will admit the wisdom of vigilance.