Secular Morality

[Midare]

I have never posted a thread on LoR... I mostly read and keep quiet. So, fair warning, I may be inadvertently exposing you all to heaps of my ignorance here. I won't say how many times I've written this out... at various lengths and with more or less flowery language. I'm struggling to express what I want to say.


Atheism, as a non-belief, while it is a rallying point for many of us... is still a non-belief. Thunderf00t's video "Rejecting Atheism" where he applies the term P.E.A.R.L. comes to mind as a case where a basis for common ground was extended in the form of belief only in matters of "Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic". Which is great and all; it nicely sums up beliefs held by *most* Atheists I've known. I have to say "most" because the bare requirement to be an atheist is to not believe in a god or gods... leaving some atheists to believe in other metaphysical things which would not be found acceptable by a "Pearlist".

Furthermore, PEARL could apply to Agnostics who rely on the PEARL outlook in how they go about their lives, but who do not make that final decision that there are "NO" gods, regardless of how broadly they may define what a god could be. I would think their choice not to make that final decision based off a poorly framed idea of what makes a "god" is reasonable... and does not lessen their overall Pearlist nature. This divides them from their New Age crystal-collecting Agnostic ilk.

Is the term a useful one? Yes.
Is it an inclusive term? Not really.

It merely divides the "no religion" camp between rationalists and those New Age-loving Agnostics. As opposed to the old Atheist vs Agnostic split.



What I'm wanting to ask you reasonable folk, is if we can find a secular way to define the "no religion" or "no deity" group in a going beyond what we do NOT believe in. A way that basically outlines what the vast majority would consider our social contract? A list of ideals and morals which we could get behind and compile as a concise "secular canon", basically.

This stems somewhat from a mention that Durakken made in a thread back in June 2009:

Another idea would be to create an equal length book that is what science has shown us thus far that is nice and compact... though that might be a bit hard to do considering so much info.

We've already got science books and journals that fit the above role but the reason this stuck in my mind was that black PR the non-religious face in many places. Our "godless immoral natures" as I'm sure we've all gotten the memo about. I think many people who are questioning their faith could stand to see an alternative defined in positive words. As could people raised Agnostic but looking for guidance and moral support. Not everyone is as independent as the crowd here, and those may learn by seeing positive examples.

Is this a reasonable or desirable goal? Does such a book exist already? One which isn't specifically painting itself as "against god(s)" but which outlines the ways a person can be a positive and moral member of society without rejecting those poor questioning theists that run away at the first hint of militant Atheism?

If such a book does not yet exist, do you think the LoR would be interested in compiling one?

(Yes, yes, I know that nothing will please everyone in any group... but a book that deals in a social contract doesn't seem to be of much interest to hedonists or nihilists does it? They'd not want to obey any rules anyway, right?)

 

[borrofburi]

Another idea would be to create an equal length book that is what science has shown us thus far that is nice and compact... though that might be a bit hard to do considering so much info.

There's a book entitled "A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson which pretty much does just that.

 

[Midare]

Another idea would be to create an equal length book that is what science has shown us thus far that is nice and compact... though that might be a bit hard to do considering so much info.

There's a book entitled "A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson which pretty much does just that.

Nice, wonder if Durakken knows of it... since they brought that up some months ago.

Anyone know of anything by way of ... I dunno ... "secular parables collection" though? Reflections on morality without mention of god(s) in either the positive or negative light?

Chicken Soup for the Secular Mind?
(I didn't want to say "soul".)

[edit: Sometimes I overuse one word to death in a sentence.]

 

[WolfAU]

Which is great and all; it nicely sums up beliefs held by *most* Atheists I've known.

Its more a value set than a belief set.

The word atheist is really just akin to a "none of the above" option on to a "which religion are you?" question, it has no greater significance than that, as such an atheist shouldn't define themselves by their atheism, but moreso what their atheism leads to (skepticism, PEARLism, Humanism etc).

What I'm wanting to ask you reasonable folk, is if we can find a secular way to define the "no religion" or "no deity" group in a going beyond what we do NOT believe in. A way that basically outlines what the vast majority would consider our social contract? A list of ideals and morals which we could get behind and compile as a concise "secular canon", basically.

Not entirely sure I follow what you're saying here, but if so I would say that there is, but we shouldn't do so under the banner of "atheism" but under other philosophical ideals like humanism, secularism, or political goals based on those ideals (ie movements to end world poverty, injustice, promote global cooperation, nuclear disarmament etc).

This stems somewhat from a mention that Durakken made in a thread back in June 2009:

Obviously, and this is why science will always be less popular than religion, science is hard to understand, and we progress in understanding slowly, and by degrees, and morality without faith is complicated, while religion is very simple for the masses to understand, and has massive appeal if framed in the right light.

I'm sure we've all gotten the memo about. I think many people who are questioning their faith could stand to see an alternative defined in positive words.

I usually try to bring that up in discussions with theists, however the problem is that few theists are really prepared to let their beliefs be challenged in such a way, their attitude is usually to just ignore arguments by the other groups, usually with a serving "you're just an immoral person who hates God" thrown in for good measure.

I support such arguments being made in person (the reason being is that each theist has their own reasons for believing and you usually have to tailor your arguments to fit that), or possibly something "small article" or "brochure" length addressing specifics and FAQs, rather than a book.

 

[xman]

My instinct is to say that this is largely counterproductive. Not only is the scientific and logical information too vast to fit in one book effectively. Also, one of the great strengths of secular thought is our differing views and the debate which can ensue. The point is that we are not bound to any 'secular cannon'. That would be dogmatic.

 

[borrofburi]

Not only is the scientific and logical information too vast to fit in one book effectively.

I dunno, I really do endorse "A Short History of Nearly Everything", it does a really good job of presenting a significant chunk of what we know (i.e. most of it) in a manner that is fairly easy to understand and fairly accurate.

 

[xman]

Not only is the scientific and logical information too vast to fit in one book effectively.

I dunno, I really do endorse "A Short History of Nearly Everything", it does a really good job of presenting a significant chunk of what we know (i.e. most of it) in a manner that is fairly easy to understand and fairly accurate.

I'll check it out.

 

[DrunkCat]

PEARL = Pantheism.

 

[Midare]

WolfAU,
I agree that what I'm interested in would not fall under the label "atheism" I've tried to clarify that as it is more for the... folks who check "other" on the census and for the potential "others to be". However, I'm hoping to stay away from any -ism titles as much as possible precisely to flow around as much of that xenophobia as possible. This way any young person living in a fundie household could be in possession of a book that is less likely to be revoked if read. (Some would revoke it just for the lack of mention for God, but avoiding slander of religion is the best we can do from this side.)

It really would be more of a semi political, non-partisan citizen movement... but I'm not sure how to present such a thing without making it frightening. Heck, some people turn away from the Universal declaration of human rights (which has some good points to it for damn sure) because of their distrust/dislike of any type of global political body.

I suppose a "handbook on how not to be an arse" is another way to describe what I'm looking for.

Science and raw reason are very bitter medicine to swallow for some theists and questioning ones, I guess I'm just interested in providing those who need it... their "baby steps" toward getting their heads out of their arses, while framing it in the right light.

Regarding size of text, a small article or brochure would be fine, although I think that the potential once the ball is rolling may wind up reflecting a New Testament sizes text with very little effort. I cannot see it being crammed in on rolling paper in tiny font being the case, though, and being as long winded as books of faith would be counter productive.

(Sorry if I was hard to follow, I always muck it up trying to respond to chopped quotes)


xman,
I think you may be taking my idea to an extreme... tone is really hard to convey in text alone. My habit for cracking jokes while being serious at the same time probably doesn't help matters.

To reach the point of being dogmatic I think "the rules" would have to be inflexible, or lack an inclusion of free thought. I'm basically trying to say, "The 10 commandments? Pfft, we can do better." In so far as a guideline to being a good person, I do think we could do better, and I don't think we'd miss the chance to be clear that we're providing guidelines... and provide no instructions for stoning folks that vary from them to death. Yeah, we could really go without "stoning" clauses.

 

[Midare]

PEARL = Pantheism.

LOL I agree, but I suspect TF was trying to avoid any -ism title... or to leave PEARL open to those that would get their knickers in a twist about any "god" having anything to do with anything.

 

[DrunkCat]

I'm pretty sure TF just simply isn't aware of pantheism. Pantheism is the sans-ism and the sans-deity. I say sans and not anti, because anti means the against, the other side of the coin, 0 v. 1.

 

[Midare]

I'm pretty sure TF just simply isn't aware of pantheism. Pantheism is the sans-ism and the sans-deity. I say sans and not anti, because anti means the against, the other side of the coin, 0 v. 1.

Very possible, as Theology really isn't his area of focus... nor would I -really- want it to be as it detracts from his other interests. Like itty-bitty planes and cameras.

 

[Durakken]

The biggest problems with Rationality and Logic is that you need to know, understand, and connect so much material that anyone that isn't naturally that way and trying to get to a point of understanding by saying "show me your proof" and honestly seeking the answer from someone that is rational would get a largely dumbfounded expression as a reply. Not from not having the information somewhere in their brain, but just the shear size of what you are being asked to do and not to mention the question of where to begin is just mind boggling.

I can not possibly show someone every bit of evidence of everything there is that has ever been done. Even if you had 100 years to read, learn, see, and do all the proof you would not be able to make it through all of it and more is being produced every day.

So then we say, what can we do to solve this? And that's simple...we cut out all non-essential stuff and try to explain without most of the evidence. But then we get into the problem of many concepts are just out there... A sky daddy is so much more reasonable than warping space time and time going at different rates and things that are there but aren't but are...




As far as coming up with a set of beliefs... there are a number of groups that do have that like rationalists, empiricists, and humanists.

 

[g-off]

I have a pretty simple moral code: do whatever you can to bring yourself and those close to you happiness without hurting others, and if you can, help people you don't know.

Pretty simple, but it works.

 

[Midare]

I agree, many people don't have the skill to juggle large amounts of information easily. I honestly have trouble with it, myself, and part of my desire to have an alternative set of simple guidelines to those offered by various sky daddy groups.

As far as coming up with a set of beliefs... there are a number of groups that do have that like rationalists, empiricists, and humanists.

Humanism is probably the closest of the three listed as to what I'm endorsing, however using the label of "Humanism" with the ol' capital H would cause association with the "life stance" Humanism, which to use the Wikipedia as my lazy man's crutch is, "a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

I'd prefer not to ostracize the New Age believers nor the soft theists, as mentioned before, since I'd love to see a "baby steps" reference which a person could give to their skiddish friends or relatives that fear losing God means loss of Morality... or that acceptance of rationalized morality means they absolutely HAVE to give up on their theism. However, I'd hope that just by avoiding theism by neither damning it nor even mentioning (coddling it directly) could be possible.

Do whatever you can to bring yourself and those close to you happiness without hurting others, and if you can, help people you don't know.

That one works really well, for people who won't try to skew what constitutes "hurting" others... or who decides what constitutes "happiness". Keep in mind, some theists actually feel the need to say you're not "truly happy" unless you're in dedication to your Lord and Saviour blah blah blah... and use that reasoning as their basis for mucking about in other folks lives. "Helping people they don't know."

 

[g-off]

Do whatever you can to bring yourself and those close to you happiness without hurting others, and if you can, help people you don't know.

That one works really well, for people who won't try to skew what constitutes "hurting" others... or who decides what constitutes "happiness". Keep in mind, some theists actually feel the need to say you're not "truly happy" unless you're in dedication to your Lord and Saviour blah blah blah... and use that reasoning as their basis for mucking about in other folks lives. "Helping people they don't know."

Yes, yes, we all know that holy books contort morality.

one important caveat: I think it's important to stop others being hurt at all costs. Taking a child away from an abusively religious household might hurt the parents, but it helps the kids on an infinitely more profound level. That's probably the only point in which my moral code might lead me to hurt another person

Also, if someone is fucking with me or my loved ones I would obviously get them back. I'm not a doormat.

 

[Aught3]

I'm rather interested in this idea, but I agree that it would be very difficult to roll different perspectives on morality into a coherent set of ideas. I would suggest that one way to do it would be in a series of parables and fables. Either borrowed from other authors or, ideally, newly penned. This approach might help to avoid any problems on how to answer a moral question, but provide an example of how (or how not to) act.

Some from Ignacy Krasicki that I quite like;

A blind man was carrying a lame man on his back,
And everything was going well, everything's on track,
When the blind man decides to take it into his head
That he needn't listen to all that the lame man said.
"This stick I have will guide the two of us safe," said he,
And though warned by the lame man, he plowed into a tree.
On they proceeded; the lame man now warned of a brook;
The two survived, but their possessions a soaking took.
At last the blind man ignored the warning of a drop,
And that was to turn out their final and fatal stop.
Which of the two travelers, you may ask, was to blame?
Why, 'twas both the heedless blind man and the trusting lame.

Ironically, it was the lame man who showed too much 'blind' faith.

One more because I like them so;

A certain king, full of ideas and enterprise,
Decreed a register of the happy and the wise.
The scribe who recorded the happy, found almost none;
The one who listed the wise, did out of paper run.

 

[WolfAU]

I doubt I would have the time to "pen" (I always feel strange saying that in the digital age) such a piece, but I would be interested in discussing what one could add and talk about in such a thing, size, target audience etc, though it sounds like other people have already done similar things.

My number one goal with Christians is usually to break through common misconceptions about atheism and try to leave them with some respect and "common ground" understanding, which considering how mild and reasonable this is, most are alarmingly opposed to. But if writing such a piece I would basically say.
- "We share your fascination with the world"
- "We share your belief that morality, altruism and cooperation are important, that human life is sacred."
- "Many atheists were once believers"
- "We are not the 'bad guys', we are not the cause for the evils in the world or the supposed 'decline of morality in society' (which EVERY GENERATION claims is happening), we are just people who see no reason to believe any one faith over another (ie what makes Christianity more plausable than Judaism?) and that the claim that all all powerful entity exists is all but impossible.
- The claims made by the bible (historical record etc) are unconvincing if not disturbing.
- There is no real evidence that God does what he claims to (he answer prayers, grant eternal life), and eternal life isn't as comforting as you think it is (ie alot of Christians believe because of the promis of an afterlife).
- Religion is not necessary to live a moral, happy, or fulfilling life, most people are their chosen faith by birth, religion is clearly not a source for morality (ie they change their stance on things like slavery, claiming "we couldn't have known any better"). Religious leaders are not divine representatives, are greedy, corrupt etc and are not good moral guides.

Then just some common misconceptions, FAQs, a brief introduction to evolution and secular philosophy.

 

[Midare]

g-off,
Yes, it is very human to want "vengeance", or "justice"... the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. That's probably why the old texts spent so much time laying out rules for punishment. If X happens do Y, if your virgin daughter is raped, take some silver from the rapist and make him marry her. *cough* Didn't say their rules made sense.

I think just "taking a child from an abusive household," suffices. Religious or not, the abusive parents are hurt (emotionally, and in their public status) by the removal of their child... yet regardless of if the emotional/physical abuse is motivated by religion or some other reasoning, it should be halted. For the safety of the child. Freedom of religion does not (should not) mean freedom to repress or harm others, even your offspring.


Aught3,
You've pretty much struck the nail on the head. Also, those stories/poems were quite amusing. I see I'll be looking up more books in the near future. I rather think that the loss of some of these style stories in common use haven't helped society much. I know my siblings and I for lack of moral guidance (parents couldn't be arsed with parenting) brushed with religion, I came away from it (read too much, lost respect) but my sisters... that's another matter. They're the typical "don't question it" Christians. I cannot help but think that if their had been a guide for morality that wasn't hinged on religion it would have done better by us.

Mind you, no book can meet the second need Religion fills, community. Those that feel a need to belong to a group still stand to be sucked in by various religions... one can just hope to instill some willingness to not follow blindly before the allure of cramming into a pew with sweaty people draws them in.


WolfAU,
I suppose using the word 'pen' does seem odd considering the medium by which almost everyone writes these days. I only know a few people that still hand wright their work, and those are usually poets that jot things down when they come to them.

I'm sure de-conversion books have been done before, I've seen a few but most come off as shrill or preachy in their own right. Even in some cases the tone has been condescending to the point that even as a non-religious person I cringed and thought there was no way any "believer" would read through the book. Left me wondering if the author thought his audience would be compelled somehow and unable to turn away from his blinding "truthiness".

It's the faithful's habit of tuning out the moment there is a whiff of mention of God that I find such a stumbling block, the moment one gets into the "we" and "them" terminology in reinforces the divide... but at the same time how else to compare them and show the similarities? Talking about the person in the topic without mentioning creed at all, people fill in their own. One could go through most of the book without mention of it then drop the theistic A-bomb at the end. You know... after you've had them nodding in agreement for awhile.

Or is that cruel?

 

[Midare]

I think story-wise the best way to deal with "us" and "them" is to have the discussion take place between two people who have a more strongly identified bond... like a parent and child, or siblings. Familial bonds are readily recognized by most audiences... and int he case of parent and child, there is an expectation of differences due to generational trends.

Such a story would also parallel life experiences some readers would have already have had... or things some of them anticipate would happen. For example a story focusing on an young adult child speaking with their religious parent could be used to discuss the similarities of belief between the old generation (religious) and the young generation (non-religious)... which addresses points 2 and 3 on WoldAU's list.

A reversal could be done as well, with non-religious parent talking with a child who has fallen into religion... covering point one... and demonstrating their similarities but only brushing at the differences between faith and non-faith.