Religion, Secularism & Etc: thoughts for a Friday

2001 Santa Rosa 002

You’ll forgive us if we stray from merely reporting on our lives sometimes to just giving you a taste of what we’re thinking about. These days, now that D.’s Big Paper is done (mostly – the supervisors are still reading it one last time before it goes to committee), he still finds that he tends to think in… er, paragraphs. He reads widely and thinks a lot, and generally confines himself to sharing articles and thoughts with T. — and now you.

Aren’t you lucky?

So, we happened across an article entitled, “Going Godless: Does Secularism Make People More Ethical?” Awesome title, and certain to grab attention. Go away, now, and read it. Then we’ll discuss.

  *hums Jeopardy! theme*

OK, good, you’re back. The gist of the piece, for those people who apparently cannot follow directions (shame, you non-readers), is a discussion of religion in various places, the fact that many religions are losing adherents, and the question of whether or not rejecting organized religion makes one more ethical. The article explores a report made by The Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College, Connecticut.

The upshot of the study from the Institute: no, rejecting organized religion doesn’t make one more ethical at all, or at least that hasn’t been proven. It’s not a cause/effect issue. However the study directed up researcher Barry Kosmin did find that the secular people polled were more ethically inclined than the religious people polled. So, what is it about the “secularists” which caused them to be more ethical? Perhaps it’s their having actually thought about what makes something “right” or “wrong.” Belief, after all, doesn’t constitute “knowledge” – case in point: just because you believe in UFO’s doesn’t make them real, does it?

Perhaps critical thinkers (regardless of whether they be atheist / agnostic / religious) are more ethical. Maybe those who actually consider whether something is right or wrong are more ethical because they have gone beyond the “belief” stage and into the “knowing” stage of personal knowledge: they have gone through a process of reasoning, which is different from just believing something. Now, granted, you don’t want to reason your way through something like gravity – you’d better just believe in it, or you’ll be broken and bruised before you know it. Somethings do require belief – but maybe we believe strongly in gravity because we’ve seen some small examples of its truths. Does that follow in religious or secular thought?

Hummingbird 08

When you’re a child, you have to take everyone’s word for how the world works. Whether it’s your schoolmates or your parents, pretty much everyone who sounds like they’re an authority is, at least for five or ten minutes, believed. However, as an adult, many people struggle with the idea of accepting the opinion of some dudes (yes – they were all men) who wrote several thousands of years ago about how they felt the world should work — and many times advocating stoning for those who didn’t agree. Should adults – religious or non – accept anybody’s opinion on what is “right?”

Maybe… no, actually. Surprised? You might be, considering that many of you know us to be religious people. However, if you, like everyone else on earth have a.) freedom of choice, b.) the ability to think, you can think things through and weigh all of the possibilities, and come up with your own opinions. Whether that makes you a “secularist” or not, well, maybe that’s entirely a matter of labeling. After all, religious people can read and study and still think for themselves.

Despite the study, maybe there isn’t such a gap between “religious” and “secular” people. Some religions ask people to believe things which are untrue or which just aren’t ethical by any meaning of the word — as a matter of belief. Consider the ministers, who, each time there’s a natural disaster, bring up some weird correlation between that nation and somehow displeasing God. Really? And where is their proof? But their members are expected to believe without any facts… and often they do, going along wholeheartedly with disparaging a people who are already beaten down and suffering from fire, earthquake, tsunami, or floods. That we don’t agree with the blind-belief thing doesn’t mean that we endorse disbelieving in God – not by any means – but it sometimes seems like those of us who believe in thinking as well as God are vanishingly few.

2006 Yosemite 072

The study lists secular beliefs as things like believing in supporting the environment, treating people of different gender and ethnicities with kindness beyond tolerance, and opposing war. One really weird thing the study noted is that many secular people have more knowledge about religious beliefs than religious people. …hm. Which reminds us of a quote:

They’re trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous. – Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah

To recap: We believe in God. However, we believe that ethics should be considered, contemplated, and should be coherent. Does that make us “secularists?” Or simply thinking human beings? It just doesn’t seem very wise – or Godly – to fear thinking. But for some people, the very idea spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e.

And that’s our thoughts for a Friday afternoon.

Now, talk amongst yourselves…

-D & T

8 Replies to “Religion, Secularism & Etc: thoughts for a Friday”

  1. Hmmm, as always I wish that the news pieces would list more of the research. It’s hard to draw much from it without the statistics etc. the researchers played with. But, as an atheist (who used to be a crazy Southern fundamental conservative Christian–you know, the post-Reagan kind) I’d have to agree. It’s impossible to even talk about anything with my family, friends from back-in-the-day because (generally speaking), they don’t ever really think anything through. They’ll take something at face value and run with it. And I was guilty of that at one time too. The doctrine we were taught told us to shy away from “the world” and to assume that it’s evil–no wonder no one investigates anything! If you do, then you’re a sinner. Hmm. I’m, of course, speaking from my experience & in generalities.

    Anyway, interesting article, especially the east/west Germany part. Of course, some would say that it’s all just due to that evil god-sucking communism πŸ™‚ Happy Friday to you guys!

    1. YES, I wish I’d been able to find the actual study online. That didn’t help me — to just have the article on it. I want to know all of the survey questions!!

      It’s a tricky idea, to be “in the world and not of it,” which is I’m sure the wording that you were told! I hope to continue to walk the line of figuring out what that means.

  2. I had a very sheltered, conservative childhood, attending the type of evangelical independent church that did not allow me (as a woman) to lead prayers much less speak in front of mixed company. Unfortunately for my parents and church, my parents also accidentally taught me how to be a critical thinker. I was enrolled in public school and was grouped with the talented and gifted classes, and started studying piano and reading at age 3. They regretted this. They didn’t understand that with thinking comes questions, and quite possibly a rejection of the expected answers. It is not surprising that both my sisters attended all private (sheltered, conservative, safe) schools and are far more compliant. Anyway, all this to say, anyone who is taught to think critically will by nature consider the question of ethics more often, not assuming any one choice is a given. I think two thinkers can come to different conclusions, but even going down that road in the first place, rather than accepting a belief that someone else wants you take take at face value (ie: faith) involves a certain amount of secularism. To fully entertain multiple schools of thought, don’t you have to be willing to end up with a conclusion opposite from where you started? I think so.

    I do tend to try to steer away from the self-aggrandizing tendency of both extremes – people who are Christians with no grey areas, and Atheists who won’t dialogue about religion. My ethics say that if you get to have your own beliefs, I get to have mine as well. πŸ™‚ Thanks for the thoughts.

    1. I do tend to try to steer away from the self-aggrandizing tendency of both extremes – people who are Christians with no grey areas, and Atheists who won’t dialogue about religion.

      OH, yes. Yes, yes. I’ve been accused of secular humanism because I try to, I don’t know, not have such hard-and-fast RULES about people. It’s not as if that’s always easy not to judge – one of the things I believe we’re taught by being raised in conservative religions is to judge and categorize and reject people — but I think it’s disingenuous to act as if life itself has no grey areas… and that God tells us every little move to make. We have to think. Which is a scary concept…

  3. Replying a bit late! This is an interesting post. It reminds me of some Bible verses (with apologies to herbivores):

    Hbr 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
    13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.
    14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

    Makes it seem like there’s only a point to the early, simplistic learning if we can come to think about morality for ourselves.

    1. This is a good point – it sort of underscores the idea of people traversing between stages in their religious life, as a baby would (speaking of, how’s that bun in the oven coming along?) – milk, weird goopy solid cereal, and at last, Cheerios. I guess the trick is to keep moving forward and not go backwards… and that’s hard, because I think people are afraid to take responsibility for their beliefs and faith, in a lot of ways. It’s easier to have a denomination that kind of speaks for you, or whatnot, than say, “I have to find out for myself.”

      Of course, denominations are not able to have relationships with God – only people are, and they have to think and move forward in those relationships accordingly…

      1. Baby’s good so far! We’ll definitely be sharing more info at the end of October, when there will be more baby to look at! πŸ™‚

        Definitely denominational relationships can’t replace personal ones. But I’ve been hearing more about the relationships of communities or ‘bodies’ (*not* organizations!) with God, and I can’t help thinking there’s something there that gets overlooked. Completely fails without commitment and effort at the individual level, though.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.