Muslims believe in sharia law.

[Hermit]

What were the mechanisms of, "a long historical process of secularisation"? Was it a "Top Down" affair?

Depends on what you mean by "Top". Royalty certainly had no interest in secularism. After all, kings and queens relied on "Divine Right" to justify their position at the top of the pyramid. While their power was notionally absolute, in practice it was rarely the case. Perhaps the only ruler who came close to it was the Sun King after he smashed the Frondes. As for the rest, a lot of power was usurped by the aristocracy, and it had no interest in secularism either. They portrayed themselves as necessary and able assistants to kings to form one happy, God-sanctioned Commonwealth even as they dictated the Magna Carta.

I think the main impetus for secularism arose from the increasing political, economic and technological irrelevance of rule by divine right. As such it is a logical consequence of human development. Eventually, it culminated in what later became known as The Age of Enlightenment. Before it, everything was derived from the authority of the Bible (for polity) and the writings of Aristotle (for everything else). Descartes, though very timid and super careful not to offend the powers that were, shot that notion in the head by invoking the power of natural reason as it exists in the individual, and he was only one of dozens of philosophers who wrote in that vein during that period. In my opinion they were figureheads reflecting the social, political, economic and scientific sea change that was gathering pace then.

They were the intellectual elite, though. The vast masses initially knew nothing of what was going on around them, and if they did, cared nothing about it. They were only concerned about where their next meal is coming from - and judging by the regularity with which bread riots occurred that was by no means an unreasonable thing to worry about - and when they'd be called upon by their local lord yet again to use their pitchforks as a weapon in one of those frequent wars. So, in a way, it could be said that secularism was a "Top Down" affair after all.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "Top". Royalty certainly had no interest in secularism. After all, kings and queens relied on "Divine Right" to justify their position at the top of the pyramid. While their power was notionally absolute, in practice it was rarely the case. Perhaps the only ruler who came close to it was the Sun King after he smashed the Frondes. As for the rest, a lot of power was usurped by the aristocracy, and it had no interest in secularism either. They portrayed themselves as necessary and able assistants to kings to form one happy, God-sanctioned Commonwealth even as they dictated the Magna Carta.

Although it is true that European royals and aristocracy made use of church teachings in support of their position, it became an increasingly competitive relationship as well. Rulers resented having their actions questioned by "princes of the church"; just think of Henry VIII...

So, they certainly wanted to have their peasantry solidly locked into a version of christianity which had them as "guardians of the faith", but they increasingly resented any attempt by church authorities to regulate their own marriages, inheritance or investment practices.

[piscator]

Interesting condensation, Hermit. I have a theory that children of divorced parents often play one parent against the other. And so it was when the Western Schism and later Martin Luther broke up the happy home, the rules changed enough to allow a few Spinozas and Newtons to write and influence other Latin readers without Church censorship.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

It is, however, a religious belief you cling to that is solidly based in pure, unadulterated and unsubstantiated faith that's every bit as religious in nature as Christian belief is, and therefore by your own lights, is entirely irrational.

Yet again, this crap about atheism being a "belief". It is simply a lack of belief in an unsupported assertion about the existence of a supernatural being.

But it's not, as we see from this forum. It's so much more than that.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

It is, however, a religious belief you cling to that is solidly based in pure, unadulterated and unsubstantiated faith that's every bit as religious in nature as Christian belief is, and therefore by your own lights, is entirely irrational.

Yet again, this crap about atheism being a "belief". It is simply a lack of belief in an unsupported assertion about the existence of a supernatural being.

But it's not, as we see from this forum. It's so much more than that.

That is an unsupported view, coming from your own prejudice. You would have to read our minds to know that...

The majority of forum members who post seriously on this issue have put forward a consistent position that their atheism represents a lack of any belief in a supernatural being. Most are at great pains to clearly state that this does not imply a belief that, with 100% certainty, such a supernatural being does not exist. End of story.

Most go on to say that, in a practical sense, they live their lives under the working assumption that the supernatural beliefs of others need not be taken into account. Again, this is not the same as 100% certainty of the non-existence of god.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

It is, however, a religious belief you cling to that is solidly based in pure, unadulterated and unsubstantiated faith that's every bit as religious in nature as Christian belief is, and therefore by your own lights, is entirely irrational.

Yet again, this crap about atheism being a "belief". It is simply a lack of belief in an unsupported assertion about the existence of a supernatural being.

But it's not, as we see from this forum. It's so much more than that.

That is an unsupported view, coming from your own prejudice.

But it's not. Your denial of the obvious fact that you are part of the religious order of Atheists comes from your own self-interest and prejudices.

You would have to read our minds to know that...

Your minds are revealed in your words here.

The majority of forum members who post seriously on this issue have put forward a consistent position that their atheism represents a lack of any belief in a supernatural being.

Only when challenged as I challenge them. Absent such a challenge, the majority of forum members are perfectly happy bashing "catlickers" and anyone else who whiffs of theism, and are happy to state quite openly that they believe God does not exist...among themselves, when they think others are not watching. But when I challenge them, they get all pious and crap about their "lack of belief" because they know full well that my arguments are simply unassailable and that the dignity and moral suasion of the Atheist religious platform is damaged and reduced when it is shown that they are not "rational" individuals and they do not think or speak logically or rationally about theism, but rather they rant and rave in the most irrational and illogical manner as they insult, demean and deride anyone who believes anything different from them.

I've talked to many hundreds of people of religious faith and they almost universally agree that Atheism as practiced today is every bit as much a religion as Islam or Christianity, and that it's adherents are just as zealous and faithful to their particular religious dogma as anyone on earth.

I see it all the time here when people misstate and mischaracterize Christian and Catholic belief and practice as part of a conscious and deliberate campaign of slander and insult. I know it's true because for decades I have been correcting such ignorance and yet the same people make the same false claims again and again as justification for their obnoxious and frankly evil attacks on people who have never harmed anyone, much less the Atheist zealots. Atheists are every bit as intolerant and bigoted as the worst Islamic fundamentalist I've ever seen. The only good thing I can say about Atheists is that they don't go out and murder people for not being Atheists.

Oh, wait, I was wrong...never mind

Most are at great pains to clearly state that this does not imply a belief that, with 100% certainty, such a supernatural being does not exist. End of story.

Strawman. You qualify your claim by adding "100% certainty" as a way to weasel out of the truth, which is that in truth, none of you believes anything other than that God does not, and cannot exist. You only temporize when challenged. It's a retreat to the textbook definition of atheism used as a way to deny your true beliefs and everybody knows it.

Most go on to say that, in a practical sense, they live their lives under the working assumption that the supernatural beliefs of others need not be taken into account. Again, this is not the same as 100% certainty of the non-existence of god.

And all of them are prevaricating, obfuscating and pettifogging their way out of the cleft stick that atheism creates by its very definition.

There may be the rare person, like me, who is actually willing to withhold drawing conclusions about the existence of God because we value rationality, logic and reason over ideology and religious fervor, but they are few and far between indeed, and all the ones I know of (which isn't many) don't like to be called atheists for precisely the same reason that I refuse to be labeled as an atheist: because most Atheists are thoroughly bigoted, prejudiced and unpleasant people to be around unless you are a member of their little church. I can practically guarantee you that in polite company, the Atheists in the room will take any opportunity to bash Christians or anyone else, irrespective of the feelings of anyone else or with consideration or respect for others in attendance who might be theists.

You rarely see Christians holding forth in polite company while excoriating and insulting anyone and everyone who doesn't believe as they do, but in my experience, the Atheist in the room has absolutely no compunctions whatever against doing so...because they are religious zealots of the worst kind.

So you can deny all you like, but your words and actions betray your true feelings and beliefs (and by "you" again I mean Atheists in general, not you specifically and exclusively) to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Atheism is the Klu Klux Klan of the Left. Intolerant bigots who try to force their ideology on everyone else.

Someday perhaps I'll tell you how I really feel about Atheists. But not today, I'm trying to be tolerant.

[Hermit]

Although it is true that European royals and aristocracy made use of church teachings in support of their position, it became an increasingly competitive relationship as well. Rulers resented having their actions questioned by "princes of the church"; just think of Henry VIII...

Yes, but that was more a political rivalry than an ideological conflict. The Popes, bishops and even abbots doubled as temporal rulers, having armies of their own. Control of who appoints bishops and abbots became very important in terms of temporal power.

This came to a head in 1076 when Pope Gregory VII arrogated the right of investiture, which had traditionally belonged to the Emperor of the Holy Roman (read German) Emperor to himself. The current emperor Henry IV renounced the Greg's papacy. The pope in return excommunicated Henry. The aristocracy, noting that Henry could no longer claim to rule by divine right, announced that it would elect a new emperor, one more amenable to their needs and desires, at the next convocation of the council. Henry was aware that the pope's army was more powerful than his own and decided to go for the only option left to him: Eat humble pie. Taking a "walk to Canossa" has become the proverbial equivalent for humiliation. Henry walked on foot to the pope's residents and barefoot and dressed in a prickly hairshirt prayed in front of the locked city gates for three days in January 1077 before the pope let him in. The snow would have contributed physical discomfort to the humiliation.

Reconciliation was partial. The excommunication was lifted but the pope agreed with the aristocrats' decision to elect a new emperor and insisted on his own right of investiture. Henry returned to Germany, beat the fuck out of his misbehaving aristocrats in the ensuing war. The pope excommunicated him once again, but meanwhile Henry had built up his own army sufficiently to beat the pope's forces. He went back to Italy, defeated Gregory in a battle and replaced him with Clement III.

Squabbling over who appoints bishops and abbots continued for the next several centuries, but doctrinal conflict between theocracy and secularism was never an issue until Charles I's insistence to be ruler of England by divine right caused the English civil wars and the loss of his own head, and then not explicitly so until the Levellers briefly became influential just before the second one.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Absent such a challenge, the majority of forum members are perfectly happy bashing "catlickers" and anyone else who whiffs of theism, and are happy to state quite openly that they believe God does not exist...among themselves, when they think others are not watching.

There are 2 separate issues here. One is the criticism of religion (or a specific religion, or the activities of religious people...) by atheists in general, and specifically by posters here. Some of the criticism would be valid with or without an atheist perspective, if the religious beliefs are utterly at odds with objective reality, or when the activity of the religious is clearly demonstrated to be unethical or harmful. Some of the criticism can be somewhat sneering, and be applied in a heavy handed way; RD himself was guilty of this at times. (This is particularly true in criticising standard, main-stream christianity beyond the level of polite disagreement). However, to religious people, simply saying that we assert that your belief system is merely your personal view (which of course you have every right to hold), is one of many competing supernatural, faith based religions, and cannot be equated with an evidence-based model of the universe is seen as horribly disrespectful...

The other issue is atheists stating that god does not exist. Some certainly may, and that is clearly their opinion, which they have as much right to hold as a religious person's belief in god. However, I would say to them that they cannot assert that with 100% certainty, just as I cannot assert with 100% certainty that there is no life on the moon. However, in most cases, if you read carefully, they are simply saying that they live their life "as if" there is no god, just as I live my life "as if" there is no fleet of aggressive aliens within a year's journey to Earth. I may certainly be wrong in that assumption, but I ain't going to lose any sleep over it...

[JimC]

To Hermit:

Defeating the armies of popes, and squabbling over the appointments of bishops etc. may not have been full-on secularism, but it was part of the process of gradual erosion of religious authority, and the gradual rise of worldly authority. Nation forming was regarded (quite sensibly) by Rome as dangerous, since it lead to people identifying more with rulers than popes. Without these earlier changes, the enlightenment itself would have struggled to capture the imagination of the times...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Absent such a challenge, the majority of forum members are perfectly happy bashing "catlickers" and anyone else who whiffs of theism, and are happy to state quite openly that they believe God does not exist...among themselves, when they think others are not watching.

There are 2 separate issues here. One is the criticism of religion (or a specific religion, or the activities of religious people...) by atheists in general, and specifically by posters here. Some of the criticism would be valid with or without an atheist perspective, if the religious beliefs are utterly at odds with objective reality, or when the activity of the religious is clearly demonstrated to be unethical or harmful. Some of the criticism can be somewhat sneering, and be applied in a heavy handed way; RD himself was guilty of this at times. (This is particularly true in criticising standard, main-stream christianity beyond the level of polite disagreement). However, to religious people, simply saying that we assert that your belief system is merely your personal view (which of course you have every right to hold), is one of many competing supernatural, faith based religions, and cannot be equated with an evidence-based model of the universe is seen as horribly disrespectful...

True enough, but not particularly relevant. The issue is not how others view your beliefs, it's the nature and rationality of your beliefs. When you tell a religious person, particularly one who claims to have had some personal experience with God, that their "belief system" cannot be equated to science you are making a judgement and drawing a conclusion about the validity of their experience and/or belief without any objective physical evidence that you are correct. You are assuming a priori that their claims are not in the same category as "evidence-based" models of the universe. But you don't actually know that. You have no evidence that their claims are objectively true, but you also have no evidence that their claims are objectively false. You simply don't know because you don't have enough data or information from which to draw a rational conclusion.

Suppose, arguendo, that God does exist and that he does manifest himself to the faithful in many way, including miracles, but ONLY to the faithful, and he is quite careful never to reveal himself to skeptics or in situations where scientific examination of his manifestations is possible. Would the fact that you are unaware of such manifestations because you have been deliberately excluded from witnessing or examining them be any sort of evidence that the events did not occur or that God does not exist?

The other issue is atheists stating that god does not exist. Some certainly may, and that is clearly their opinion, which they have as much right to hold as a religious person's belief in god. However, I would say to them that they cannot assert that with 100% certainty, just as I cannot assert with 100% certainty that there is no life on the moon. However, in most cases, if you read carefully, they are simply saying that they live their life "as if" there is no god, just as I live my life "as if" there is no fleet of aggressive aliens within a year's journey to Earth. I may certainly be wrong in that assumption, but I ain't going to lose any sleep over it...

The thing that intrigues me about this "as if" theory of atheism is that for people who have "no belief" or live "as if" God does not exist, they spend a hell of a lot of time, effort, energy and brainpower arguing against the existence of God. To me that falls into the "Methinks he doth protest too much" category.

I would think that an "atheist" who has "no belief" in the proposition of the existence of God wouldn't bother to give the matter any consideration at all, much less spend countless hours and years and decades debating the subject. It is that very devotion to defending atheism that makes participants here Atheists rather than atheists.

[Hermit]

Defeating the armies of popes, and squabbling over the appointments of bishops etc. may not have been full-on secularism, but it was part of the process of gradual erosion of religious authority, and the gradual rise of worldly authority.

That is true. I just treated Piscator's question "What were the mechanisms of, "a long historical process of secularisation"?" in a narrower sense. Specifically, how did the fight for secularisation become a conflict that was fought on explicitly ideological grounds?

Perhaps that is not what he meant, and at any rate restricting an analysis of the rise of secularism to that aspect would arguably lead to rather an inadequate explanation. I tried to cover the broader context by mentioning that "the main impetus for secularism arose from the increasing political, economic and technological irrelevance of rule by divine right." So, yes, I do not at all object to your observations at all. The rise of secularism is very much multi-faceted, and your contributions to that discussion are not to be dismissed as irrelevant.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

When you tell a religious person, particularly one who claims to have had some personal experience with God, that their "belief system" cannot be equated to science you are making a judgement and drawing a conclusion about the validity of their experience and/or belief without any objective physical evidence that you are correct.

Yes, I'm making a judgement, but a highly valid one. Religion can't be "equated with science", because it is a very different human construct. Science does a brilliant job at explaining and predicting natural phenomena, religion does not. However, for at least some people, religion does a very good job at providing community and comfort, which science may well not, at least for that group.

If religion remains a personal affair of inward experience and the emotions, and does not try to explain events in the universe or suggest that it is the only pathway to truth and personal salvation, it will not come into conflict with alternative processes which will always do a vastly better job in those areas. Cobblers should stick to their last...

[piscator]

Osama would probably still be alive if he didn't act upon his beliefs...

[JimC]

What remains is an analysis of why modern day Islam commands a coterie of fanatical adherents who accept that any violence in its service is justified, whereas christianity has largely left that behind (having believed in that principle in the past...)

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

When you tell a religious person, particularly one who claims to have had some personal experience with God, that their "belief system" cannot be equated to science you are making a judgement and drawing a conclusion about the validity of their experience and/or belief without any objective physical evidence that you are correct.

Yes, I'm making a judgement, but a highly valid one. Religion can't be "equated with science", because it is a very different human construct. Science does a brilliant job at explaining and predicting natural phenomena, religion does not. However, for at least some people, religion does a very good job at providing community and comfort, which science may well not, at least for that group.

The issue is not whether religion can or cannot be "equated" with science, the issue is whether your claim that religion cannot be equated with science is a rational statement, and it is not. The reason it is not is because you have insufficient information about their experience with God to make a rational judgment about the truth of the claim. It may be that the experience was entirely true and was a personal interaction with God, who does exist, and, were he scientifically investigated properly (and he allows it) the requisite objective physical evidence you require would emerge. Just because you have neither the interest nor the ability to successfully engage in such scientific inquiry does not mean the event did not happen or that God is not real.

If religion remains a personal affair of inward experience and the emotions, and does not try to explain events in the universe or suggest that it is the only pathway to truth and personal salvation, it will not come into conflict with alternative processes which will always do a vastly better job in those areas. Cobblers should stick to their last...

But, if God does exist, then his/her/its existence and capabilities are essential and fundamental to understanding and explaining events in the universe. Even Dawkins admits that the existence of God is a scientific question. God either exists or does not exist, and it's the job of science to find out which is true. Just because science cannot do so at the moment doesn't change that.

Religion is the same thing as hypothesizing or "blue skying" some question about the universe and how it works. Hypothesizing the existence of God is no different from hypothesizing the Big Bang or membrane universes. Indeed, religion is more "scientific" than hypothesizing about membrane or bubble universes because there are many anecdotal reports over an extremely long period describing events that cannot at this time be explained by science, whereas there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting the idea of membrane or bubble universes. It's just pure blue-sky theorizing, and yet it's classified as "science" even though there is not a shred of physical evidence supporting such hypotheses.

Since the existence of God is a question of science, why therefore is theism suddenly not on par with cosmological theorizing?