Secular Intolerance

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

This may be an odd place to ask this question because of so many preconceptions concerning religion but I would appreciate an honest response as to why you believe secular intolerance is so prominent on philosophy web sites. If philosophy is truly the love of meaning why is the intolerance of the search for meaning through religion so repulsive that anyone open to the third dimension of thought within which objective values take their relative place will be condemned in secular society and any attempt to explain it will be eliminated. Even web sites claiming to be open minded will do this.

If someone comes to me claiming to offer me salvation I see no reason to condemn the person yet others will. If the government claims to offer me happiness by taking my money I’ll know it is hypocrisy yet others will gladly offer someone else’s money to the government in the cause of peace and happiness. The former seems to be less annoying than the latter. When the government is taken for God it seems natural for secularism. Why? This is what I want you to tell me. Why does it seem so reasonable that the government becomes the God of secularism to the degree that any other perception must be scorned with the greatest expression of intolerance by those claiming to be tolerant?

Consider the following link which explains the intolerance of secular humanism. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree. My question is why are these opinions so repulsive that they will inspire the greatest degree of intolerance? Why on philosophy sites like Philosophy forum which should encourage the exploration of “meaning” do they also defend and protect the most divisive expressions of secular intolerance?

Again, my question is not whether you agree or disagree with religious concepts but why they raise such nastiness from people claiming to be intelligent?

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/cul ... anism.html
………………………That secular humanism is akin to religion is reflected by the fact that it has its own set of dogmas. These include denial of any moral authority greater than the individual human will, the primacy of personal satisfaction, the relativity of moral values, etc. all unjustified assumptions most of which have been refuted time and again by the sages of human history, those men who have really thought about such things.
Indeed, the writings of the Fathers of secular humanism are replete with dogmatic assertions. Rousseau is a case in point. In The Social Contract, he emphasizes the need for a civil religion which he describes as follows:
Now, it matters very much to the community that each citizen should have a religion. That will make him love his duty; but the dogmas of that religion concern the State and its members only so far as they have reference to morality and to the duties which he who professes them is bound to do to others
Further on, Rousseau argues that tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogma contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. In other words, it is for the sovereign state to determine what religious beliefs are acceptable and which are not.
Another example can be found in John Dewey, who might properly be considered the father of contemporary progressive education. Dewey often used religious terminology to describe his own secular beliefs. In a statement first published in 1897, entitled My Pedagogic Creed, he argued that in helping children to become members of a secular society the teacher is always the prophet of the true God and the usherer in the Kingdom of God. For Dewey, the true God is not, of course, the God of Abraham or of Christians, but rather the human community. Similarly, the true kingdom of God is not Heaven, but rather secular society developed through progressive education. Dewey believed that public schools, in pursuing this objective would succeed in doing what traditional religion had always strenuously sought but miserably failed to do, namely provide universal happiness………………………………..

……………………….But why is secular humanism intolerant? It is because it views each human person as a creature of society rather than of God. If God does not exist or if we cannot know anything about Him, then the only possible source of authority is society. Human nature, in other words, is not to be viewed as having been created and made subject to certain divine laws, but rather as able to be developed and shaped by society, i.e. the Almighty State. That is why secular humanists usually have no qualms about supporting totalitarian experiments in societal control. (Who among them has criticized Chinas forced abortion policy?) That is also why they have no qualms about redefining what all traditional religions have held as natural. They will argue, for example, that homosexual relations represent merely an alternative approach to sexuality. Or that basic male and female roles can be redesigned according to societys desires. Or that the unborn child is not human.
Secular humanism refuses to deal with values and morals because it perceives them as being a matter of mere opinion, of personal preference. It denies the existence of a natural law, i.e., of any objective moral norm. The only thing that counts is scientific knowledge, which is precisely what Rousseau, Marx, Fichte, Nietzsche and other Fathers of secular humanism claimed they were expounding. They opened the way to the great social engineers of our century the Lenins, Hiders, Maos and Pol Pots, etc. all of whom have been acclaimed, at some point or other, by secularist intellectuals.
In short, the acid test of the true humanist is the claim not to believe, but to know, and to know scientifically. As Walter Lippman, the epitome of American secular humanism, put it in A Preface to Morals, we must live ... in the belief, that the duty of man is not to make his will conform to the will of God, but to the surest knowledge of the condition of human happiness (my emphasis). The problem, however, remains: the proposition that the scientific method is the only sure source of knowledge and that it can be applied indiscriminately to human affairs is an act of faith. It cannot itself be scientifically proven. Even the staunchest secular humanist must admit that he has given assent to a kind of dogma………………………………….
I’ve learned through sad experience that sane discussions on the question of secular intolerance must be condemned anywhere secularism is dominant and protected.
Tell me honestly; if you find secular intolerance gratifying as so many do in these times, what does it do for you? What are the satisfactions of emotional secular intolerance?
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Skip »

Here is a lovely new set of wrist-and-leg irons, the other end of which I'm going to chain to a bridge abutment.
Wear this end, while I explain, as many times as necessary, over weeks, months or years, why my morals are superior to your morals, and why I am going to force you to live your private life according to my moral code.
Tell me honestly; if you find
resistance to this idea
gratifying as so many do in these times, what does it do for you? What are the satisfactions of
choosing your own life-style, over accepting whatever I want you to believe?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 9:56 pm why you believe secular intolerance is so prominent on philosophy web sites.
Because genuine philosophy has no place for religion. They are two different things and are quite often incompatible which is probably why many who are interested in philosophy find it frustrating when religion is brought into what should be a God free zone.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Harbal wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 10:20 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 9:56 pm why you believe secular intolerance is so prominent on philosophy web sites.
Because genuine philosophy has no place for religion. They are two different things and are quite often incompatible which is probably why many who are interested in philosophy find it frustrating when religion is brought into what should be a God free zone.
Thing though Harbal is this website and others have a number of categories, including one for religion so the question in my mind is for what purpose?

PhilX
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Harbal wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 10:20 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 9:56 pm why you believe secular intolerance is so prominent on philosophy web sites.
Because genuine philosophy has no place for religion. They are two different things and are quite often incompatible which is probably why many who are interested in philosophy find it frustrating when religion is brought into what should be a God free zone.
Well said. Philosophy is about thinking and religion is about indoctrination. You only have to look at his URL 'catholic education'.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 11:09 pm
Harbal wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 10:20 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 9:56 pm why you believe secular intolerance is so prominent on philosophy web sites.
Because genuine philosophy has no place for religion. They are two different things and are quite often incompatible which is probably why many who are interested in philosophy find it frustrating when religion is brought into what should be a God free zone.
Thing though Harbal is this website and others have a number of categories, including one for religion so the question in my mind is for what purpose?

PhilX
Well you can think about religion :)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Nick_A wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 9:56 pm Tell me honestly; if you find secular intolerance gratifying as so many do in these times, what does it do for you? What are the satisfactions of emotional secular intolerance?
Few if any of us care about your religious opinions. The main issue is that you are obsessed with self pity and unable to recognise that your failings are the result of being boring, producing poor quality arguments, and above all.... you learn absolutely nothing from each of your many failures because you chalk them all up to other people's secular intolerance instead of recognising that you did a shit job yet again.

A long time ago you promised that you were done with this forum because you found some other where you expected to be taken seriously. Are we to assume you are back now because that was just another of those failures that you are determined to pin on anyone except yourself?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

It seems that all of these replies suggest that spirit killing secular intolerance directed against the young is justified because of preconceptions concerning some concept of a personal God within society. But if philosophy is the love of wisdom, can this attitude lead to wisdom? It would be fair to say that secular intolerance functioning under the mask of philosophy is just slander, an untruth directed against the love of wisdom.

Secular Intolerance is not just restricted to personal gods but to Plato's conception of the GOOD and Plotinus conception of the ONE. In other words, secular Intolerance is a reaction directed at any concept which doesn't define values by the whims of the state. This means that those expressing secular intolerance by definition will deny the role of Plato and Plotinus in philosophy. This may be progressive philosophy but i don't feel its attraction. I'm better off with good scotch.

What makes you defend the authority of the state to the degree that great thinkers of the past must be condemned when taken seriously?

Don't get me wrong I will admit that there have been great crimes perpetrated by both institutions calling themselves religious as well as secular. These are all expressions of the human condition which is capable of the simultaneous expression of compassion and abomination. But anyone professing a love of wisdom has to realize how silly this is and admit nothing good can come from dominant secular intolerance in pursuit of wisdom or the goal of philosophy. Yet secular intolerance shines brightly in all its neon glory on philosophy sites protected by those in power. I am curious what is so gratifying about this slander against philosophy
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 10:20 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 9:56 pm why you believe secular intolerance is so prominent on philosophy web sites.
Because genuine philosophy has no place for religion. They are two different things and are quite often incompatible which is probably why many who are interested in philosophy find it frustrating when religion is brought into what should be a God free zone.
Would you be happier if Plato's GOOD and Plotinus' ONE were banned from this site?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 11:40 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 9:56 pm Tell me honestly; if you find secular intolerance gratifying as so many do in these times, what does it do for you? What are the satisfactions of emotional secular intolerance?
Few if any of us care about your religious opinions. The main issue is that you are obsessed with self pity and unable to recognise that your failings are the result of being boring, producing poor quality arguments, and above all.... you learn absolutely nothing from each of your many failures because you chalk them all up to other people's secular intolerance instead of recognising that you did a shit job yet again.

A long time ago you promised that you were done with this forum because you found some other where you expected to be taken seriously. Are we to assume you are back now because that was just another of those failures that you are determined to pin on anyone except yourself?
Philosophy sites are like women. You have to experience them in order learn about them. Philosophy Forum was a failure. Secular Intolerance is protected making the discussion of the reason for philosophy impossible. We live and learn. This thread is to determine why secular intolerance has become so dominant that philosophy as the love of wisdom is being felt less and less both online and in society in support of the dictates of the state as the new god and source of human values.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 1:05 am
Would you be happier if Plato's GOOD and Plotinus' ONE were banned from this site?
I wouldn't want to ban anything as long as I'm free to give my opinion on it. Would you be happier if "secular" opinions were banned from this site?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Walker »

Harbal wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 6:12 am
Nick_A wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 1:05 am
Would you be happier if Plato's GOOD and Plotinus' ONE were banned from this site?
I wouldn't want to ban anything as long as I'm free to give my opinion on it. Would you be happier if "secular" opinions were banned from this site?
Getting to the point, if you had the power of absolute censorship would it go to your head and change that view?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Harbal »

Walker wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 6:49 am
Getting to the point, if you had the power of absolute censorship would it go to your head and change that view?
No.
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by marjoram_blues »

If there are to be accusations of intolerance addressed to any individual or group, then you must first know what it is to be tolerant. And if it is necessarily a virtue.
If interested in Philosophy and the concept of 'Tolerance', then a useful source might be the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( IEP ). Tolerance - part 4 moral toleration - the paradox.
If interested in knowing about the Philosophy of Religion, then another useful resource is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( SEP).
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Nick_A wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 1:15 am Philosophy sites are like women. You have to experience them in order learn about them. Philosophy Forum was a failure.
So I was right in every respect. You are back here because you annoyed everyone over there with your boring monomania until they shunned you. And you have learned nothing, all your failures are entirely the fault of others.
Locked