Atheist and agnostic are born with morals just like everyone else it is embedded in the human genome. I'm sure Brooks wrote this piece with little investigation. To get good moral people to do bad things you need god. Don't believe me? read the history of our country from 1640, most of the atrocities were with gods blessing.
35
You know…I think I'd rather put "unprecedented moral burdens" upon myself and be an atheist than a religious member is ISIS .
25
With all due respect to Mr. Brooks, I strongly disagree that secularists "have to build their own moral philosophies". He seems to have totally dismissed all the teachings and guidance provided by parents and teachers from early grade school through high school and college. A liberal education gives individuals the benefit of studying the words and thoughts of those who have gone before them who have wrestled with moral and philosophical questions. With that knowledge, individuals are are not left on their own.
22
Er---Nietzsche covered this ground quite well over a century ago---the death of God means there is no objective morality---period. And we saw where the 20th century went.
In a meaningless, pointless world, you just make it up as you go along. But there is a word in the dictionary for "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder"--i.e. if you still maintain moral categories in a pointless, material world you have a "delusion".
In a meaningless, pointless world, you just make it up as you go along. But there is a word in the dictionary for "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder"--i.e. if you still maintain moral categories in a pointless, material world you have a "delusion".
4
How is it possible that not one of the 800+ comments mentions Unitarian Universalism? Separate entities for over 400 years, the two "U"s merged in 1960 and consciously represent a melding of the secular individual with the religious community. It may not be "the answer" for everyone, but for me it's the best of both worlds.
13
From the often perceptive David Brooks comes a one dimension cut-out of what a church/synagogue/mosque/temple can provide. Yes, some faith institutions provide what he says they provide - but many do not. Love of God? Selfless sacrificial love? Ready-made communities of a covenant? All people seen as radiating divine light? Faith institutions providing these everywhere all the time? I know a few that don't.
5
Call me an agnostic, meaning I don't believe anybody really knows what's the spiritual life on Earth. Is this more difficult than being "religious"? I doubt it. But I do appreciate that humans benefit from rituals religions can provide, and the boomer generation, of which I'm a part, rejected religions but didn't create our own positive rituals, leaving a gap in our spiritual lives, and sometimes our community lives. I could fill that gap by being Unitarian, for example, but that still feels like too much "group think" to me. Doing right by life on Earth, including the next generations and our animal/plant co-habitants, isn't really difficult since the Golden Rule pretty much covers it and can be readily applied to what the next generation would want us to do (sustainability is all about intergenerational responsibility) and secularists can sadly choose not to include future generations in our Golden Rule, just like many religions inappropriately do. But we don't have to be fully "rational" to simply adjust our behaviors to what, by experience, works in the world: Golden Rule plus scouting's admonitions to leave your campsite better than you found it, do a good deed a day, be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc. Or as Kurt Vonnegut put it in Cat's Cradle (Bokononism): live by the harmless untruths that help you to be brave, kind, healthy and happy.
5
Whenever you see Brooks write "I suspect that over the next years [fill in the blank] will..." as he does at the end of this column, you know he hasn't thought at all about his subject, and is just filling a column with random thoughts
17
We put "moral burdens" on ourselves because we're selfish (in a good sense of that term) and being good is a good feeling independent of any theology.
5
Yoga philosophy and practice provides all the essential elements outlined in Mr. Brooks piece, but adds a physical component. Yoga is very old, positive, not directive or dogmatic but presents a prescriptive path towards a life of peace, contentment, freedom and liberation. I would refer you to the Yamas and Niyamas (social and personal guide) and the Kleshas (the source of suffering).
The complete guide is contained in Patangali's Yoga Sutras.
In yoga, the Devine can be whomever you like, including your true Self and the "sabbath" is, ideally, every moment (good luck on that one in our contemporary world...but you have the tools to make it so).
The complete guide is contained in Patangali's Yoga Sutras.
In yoga, the Devine can be whomever you like, including your true Self and the "sabbath" is, ideally, every moment (good luck on that one in our contemporary world...but you have the tools to make it so).
4
I have seen very little in the human animal that would justify religion or non religion as relevant in how the average person behaves. Groups or tribes tend to be either evil or try to keep people in line. Look at all the civil wars in Africa over the last 20 years and longer, and in the middle east. Look at England, France, Holland, Italy, and Spain's desire to conquer the world and the impact it had on colonization. Look at the Holocaust. Look at America's taking over this land in spite of many tribes of Indians who were already here. Look right now at Russia's idea of what should or shouldn't happen in Ukraine. There are not enough individuals who stand for the truth even in their own families, own neighborhoods, own jobs, or as a nation. Standing for the truth pushes people to evolve beyond their own tribe or family. When someone in a family gets in serious trouble, it is not, "I care about the truth and the victim," it is generally I care about my family no matter how horrible an act they might have committed nor is there little belief that their own kind could be lying. The nature of the human animal is tribal, but somehow it has not worked out that well for humans. It seems to work better for animals, but nature is built on survival of the fittest, and we have all watched how that goes down on National Geographic.
15
Neither Mr. Brooks not the author he quotes describe me, and I guess I am a "secularist." Fact is, I don't believe in any God but don't feel a profound attachment to any other philosophy either. I do not feel burdened with the "enormous task" of being a non-believer living a moral life, either.
Indwed, I have spent my life trying to be as good a person as I can be, compassionate towards others and responsive to doing something about the world's many problems; I have many good friends who feel the same, and live in a community that commits to the betterment of the Commons.
Why on earth should all this be considered a bigger burden if one doesn't believe in a god than if one does!? Mr. Brooks is, this time, out of his element and making guesses.
Indwed, I have spent my life trying to be as good a person as I can be, compassionate towards others and responsive to doing something about the world's many problems; I have many good friends who feel the same, and live in a community that commits to the betterment of the Commons.
Why on earth should all this be considered a bigger burden if one doesn't believe in a god than if one does!? Mr. Brooks is, this time, out of his element and making guesses.
51
I like that concept of "unconscious boredom". It makes me wonder where it came from. Maybe some monster from David's id is trying to tell him something?
7
My reading is that Mr. Brooks believes that a secular person has an enormous almost insurmountable task to build a moral philosophy. I would disagree.
I remember sitting in a conference in Chicago in the early 80's hearing that a study of 5 year olds showed the children of atheists were more moral than Catholics, Protestants, and Quakers.
More recently I read "The Bonobo and The Atheist" by Frans de Waal, a primatologist in Atlanta, who explores the idea that our closest primate relatives are very moral, and they are so because they have to take care of each other to survive. He implies that natural built in morality was co-opted by various religions as if they had invented it and it came from God. I would go further to state that these religions have all to often twisted beliefs to bring about evil.
In "Doubt: A History" Jennifer Hecht points out that "faith" was discussed by the early Jews, taken over by the early Christians, and then exploded on the world scene. She means the acceptance of a belief without the requirement of a logical or scientific proof. In the Middle Ages belief itself became the central religious duty, not good acts. Just believing. Sound familiar?
An individual who is trying to find their way in this newly interconnected world where reasonable views are easier to find, and is well connected to family and community, will have a pretty good chance of finding their inner morality.
I remember sitting in a conference in Chicago in the early 80's hearing that a study of 5 year olds showed the children of atheists were more moral than Catholics, Protestants, and Quakers.
More recently I read "The Bonobo and The Atheist" by Frans de Waal, a primatologist in Atlanta, who explores the idea that our closest primate relatives are very moral, and they are so because they have to take care of each other to survive. He implies that natural built in morality was co-opted by various religions as if they had invented it and it came from God. I would go further to state that these religions have all to often twisted beliefs to bring about evil.
In "Doubt: A History" Jennifer Hecht points out that "faith" was discussed by the early Jews, taken over by the early Christians, and then exploded on the world scene. She means the acceptance of a belief without the requirement of a logical or scientific proof. In the Middle Ages belief itself became the central religious duty, not good acts. Just believing. Sound familiar?
An individual who is trying to find their way in this newly interconnected world where reasonable views are easier to find, and is well connected to family and community, will have a pretty good chance of finding their inner morality.
13
Thoughts:
From a nationwide survey of conducted in November of 2008 by Harris Interactive:
75% believe in miracles
73% in heaven
71% in angels
68% that the soul survives death of the body
62% in hell
59% in the literal devil
The "good" news is that more Americans believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution (47%) than in creationism (40%)...
“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
Albert Einstein
From a nationwide survey of conducted in November of 2008 by Harris Interactive:
75% believe in miracles
73% in heaven
71% in angels
68% that the soul survives death of the body
62% in hell
59% in the literal devil
The "good" news is that more Americans believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution (47%) than in creationism (40%)...
“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
Albert Einstein
23
Regarding: Religious people are motivated (to behave well) by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him.
I wonder how many religious people actually do love god and have a fervent desire to please him. Maybe they love some of god's creations or they love the concept of a benevolent supreme being, but how can they truly love god unless they have a personal two-way semi-consistent relationship with him?
I would guess that a small percentage (10% or so) of religious people actually truly do love god based on a personal two-way relationship. The rest of religious people get their motivation to behave well based on reason and common sense just as secularists do. If my guess is true, is it more likely that those 10% are truly exceptional or just more prone to self deception?
I wonder how many religious people actually do love god and have a fervent desire to please him. Maybe they love some of god's creations or they love the concept of a benevolent supreme being, but how can they truly love god unless they have a personal two-way semi-consistent relationship with him?
I would guess that a small percentage (10% or so) of religious people actually truly do love god based on a personal two-way relationship. The rest of religious people get their motivation to behave well based on reason and common sense just as secularists do. If my guess is true, is it more likely that those 10% are truly exceptional or just more prone to self deception?
4
The medieval belief, or faith, in a mythical "god" sets one up to believe in other myths (72 virgins, the Pope talks to god, the top Morman hears from god, etc. etc.), to be manipulated by religious people, and to stop pursuing the facts or the truth. Unless we get god out of the discussion and start looking at things realistically, we are all doomed.
20
While I admire and respect those who's interpretation of their faith leads them to be compassionate, rational, and tolerante of others of different views, I have no belief in a diety. The current Pope seems to make statements showing enlightment in this regard.
I would suggest three sources for good discussions on this topic: one is the famous sociobiologist E.O. Wilson, and his recent book The Meaning of Human Existence, 2014. He points out the dual nature of humans, needing to selfishly compete with others some times, and needing to be altruistic at others. A second is to study Stoicism, which is conveniently discussed in todays NY Times: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/?ref=o... An fun way to grasp stoicism would be to read Thomas Wolfe's"A Man in Full", an entertaining novel based on the main characters conversion to stoicism.
And finally, for an ethical basis and a way to develop an attitude of wonder about the beauty of the universe and your part in it, one could read about Buddhism. It is one way learn to feel humble due to your insignificance, yet inspired by your onness with the universe.
But really, any philosophy that results in people who end up becomming more loving of others, and more responsible for their own actions is a wonderful thing. I can respect the Amish, Mormons, Catholics, Jews and Muslims, and Atheists if their practice results in responsible, loving behavior toward others.
I would suggest three sources for good discussions on this topic: one is the famous sociobiologist E.O. Wilson, and his recent book The Meaning of Human Existence, 2014. He points out the dual nature of humans, needing to selfishly compete with others some times, and needing to be altruistic at others. A second is to study Stoicism, which is conveniently discussed in todays NY Times: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/?ref=o... An fun way to grasp stoicism would be to read Thomas Wolfe's"A Man in Full", an entertaining novel based on the main characters conversion to stoicism.
And finally, for an ethical basis and a way to develop an attitude of wonder about the beauty of the universe and your part in it, one could read about Buddhism. It is one way learn to feel humble due to your insignificance, yet inspired by your onness with the universe.
But really, any philosophy that results in people who end up becomming more loving of others, and more responsible for their own actions is a wonderful thing. I can respect the Amish, Mormons, Catholics, Jews and Muslims, and Atheists if their practice results in responsible, loving behavior toward others.
8
Oh, please. Atheists have no traditions to build on? We have Socrates, who taught skeptical inquiry; we have Aristotle, who promoted the virtues; we have Kant, who formulated the Categorical Imperative; we have Shaw, who attacked hypocrisy and endorsed socialism; and, yes, we have Marx and Engels, who weren't right about everything but weren't wrong about everything either. Not all those people were atheists, but that's okay; we're still allowed to learn from them.
And, looking at it another way, in the end, religious people too have to find their own way. That's why you can have Pope Francis and Hitler, both Christians. Good people who are Christian become good Christians; good people who are atheists become good atheists.
And, looking at it another way, in the end, religious people too have to find their own way. That's why you can have Pope Francis and Hitler, both Christians. Good people who are Christian become good Christians; good people who are atheists become good atheists.
28
If you a "believer" ... show me your prophets walking on water or levitating in the air. If you merely a "relativistic atheist" ... walk into the bush naked in winter "now" and promptly meet your gruesome fate and eternal justice. I need your big chalet for my bro's in Detroit without "water."
1
"Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies."
No, ethics and moral philosophy have been around longer than many religious systems, including Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. However, secular individuals often find themselves defending ethics and moral philosophy against religious dogma and prejudice, which, in their harshest forms, wrongly teach that atheism precludes a moral existence.
Humankind was probably doing just fine in its natural state, unencumbered by the superimposition of superstition. Remember: The fabrications of religion emerged fairly late in human evolution, vs. learning how to gather, hunt, mate, and care for others.
No, ethics and moral philosophy have been around longer than many religious systems, including Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. However, secular individuals often find themselves defending ethics and moral philosophy against religious dogma and prejudice, which, in their harshest forms, wrongly teach that atheism precludes a moral existence.
Humankind was probably doing just fine in its natural state, unencumbered by the superimposition of superstition. Remember: The fabrications of religion emerged fairly late in human evolution, vs. learning how to gather, hunt, mate, and care for others.
18
"Secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation. It’s not enough to want to be a decent person. You have to be powerfully motivated to behave well. Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him. Secularists have to come up with their own powerful drive that will compel sacrifice and service."
I'm a secularist who lives smack in the middle of the bible belt - Oklahoma - and I don't see any more principled behavior here than I did when I lived in New York. The church-goers around me appear to be driven more by their desire to maintain their tribal bona fides than by the doctrinal analysis of their religious leaders and weekly attendance at church seems to be motivated more by a desire to be "seen" as "nice" people than to search their souls in pursuit of perfection.
I'm a secularist who lives smack in the middle of the bible belt - Oklahoma - and I don't see any more principled behavior here than I did when I lived in New York. The church-goers around me appear to be driven more by their desire to maintain their tribal bona fides than by the doctrinal analysis of their religious leaders and weekly attendance at church seems to be motivated more by a desire to be "seen" as "nice" people than to search their souls in pursuit of perfection.
33
Fresh from grad school in 1980, it was my impression that about a fifth of the American populace was unaffiliated with an organized religion--so I don't think the numbers have risen sharply, rather, as you imply, folks are more confident being out now. I had occasion to notice because I was interested in hospital chaplaincy and practicing hospice care and I wanted to be able to have therapeutic conversations with my patients no matter what their spiritual/religious vocabulary. Parenthetically, I attributed that significant percentage to a widespread crisis of faith that WWII and the atomic bomb had ushered in but it may simply be that were always a fifth of people who "see" the world in a secular way. May I add, however, that more boxing of a secular brand will not add value. Let all the beliefs on the spectrum of belief have their place without fanfare and warfare, please!
4
It seems to me that the fervor Mr. Brooks mistakenly laments as missing among Secularists is, if not causally related, at least highly correlated with such things as the Crusades, stoning of adulterers, honor killings, witch burnings, and the like. No thank you, sir, I'll do without.
7
Ha ha -how's all that religious fervor and moral grounding working out for us so far!
It's simple - Indoctrinated wonder and curiosity abating superstition and religion based and enhanced tribal violence vs. science and reason directed humanistic behavior.
You don't pick your religion you get brainwashed into it! That's the only reason it's taking so long to disappear back into the shadows of the Bronze Age where it belongs!
It's simple - Indoctrinated wonder and curiosity abating superstition and religion based and enhanced tribal violence vs. science and reason directed humanistic behavior.
You don't pick your religion you get brainwashed into it! That's the only reason it's taking so long to disappear back into the shadows of the Bronze Age where it belongs!
10
Mr. Brooks:
Where, in this nation of self- proclaimed nation of Judeo-Christian
values do you see evidence of a dropping of wordly concerns on the sabbath?
Isn't that one of the ten commandments? Evidently, Walmart is the new temple where the"religious" "reflect on spiritual matters". How about a column about how secularists,poor misguided souls,are driven to their lowly state by the hypocracy of religious "practice?
Where, in this nation of self- proclaimed nation of Judeo-Christian
values do you see evidence of a dropping of wordly concerns on the sabbath?
Isn't that one of the ten commandments? Evidently, Walmart is the new temple where the"religious" "reflect on spiritual matters". How about a column about how secularists,poor misguided souls,are driven to their lowly state by the hypocracy of religious "practice?
9
However, conservatism has been guided by Christian moral values.
What becomes of the moral values of today's neoconservatives and fiscal conservatives without the arguably or controversially flawed values of Christianity?
IMO, Ayn Rand's Objectivism which is now in fashion among today's Republican party -- has had a corrosive effect on conservatism, and upon American society, due to its derisive attitude towards the "Common Good".
What becomes of the moral values of today's neoconservatives and fiscal conservatives without the arguably or controversially flawed values of Christianity?
IMO, Ayn Rand's Objectivism which is now in fashion among today's Republican party -- has had a corrosive effect on conservatism, and upon American society, due to its derisive attitude towards the "Common Good".
13
Mr Brooks states: Secularists "suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives." What is the source for that statement? Doesn't match my experience, or that of others I know. If you derived this conclusion from a poll, or from interviews with any number of folks, please cite. Otherwise it just comes across to me as an erroneous conclusion.
42
Mr. Brooks, let me explain how this works. We atheists, secularists do not rely, nor want any one telling us what is morally acceptable because as rational beings we already know what is right, correct and just. People like you are unable to understand that simple truth. Man is capable of telling him what is right and what is wrong. The way Man is able to tell the difference between beauty and ugly. It is human nature and superstition has nothing to say about, although for thousands of years opportunists and charlatans have been telling US otherwise.
Why don't you pick up a copy of Joseph Orbi's new book "Kickin' Santa - Atheists and the matter of Fact." It explains everything Mr. Brooks, you don't seem to understand about religion and secularism at large.
Why don't you pick up a copy of Joseph Orbi's new book "Kickin' Santa - Atheists and the matter of Fact." It explains everything Mr. Brooks, you don't seem to understand about religion and secularism at large.
10
Pretty vapid and shallowly conventional remarks from Brooks. Religion's going to die as rapid a death among educated young Americans as other irrationalities, like opposition to marriage, recently have. Republicans like Brooks have everything to fear from the ever-faster fading of religion among the intelligent young, as happened long ago among them in Europe, Without religion, and all it's irrational prejudices enforced by herds, how are Republicans going to con and distract their white mob with culture wars, anyway? For a much smarter take on what Brooks scratches the surface of, see Alain de Botton's excellent Religion for Atheists, which points to many home truths about the human condition which we would rather blithely forget but which Christianity specifically used to be excellent at reminding us of. Botton thinks our humanity suffers quite a bit without Christianity's reminders of the things that never change, no matter how happily secular we might become. He's a paradigmatic British atheist of course, just like virtually everyone he knows in London, and he's not just a Jew but an outright Rothschild to boot. All of which makes his advocacy for studying the unique wisdom of Christianity all the more fascinating.
4
The Judeo-Christian ethic need not be jettisoned simply because one is neither a Jew or a Christian.
4
Next Mr. Brooks should muse on building better religious people.
He could start with their lack of self awareness when judging others. Then maybe build towards their desire to force their superstitions and/or OCD type behaviors on others.
This column was so difficult to read and unclear in it's logic that it makes me wonder if Mr. Brooks is in some kind of health related decline.
He could start with their lack of self awareness when judging others. Then maybe build towards their desire to force their superstitions and/or OCD type behaviors on others.
This column was so difficult to read and unclear in it's logic that it makes me wonder if Mr. Brooks is in some kind of health related decline.
13
It must be great to be David Brooks--He always knows what is the superior concept. He has hectored people for years about the moral insufficiency of living without religion and conservative principles. And now today he is going to hector us on being better secularists! The recipe for taking the better secular path involves enchantment--a theme from last week, remember? as well as self-transcendence and sanctification. David Brooks needs to get out and do real work for a year and then come back and tell us about his new understanding of transcendence-- pick any job where you have to punch in an out for the day. Accomplish something of real use among other people who are trying to do the same in their own way. You will be a better person for it and will stop already with the enchantment thing. You will stop trying to perfect people whom you do not understand.
24
I'm agnostic. I am neither adrift or struggling, neither bored with my life or lacking in meaning. I'm not doomed to reinvent the moral wheel: just like people of varying (often conflicting) regions, I live in a world of laws, traditions, culture, education, literature, wisdom passed down from older generations, opportunities to get social approval or lack thereof from the people around me, and knowledge gained from my own experience. I'm not lacking in community, but part of a family, neighborhood, volunteer groups, civic groups, groups that share my hobbies. It's not a daily struggle to be "decent", or to manage just as much sacrifice and service as the average person who believes in God. This entire piece reads to me as if someone fond of their pencil believes that someone without a pencil (but with a pen) must be unable to write.
28
Morality comes from reason whether one follows a faith or not. "God" is anyone who claims to speak for him. Religion is made by people, right here on the only world we've got. Adulthood is the stage when humans take on mature reasoning. Here's the problem: Religions get in the way of adulthood, obstruct the development of the mature reasoning on which morality depends. Is the claim of speaking for "god" is inherently nefarious? Probably, usually. Our god-free constitution enshrined secular government as America's crowning achievement. It was supposed to be the model we used to lead the world. But religions are like unstable elements; they can't just chill at the church. It's hard to find one that isn't peddling fear for power. So here we are, still debating nonsense about religion providing a moral framework. Mr Brooks, as one of your regular readers, it's hard for me to believe you buy into this. Are you just putting out conservative talking points?
4
I recommend Mr. Brooks read Michael Shermer's new book titled, THE MORAL ARC, How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Toward Truth, Justice and Freedom.
In teaching morality, understanding morality, Shermer's book leads the way for secularists and for others.
In teaching morality, understanding morality, Shermer's book leads the way for secularists and for others.
5
Denmark is a secular country - but I believe Danes live a more morally life than Americans. We don't let our fellow citizens live on the street ond every Dane has full access to healthcare.
34
"Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action."
Arguably that is precisely what secularism MUST NOT do. Along the path of arousal of the higher emotions, and exaltation of the passions in pursuit of moral action lies the dragon of zealotry. From my limited experience, zealotry is an inherently harmful thing.
Arguably that is precisely what secularism MUST NOT do. Along the path of arousal of the higher emotions, and exaltation of the passions in pursuit of moral action lies the dragon of zealotry. From my limited experience, zealotry is an inherently harmful thing.
12
Mr. Brooks:
just a quick question:
how many conflicts, past and present, between groups of this species have been rooted in "emotional" responses centered on religious teachings and practices, including the annilation of the "other", because of ancient beliefs that are not universally accepted?
it may well be that a blending of the dull secularist, as described in your column, with the righteousness of the "believing" will allow for a better future outcome for all.
just a quick question:
how many conflicts, past and present, between groups of this species have been rooted in "emotional" responses centered on religious teachings and practices, including the annilation of the "other", because of ancient beliefs that are not universally accepted?
it may well be that a blending of the dull secularist, as described in your column, with the righteousness of the "believing" will allow for a better future outcome for all.
7
Dang, ya'll! I like some of Mr. Brooks' writings. But this is impenetrable hogwash. "Sound and fury, signifying nothing..." He does assume that people who embrace a secular worldview need and want the same things as religious folk - and want it in the same rigid, codified way. That's quite a leap.
16
Seriously I can't believe this column indeed appears on New York Times. Being an atheist doesn't mean I am a non-educated person, a drifted soul. There is something in this world called "knowledge, science and morality", which is not necessarily taken from religion, but from our education, experience and self-discipline. Besides, I don't think hanging out with a group is such an important issue in a person's life. What if the majority people are blind and deadly wrong? What if that community persecutes people who holds different opinion? Solitude is a bless.
9
If it's ONLY a fear of God that's keeping you from running around robbing and or killing people, then please keep believing in God. But that's not my motivation or the source of my morality.
27
Secularism is much easier than Mr. Brooks suggests. Once a person realizes he doesn't need faith to live, everything else falls into place. Religion, spirituality, weekly rituals, and the search for meaning are not necessary for everyone.
18
It is true, my life started in a family with a religion and belief in a god and over time I came to realize there was neither evidence or need for those beliefs. But my life doesn't revolve around "there is no god." Rather my life is now built around, "there is an amazing universe which I am part of and have the remarkable ability to understand at least part of it, so I want to be as beneficial a part of this universe as I can." Thus, most of what David Brooks has written is just simply irrelevant to me. I may want to do some of what he suggests, but there is no reason that I "have" to do any of it. In fact, if anything, I see it as even more incumbent on those who are religious to take up the burden of examining the creeds, rituals and communities they are part of to make sure their "faith" that all of these are "right" doesn't lead them astray from their core values. For surely, many of these creeds, rituals and communities were created by fallible humans and not an all knowing god.
4
With a few minor modifications this column would serve as a comprehensive outline of why I left the church in my adolescence. Each of Brooks’ so-called burdens was a milestone toward liberation from the yoke of intolerant, stultifying and repressive religious doctrine. David, think opportunities, not burdens.
8
The most popular letters, as selected by your readers, blamed religion for all the ills of the world. Ladies and gentlemen, that is wrong. It is the human ego, the desire to dominate and subjugate others, which is at fault. It can take any form, including religion, but you should remember that the greatest tyrants in history, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, where all atheists or secularists.
One more observation. In all of the defenses of secular morality I have seen here, I have yet to see the word "love". To fell it for all humanity, a higher power is essential in your life.
One more observation. In all of the defenses of secular morality I have seen here, I have yet to see the word "love". To fell it for all humanity, a higher power is essential in your life.
3
Regardless of whether or not a person is one of faith or not, this article provides much food for thought in terms of how we assess our own connection to the world around us.
I agree with the basic tenets of a weakness in secularism as the basis for life and social engagement. Humans do not live in isolation but in communion with each other. When everyone is operating only on the basis of what is right in their own eyes, the societal climate does not lend itself to inclusion, justice and mercy.
I agree with the basic tenets of a weakness in secularism as the basis for life and social engagement. Humans do not live in isolation but in communion with each other. When everyone is operating only on the basis of what is right in their own eyes, the societal climate does not lend itself to inclusion, justice and mercy.
Too many secularist "have tos". It only reflects how *you* think the world should work.
Cheers!
Cheers!
2
“Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, succor the ill and dying" and love one another as we would be loved. These ideas did not come to us from a burning bush or from a he/she god or the human son/daughter of such a god. These precepts came from us - the human beings who live and have lived on this planet since we began to stand on our own two feet, think and communicate with each other. The peaceful and loving as well as the violent and exclusionary precepts of religion came from us not from some imagined god. We each need to take responsibility for these ideas and live accordingly. To me, that is the essence of secularism.
Alan Dressler
Alan Dressler
11
I find this piece condescending. In the end, Mr. Brooks tries to make the case that secularists really do need religion. Then again, it made me think about actually "building a better secularist", namely myself. I'll continue on my path without The Book, god, boredom, purity, etc. I will continue to genuflect at the base of Half Dome, the black beaches of Hawaii, the faint trail into the deep woods. That is where I find my soul .... and happily assist my fellow humans who thank God for nature, but neglected to bring snacks and water.
9
So we've gone from all secularists are evil because they can't possibly have a moral compass, you know they could just do anything; to secularists have had to do so much more work just to find a reason to get up in the morning they must not have time for anything but working and working and working on that secular lifestyle.
6
The author attempts to make the same tired point theists have for the last number of years, which is that morals without religions somehow cause people to kill people, turn gay and have sex with farm animals.
The fact is that morality existed for thousands of years before the Old Testament, and people somehow survived. They even survived despite religions codifying practices of misogyny and genocide by whatever gods. The fact that we strive for women's equality, have abolished slavery and don't kill adulterers in Western societies all go against the tenets laid out in the Bible. If our morals were from the Bible, how would we be able to pick and choose parts that we feel aren't applicable anymore. How were we able to stop killing neighbours for working on the Sabbath?
And I'd just like to point out that morality IS hard work. Doing good, treating people well and wanting to leave the planet better than you found it takes *work*. Buddhists live their entire lives trying to be the most loving and compassionate selves they can. I think people who don't reason for themselves and let some "god" sort it all out for them are lazy. There's no merit to always taking the easy road.
The fact is that morality existed for thousands of years before the Old Testament, and people somehow survived. They even survived despite religions codifying practices of misogyny and genocide by whatever gods. The fact that we strive for women's equality, have abolished slavery and don't kill adulterers in Western societies all go against the tenets laid out in the Bible. If our morals were from the Bible, how would we be able to pick and choose parts that we feel aren't applicable anymore. How were we able to stop killing neighbours for working on the Sabbath?
And I'd just like to point out that morality IS hard work. Doing good, treating people well and wanting to leave the planet better than you found it takes *work*. Buddhists live their entire lives trying to be the most loving and compassionate selves they can. I think people who don't reason for themselves and let some "god" sort it all out for them are lazy. There's no merit to always taking the easy road.
8
"morality is hard work "
too hard
That's saint paul's point . It condemns everyone to damnation
too hard
That's saint paul's point . It condemns everyone to damnation
Your enchanted secularists sound a lot like Budhists.
1
" Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies." This is where Brooks begins to go off track, and he gets worse and worse until by the end I can't follow his meaning at all. We DO inherit a moral philosophy. The most committed atheist has grown up in the moral philosophy (in my case the so-called Judeo-Christian Ethic) of the surrounding culture. That is also where religious people get their moral compass, whether they realize it or not. They don't make their moral choices because of an "eye in the sky," however much they may attribute them to higher powers' admonitions. Only look at how our morality differs from that of the Middle Ages, for one example, to see my point. We still impose the death penalty, but argue over what cocktail of chemicals is most painless. Then we had burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, hanging, beheading, which often didn't succeed at the first try, and all sorts of awful things. Same religion, same unchanging and eternal eye in the sky.
2
An excellent response to Mr. Brooks' concerns about the shortcomings of secularism can be found in Massimo Pigliucci's "How to be a Stoic" which may be found in The Opionator blog (NYTimes, Feb 2, 2015). Such practical philosophies guided rational moral behavior well before the appearance of Christianity, which merely appropriated them and then added superstition and fear.
7
All humans have a moral compass. How, otherwise, do you suppose that so many human civilizations created similar religions for themselves?
People who think religion is necessary for morality are the kind who will only behave themselves under threat of punishment, clearly exhibited in the attitudes and actions of the most fundamentalist believers.
People who think religion is necessary for morality are the kind who will only behave themselves under threat of punishment, clearly exhibited in the attitudes and actions of the most fundamentalist believers.
16
So true!
A bunch of secularists (such as myself) should answer this challenge with science.
Apparently Mr. Brooks speaks for many religious persons when he worries that secularists have nothing to keep them honest, or good. This is why political candidates must alway profess a belief in magical beings or fib about having one.
But Jonathan Haidt, among others, has shown experimentally that we all have an evolved spence of morality. It may differ a little, as between liberals and conservatives, but it, and not religion, keeps us moral. Persons without it, religious or not, can always rationalize any bad behavior they want to engage in. Just look at history. In fact, if you can come up with a religious motivation for your preferred bad behavior, you don't even need to rationalize. At least a secular morality requires you to address real-world consequences when you act.
Apparently Mr. Brooks speaks for many religious persons when he worries that secularists have nothing to keep them honest, or good. This is why political candidates must alway profess a belief in magical beings or fib about having one.
But Jonathan Haidt, among others, has shown experimentally that we all have an evolved spence of morality. It may differ a little, as between liberals and conservatives, but it, and not religion, keeps us moral. Persons without it, religious or not, can always rationalize any bad behavior they want to engage in. Just look at history. In fact, if you can come up with a religious motivation for your preferred bad behavior, you don't even need to rationalize. At least a secular morality requires you to address real-world consequences when you act.
2
"Building better secularists", is today's title.
Might we remark: the alchemists of old, tried to turn base metals into gold!
That was equally futile.
We need real science.
A problem today is how science and technology have been replacing any reverence for life, reverence for anything .... and sadly replacing that with a fixation on the self and self-serving 'values'. That is not what science and technology should be about. They are being misused: building bombs, guns, poisonous substances. vast arid expanses of pavement ... replacing nature's bounty with what amounts to a lifeless landscape in which nothing really happy can exist anymore.
Everything mankind needed was in the Garden of Eden. Sadly, they goofed.
Might we remark: the alchemists of old, tried to turn base metals into gold!
That was equally futile.
We need real science.
A problem today is how science and technology have been replacing any reverence for life, reverence for anything .... and sadly replacing that with a fixation on the self and self-serving 'values'. That is not what science and technology should be about. They are being misused: building bombs, guns, poisonous substances. vast arid expanses of pavement ... replacing nature's bounty with what amounts to a lifeless landscape in which nothing really happy can exist anymore.
Everything mankind needed was in the Garden of Eden. Sadly, they goofed.
"Religious people are commanded to drop worldly concerns."
Is that like those folks who concentrate on 17 virgins in Heaven as they blow themselves up for Allah?
Is that like those folks who concentrate on 17 virgins in Heaven as they blow themselves up for Allah?
4
Sheldon Silver and Sheldon Adelson are both religious. Make of that what you will.
5
"They suffer from a loss of meaning...."
"..secularism will..become..more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for...self-transcendence and sanctification."
We're spiritual beings. Fulfillment in prestige, worshipping others, occupation, mission, vicariousness, ultimately fades: feeling empty at the top, losing interest in the adored one, wearying of careers or causes, fans realizing their unknown outsider status as passion turns lonely and senseless. Mortal focuses grow superficial and vapid because our souls crave union with the Creator. Manmade religious ritual is boring. Cast that off and try a free spiritual journey. If you genuinely search for truth, God will lead the way.
"..secularism will..become..more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for...self-transcendence and sanctification."
We're spiritual beings. Fulfillment in prestige, worshipping others, occupation, mission, vicariousness, ultimately fades: feeling empty at the top, losing interest in the adored one, wearying of careers or causes, fans realizing their unknown outsider status as passion turns lonely and senseless. Mortal focuses grow superficial and vapid because our souls crave union with the Creator. Manmade religious ritual is boring. Cast that off and try a free spiritual journey. If you genuinely search for truth, God will lead the way.
1
Brooks seems to gloss over the fact that the religious closeness that he lauds also has a dark side. Being part of a group is all well and good when you are willing to go along with their sometimes arbitrary rules. Were one to cross a line and find oneself osracized, the belonging becomes a little less warm and fuzzy. Furthermore, it's not always a question of either/or; a person can believe in God and, at the same time prefer to keep one's own coincil
3
This column arises from brook's not so irrational fear that as more of us renounce religion and become more secular, criticism of the Christian Zionists amongst us in our increasingly civilized and enlightened society will increase and support of God's "chosen people's" morally questionable behavior in the "Holy Land" will decrease. It stands to reason.
6
Re David Brooks "Building Better Secularists," Mr. Brooks' list of what secularists must do suggests that secularists arrive at adulthood with a blank slate re values and principles. Does he not recognize that we have good morals, values and principles instilled in us even though raised in a secular environment? We don't have to "build" our moral philosophy or motivation; it's already there. We live with and activate these values each day; we don't need a sabbath reminder and we participate in our neighborhood, city and state civic communities all over this country. As for the discoveries of cognitive science, Mr. Brooks seems to suggest that only secularists are in danger of acting on hidden emotions to our detriment. Shame on him.
6
Clever reasoning that points correctly to a need to address the entire person. The problem is the false premise that secularism can actually do this, since it ignores the existence of the immortal soul, hence it cannot address the spiritual needs of the whole person; secularism can only address the physical needs of the person. That is simply not enough.
1
Coming from a Conservative Op-Ed writer discussing secularism seems strange to say the least. He is a victim of his own words.Putting secularism in a negative light, he has unwittingly shown the positives. The fact that the secularist is taking unprecedented moral burdens indicates the strong moral fiber of the person. He refuses to partake in seemingly inane rites,rituals and dogma. Instead he believes in basic decency and empathy.He prefers humanism to Godliness. He takes responsibility for his own actions instead of making some mythical God a scapegoat. He is not a drifter as you put it. Instead he is firmly grounded. There is no room for boredom or loss of meaning in their lives because every action and reaction is different And that, makes life interesting. And already the tide is turning. Our kids are less likely to be biased and they seem to be getting more and more color-blind. They are moving away from Religion and Dogma which has been at the root of all wars and evil. Can't wait for these youngsters to get into the saddle burying ours and previous generations medieval mindset.
10
It's not as though a "secular person" builds a moral philosophy from scratch. In practice, we all learn from our parents, and they from their parents, and they from theirs--who were surely religious, btw. There's a lot of continuity between the secular and the religious here, with respect to their moral beliefs and even the inheritance of those beliefs.
And even the Old Testament writers are constantly exclaiming about how any wise and righteous person can TELL that God's laws are good--acknowledging that they too must have a rational basis.
And even the Old Testament writers are constantly exclaiming about how any wise and righteous person can TELL that God's laws are good--acknowledging that they too must have a rational basis.
Morality? Golden Rule? Love? Rewarding lives? Moral Philosophy? HA! I don't remember those coming up as issues when, in the 1960's, I attended Religious Education classes at, the aptly named, "Our Lade of Sorrows" Catholic church. It basically boiled down to these are the Catholic Rules and if you don't follow them you're going to hell. Mr. Brooks would have loved it!
11
Mr. Brooks comments that a challenge for secularists is that they have to build their own communities and moral philosophies. Is this precisely what gay people were forced to do? Having been rejected by society at-large and condemn by religious institutions, we had no choice but to find our own way.
4
This is kind of hilarious David - you didn't know any articulate secularists you could just talk to? You write about us as if we were an exotic jungle tribe you just read about in National Geographic. 20% of adults? Heck, there might be one of these curious beings living on your street.
19
David, David, David, You never fail to disappoint. From your support of all things Republican to your attack on Secularism as an empty gesture, devoid of all right-thinking. I have been a Religious Jew but greater reflection reveals there is nothing to Religion and the trouble with faith is, it has to be taken on faith. I'll take science, thank you and still consider myself a moral, feeling, conscientious person who "loves his fellow man," and grieves for the inequities and hardships of life that some suffer unjustly. If religion is the cure for that, I can't see it. Religion has caused more hardship and suffering than Secularism ever could.
8
I've read many of the comments here with interest. I studied math and science in college and my husband studied history and law. We consider ourselves logical people and interested in rational thought. If you are secular, what do you do with Jesus? He either rose from the dead, or did not, and interestingly, there seems to be a lot of evidence that he in fact, did (witnesses, changed lives).
1
"If you are secular, what do you do with Jesus?"
Well, admire him I suppose, at least for some of the things he is reported (scores or hundreds of years later) to have said. Like one can admire things attributed to the Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Galileo, Hume, Marx, Darwin, Einstein, etc.
None of the latter rose from the dead either.
Well, admire him I suppose, at least for some of the things he is reported (scores or hundreds of years later) to have said. Like one can admire things attributed to the Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Galileo, Hume, Marx, Darwin, Einstein, etc.
None of the latter rose from the dead either.
3
You overstate the burdens of a secular life. The golden rule is a much easier creed to live by and stronger motivator for good behavior than irrational religious creeds. Two words-golden rule. Very simple and very powerful.
8
Ones culture is, in the best sense, preaching to us virtually every waking moment. We learn the golden rule as toddlers. For the rest of our lives we are surrounded by people, books, television, movies and the internet---all communicating to us, both directly and by example, the makings of a life well lived. Some people are religious and enjoy more codified teachings worshipping with others. Some aren't. It makes no difference. From cradle to grave we know good from bad and have every opportunity to behave one way or the other.
2
All right thinking people build their own moral compass. Even those who are allegedly religious, freely pick and choose from many different strains of thoughts and moral precepts--some religious some not. The vast majority of Catholics, for example, don't find divorce to be a priori morally wrong. Most Jews or Fundamentalist Christians, would not advocate stoning your wife if she is not a virgin on your wedding night--despite the holy writ to that effect. The belief or not in an imaginary usually white male sky friend does not make selecting a moral philosophy any easier--it simply creates a different set of possible choices. Moreover, it is not that hard to articulate a moral philosophy that is superior to anything the religions currently offer. Most thoughtful non believers can do it in 3-4 sentences--yes there is always the issue of applying those principles, but that is the same for believers and non-believers. One need only compare the more secular societies of Switzerland, Scandinavia, Germany, Japan, Canada etc. with the least secular to see which worldview leads to the greatest level of individual and societal success (or for that matter most states in the United States, with a few outliers). While North Korea is anti religious it has replaced religion with its totalitarian equivalent and deified the leader--as did other ostensibly secular societies like Germany of 1940, China under Mao, and USSR under Stalin.
3
Paraphrasing Prot in the K-Pax movie, in response to the question "How do you know right from wrong?":
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, David.
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, David.
2
Secular individuals don't "have" to do or build anything. Religions' moral philosophies, rituals, and the like are nice for believers but that doesn't preclude their use / adoption / modification / or customization by non-believers too. We all have access to roughly the same resources, but secularists get to pick and choose the parts that make sense to them. Why be forced to buy the whole CD when you only like 2 songs for your playlist?
2
"Instead of relying on some eye in the sky to tell them what to do, secular people reason their way to proper conduct." So odd - unless you are actually talking to that "eye in the sky", everyone needs to "reason their way to proper conduct". And if you think you are in a dialog with that "eye in the sky", then you need help.
4
Mr. Brooks has yet again attempted to simplify an extremely complex subject, and only succeeds in presenting his own very limited view. To attempt to discuss such a wide range of human feeling and interpretation into a single column is foolish. Human spirituality isn't limited to any specific religion, or any religion at all, and certainly cannot be described fairly as he has tried to do.
2
Too bad this wasn't a debate between gemli and Brooks. I would really have enjoyed that.
7
There is one (and I do mean ONE) thing I can agree on with the nutty right wing: do any 'Beltway' or NY City 'intellectuals' ever leave their tiny sphere of influence? Do they talk to anyone but each other? There is just so much 'puffery' and 'know-it-all-ness' in this article it's impossible to critique. But thanks to all 700 of you who could.
5
In a secular society, a man has until the day of his death to return to God. In an ecclesiastical society, wherein religious authorities have power to discipline people, he might not live that long.
As a cautionary secularist, and devoted to NYT, I found Mr. Brooks' plea for secular transcendence pure babble. The recent surge in secularism can be attributed to many causes, including reaction to the the vapid, hollow contributions made now to public discourse by purveyors of transcendence, and the shedding of denial that enables one to leave the shelter of worship. Sanctification ranges from mild pleasure in perceiving the unity of all to extreme dissociation in service of denial of manifold terrestrial reality. Hence, caution should be exercised in praising the virtues of secularism, as all principled positions in this domain should be tempered by the realities of extreme practices. Would the fashioners of enlightenment values have sanctioned unregulated permission to practice extreme rituals that might otherwise be protected under the cloak of secular respect for any and all varieties of transcendence and sanctification? As we strive for transcendence let's keep both feet on the ground.
3
I wish I had time to read all the comments and the wisdom to assimilate the various thoughts into a worthy summary.
But maybe a quick gut reaction will do:
Secularism is not a religion. It doesn't need to parallel religion in rites and rules.
Brooks' piece hints at a rational approach as a prerequisite for secularism, but as others have commented, that path may lead to nihilism.
If we developed and applied a inquisitive understanding of all religions and what they have in common and why they exist, and coupled that with an appreciation of the natural world - including human beings - and let a sense of wonder that it all - and we all to a certain extent - work, we might be better able to find our place in both macro and micro universes, through what we understand and what we can only appreciate with wonder.
But maybe a quick gut reaction will do:
Secularism is not a religion. It doesn't need to parallel religion in rites and rules.
Brooks' piece hints at a rational approach as a prerequisite for secularism, but as others have commented, that path may lead to nihilism.
If we developed and applied a inquisitive understanding of all religions and what they have in common and why they exist, and coupled that with an appreciation of the natural world - including human beings - and let a sense of wonder that it all - and we all to a certain extent - work, we might be better able to find our place in both macro and micro universes, through what we understand and what we can only appreciate with wonder.
2
Thinking religious individuals have the burden of deciding what elements of their faith they wish to adopt,which elements to adopt literally and which require re-interpretation based either a changing context or poor example by fellow members or leaders of their Order.Not that different from secularists.Paradoxes offer a particular challenge,for example "turning the other cheek"vs "an eye for an eye" amongst American Christians.
You argue that leading a good secular life is harder than living a good religious life but you concede that religious people are no better than secular people? If so, you are making an argument that you admit contradicts the empirical evidence.
2
Not sure why Brooks thinks secularists are morally adrift and unfulfilled. It's true, you have to search for a community of like-mindedness if you reject the one you were born into. I found mine in the Unitarian-Universalist congregation, but the are also Ethical Culture societies. I still celebrate Christmas, but also Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist teachings, looking for the best in each. It's really not unsatisfying at all--to the contrary. It wasn't until I discovered secular individuals that I finally had good role models.
1
This is a very silly piece. Thank goodness for the many enlightened comments it has generated.
14
I think that Mr. Brooks wrote a thoughtful editorial, especially considering that he is 'conservative' at least by NYT standards. I am a physician, a neuroscientist and a devout atheist (after having been raised in a religious family I had my secular revelation while living in the holy land, thank you Israel). Mr Brooks correctly refers to research destroying the myth of a 'rational man'. However, he forgets that 'decent behavior' is an evolutionary advantageous trait of a social species like us. The foundations for moral behavior are to some degree hard-wired and needs development, not belief in the absurd. It may be hard for secularists to come up with satisfying rituals etc. but it is also very hard to ignite and mislead a secularist to commit atrocities towards fellow man. Atrocities that fill the nauseating history of all monotheist creeds. But I enjoy reading Mr Brooks. Thanks for thinking and writing well.
8
Mr. Brooks could also have made the case that religion is more logical for society than secularism. We almost never have all the facts we need to make fully logical decisions. But, timely decision making requires belief and confidence to fill for the missing facts. Religion, at least, tries to provide a generally beneficial belief system. When we abandon religion, we don't fill in for missing information with more logic but with our default belief system, that is, inherited instinct based on personal survival. For example, hoarding or materialism replaces spiritual idealism. Unless, as Mr. Brooks suggests, the secularists "build their own moral philosophies." But, how logical is it to expect that to happen?
1
I am not a religious person, but I do love stained glass windows, which I photograph wherever I can find them. That is how I found myself at a pot luck dinner in an old church on the edge of the D.C. suburbs in Maryland. All around me were people bringing their casseroles and dessert plates. They exhibited an obvious love for each other that I have never seen in my usual secular haunts—my political party meetings, my Ethical Society meetings, my PTA meetings. There was a palpable warmth and fellow feeling in that large room that I have seen nowhere else.
I have often thought of that day. Would it be a good thing for a person to ignore what he believes to be his reason and intelligence to join in an activity which is so pleasurable on another level altogether?
I have often thought of that day. Would it be a good thing for a person to ignore what he believes to be his reason and intelligence to join in an activity which is so pleasurable on another level altogether?
2
"Over the past few years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of people who are atheist, agnostic or without religious affiliation. A fifth of all adults and a third of the youngest adults fit into this category."
A couple of clarifications here.
According to Pew, while the number of atheists and agnostic has in fact been rising, the overwhelming number of that "fifth of all adults and third of the youngest adults" fits in the "without religious affiliation" category. And, again according to Pew, this category does not mean they have stopped believing in God, but rather have "fallen away" from what might be called "organized, mainstream, hierarchical" religion. What this increasingly large number of people are doing is going back to the "origins" of Christianity and starting "home churches" and "community churches" that function outside the purview of "mainstream" religion.
What is interesting, however, is that these people are, if anything, even more "fiercely faithful" (as opposed to "religious") than most of those they left in the mainstream. And they are focusing much more on who Jesus was, and what He actually said, did and taught, and trying to follow THAT rather than the interpretations of Christianity by Church hierarchy.
Ironically, this group is, for the most part, far more open-minded - and loving and forgiving in the truly "Christ-ian" sense - than many or most in the mainstream.
A couple of clarifications here.
According to Pew, while the number of atheists and agnostic has in fact been rising, the overwhelming number of that "fifth of all adults and third of the youngest adults" fits in the "without religious affiliation" category. And, again according to Pew, this category does not mean they have stopped believing in God, but rather have "fallen away" from what might be called "organized, mainstream, hierarchical" religion. What this increasingly large number of people are doing is going back to the "origins" of Christianity and starting "home churches" and "community churches" that function outside the purview of "mainstream" religion.
What is interesting, however, is that these people are, if anything, even more "fiercely faithful" (as opposed to "religious") than most of those they left in the mainstream. And they are focusing much more on who Jesus was, and what He actually said, did and taught, and trying to follow THAT rather than the interpretations of Christianity by Church hierarchy.
Ironically, this group is, for the most part, far more open-minded - and loving and forgiving in the truly "Christ-ian" sense - than many or most in the mainstream.
2
Surely if one believes in an omnipotent loving God it is not a stretch to believe that such a God would give man the intelligence to discover how to ameliorate human suffering and find ways to defeat sickness.
Scientific discoveries are a boon to men and women. So we should not ignore their uses to help us.
Scientific discoveries are a boon to men and women. So we should not ignore their uses to help us.
David…Contrary to your thesis, most of we secularist humankind just don't find it that big a burden to live by the Golden Rule.
3
Mr. Brooks completely overgeneralizes about what is "in each of us." A communitarian vision of what is good would be ideal, a sense that we are all in this together, but we don't necessarily need ritual or some other sort of hocus pocus. That is what drives many non-believers away from religion in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few decades, it will have been established that there isn't anything in particular "in each of us." Some (maybe most) will turn out to have the religion gene; others, the one that nurtures rational non-belief. Some will have the gay gene; others, the straight. We may even discover through science why some people melt at the sight, sound and touch of dogs, while others want nothing to do with them. Please, no more universal truths about human yearnings from someone like Mr. Brooks who doesn't know what he is talking about.
3
Brooks writes, "Christianity doesn’t rely just on a mild feeling like empathy; it puts agape at the center of life, a fervent and selfless sacrificial love." As an atheist, I've had conversations with Christians who say they love me (even though they don't know me) while their voices and faces tell me that they feel anything but love for me. By commanding what cannot be commanded (love), Christianity creates hypocrites who can't admit they are lying to themselves. "Fervent and selfless sacrificial love" is a wonderful thing, and a rare thing, and maybe it should be. Trying to gin it up with supernatural stories and exhortations may fill the pews and create a few saints, but it also generates a lot of confusion, hypocrisy and guilty consciences. Why should nonbelievers follow that path? Maybe a mild feeling like empathy makes good sense and is sufficient in most situations we meet on a daily basis. And when we find causes and people we truly and deeply care about, it will be because they touch us, not because a King commanded it.
5
Secularism is not a synonym for atheism.
Speaking as a 3rd generation atheist, very little of what you've described bears any resemblance to my 50+ years experience. Rather than atheists being "so eager to make the case for their creed", most of the few atheists who do are forced into it because they're fighting against the bigotry, ignorance and demonization from religious propaganda. A sizable number of atheists (including ministers and other religious positions, continue to pose as religious people because "coming out" risks their being cast out from family, employment, etc.
And "secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation?" What are you talking about?? "Fear of God" is a relatively ineffective impetus to act morally. That's why the jails, for example, are primarily populated by religious people, and why so many religious people are easily moved to go to war to kill and maim and oppress others who believe in different Gods but otherwise share a common moral code that forbids killing, maiming and oppressing other people.
In fact, I don't think the description of religious people here is any more recognizable than the deconstruction of atheism. The truth is, atheist Americans largely look and think and behave just like religious Americans because we're products of the same culture. The main differences lie in the fact that atheists are less prone to vote for candidates or support laws and policies based on propaganda from the pulpit.
Speaking as a 3rd generation atheist, very little of what you've described bears any resemblance to my 50+ years experience. Rather than atheists being "so eager to make the case for their creed", most of the few atheists who do are forced into it because they're fighting against the bigotry, ignorance and demonization from religious propaganda. A sizable number of atheists (including ministers and other religious positions, continue to pose as religious people because "coming out" risks their being cast out from family, employment, etc.
And "secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation?" What are you talking about?? "Fear of God" is a relatively ineffective impetus to act morally. That's why the jails, for example, are primarily populated by religious people, and why so many religious people are easily moved to go to war to kill and maim and oppress others who believe in different Gods but otherwise share a common moral code that forbids killing, maiming and oppressing other people.
In fact, I don't think the description of religious people here is any more recognizable than the deconstruction of atheism. The truth is, atheist Americans largely look and think and behave just like religious Americans because we're products of the same culture. The main differences lie in the fact that atheists are less prone to vote for candidates or support laws and policies based on propaganda from the pulpit.
7
After my wife read this column she said that Mr. Brooks' description of secularism sounded like a definition of adulthood.
22
I don't know - seems to me that the struggle described by Mr. Brooks for a well-lived secular life are identical to the struggles facing an adherent of any religion who seeks a good life. While secular individuals do have to settle their own morality, so must any thoughtful Christian, Jew, or Muslim, or adherent of any of the other over 4000 other religions in this world. Just consider Martin Luther. While we are not all Martin Luther, we all must decide for ourselves how to live a religious or a secular life.
Likewise, the secular struggle to build a community is no different that the struggle any adherent of any faith faces in building a community. Sure, the church building is already there and there are people who work within the church who have expected roles and functions. But, the same is true of the neighborhood school, the sports league, the community garden, the family, the work place, the soup kitchen, and the YMCA. Our lives are filled with open communities that we can all join and participate in. It is no harder to come up with the practice of volunteering one night a week at the soup kitchen than the practice of sitting in the pews listening to a sermon once a week.
Similarly, building a Sabbath is easy. A walk in the park will do.
As for a moral motivation - it is in fact enough to want to be a decent person. Mother Teresa remained a moral person despite decades of spiritual crisis.
Likewise, the secular struggle to build a community is no different that the struggle any adherent of any faith faces in building a community. Sure, the church building is already there and there are people who work within the church who have expected roles and functions. But, the same is true of the neighborhood school, the sports league, the community garden, the family, the work place, the soup kitchen, and the YMCA. Our lives are filled with open communities that we can all join and participate in. It is no harder to come up with the practice of volunteering one night a week at the soup kitchen than the practice of sitting in the pews listening to a sermon once a week.
Similarly, building a Sabbath is easy. A walk in the park will do.
As for a moral motivation - it is in fact enough to want to be a decent person. Mother Teresa remained a moral person despite decades of spiritual crisis.
Religion has been manipulating people for centuries from the days of human sacrifices to the "gods" to the beheadings of jihadists today. Yes secularism may be evolving and that is a good thing, religion not so much.
4
If I ever meet one of the impossibly sheltered secularists that David Brooks dreams up in this hilariously weird article, I'll be sure to send the poor, culture-deprived creature to the nearest library, or perhaps simply turn on his iPhone to peruse the vast amounts of literature that discuss ethics and morality.
Then perhaps I'll schedule an appointed "set time" on his electronic calendar so he doesn't forget to drop his worldly concerns, pull back and ponder deep thoughts. The poor godless soul couldn't possibly manage on his own, could he?
Then perhaps I'll schedule an appointed "set time" on his electronic calendar so he doesn't forget to drop his worldly concerns, pull back and ponder deep thoughts. The poor godless soul couldn't possibly manage on his own, could he?
6
"Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him."
Isn't this a decidedly narrow view of religious people? Aren't there religions not centered around the Abrahamic God?
Isn't this a decidedly narrow view of religious people? Aren't there religions not centered around the Abrahamic God?
Maybe those of us who are labeled lapsed Catholics have a strong reaction to the hypocrisy, the avaricious nature, and bullying traits of some of "the faithful community".
Oh, if only there could be agreement on practicing The Golden Rule rather than a competitive, class-conscious atmosphere.
I guess that I even wonder if the good Mr. B., being an east coast urbanite, is as "relaxed" as some of us in the west, such as the typical resident of, say, Beverly Hills.
Oh, if only there could be agreement on practicing The Golden Rule rather than a competitive, class-conscious atmosphere.
I guess that I even wonder if the good Mr. B., being an east coast urbanite, is as "relaxed" as some of us in the west, such as the typical resident of, say, Beverly Hills.
3
David's right of course. I finally turned back to Christianity for the stonings. That what really gets me going. It's just too hard to get a group of secularists worked up into the necessary fever pitch to exact revenge on those non-virgin brides.
17
A common attack on non-theists is that they have to invent a moral code from zero. However, all cultures have similar moral rules that seem to largely come from our common genetics. Beyond the genetics, theists and non-theists both are socialized as children into their particular society's variations of those rules. Even for the religious, written rules have a smaller role--look at all the variation over both time and geography between societies "based" around the ten commandments.
It is true that non-theism does not bind a community together the same way that can happen with a particular religious creed. But that strength of religion is also what produces the horrors: intolerance of individualism, hostility to heresy, and religious war.
If secular people truly have less certainty about morality than do the religious, that is a strength far more than a weakness.
It is true that non-theism does not bind a community together the same way that can happen with a particular religious creed. But that strength of religion is also what produces the horrors: intolerance of individualism, hostility to heresy, and religious war.
If secular people truly have less certainty about morality than do the religious, that is a strength far more than a weakness.
4
Adherents of secularism or atheism or agnosticism don't have to rely on mere rationality to create pathways to moral behavior and just, ethical living. Empathy in people, in order to be elicited, does not require a made-up story; it's evolutionary, innate.
Kids don't need Santa Claus to be good either.
Kids don't need Santa Claus to be good either.
3
The heck with 'the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification'. Give me an unbounded, unknowable, progressive future, as in David Deutsch's 'The Beginning of Infinity.'
2
G. Slocum has nailed it actually. And just how did he get to secularism needs a Sabbath--a day of rest to contemplate your beliefs--in the times of both parents working . . . Brooks is maybe just too old to know what life is life for families these days.
1
Is there any empirical evidence to support that secularists "...suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives" any more than non-secularists do? Is Mr. Brooks looking for a problem with Secularism, predicated on his own preference, where none exists?
6
Amid Brooks' paean to religion's ability to "exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action", no mention is made of this exaltation too often turning to inflammation. He must be aware of the excesses, the barbarities, that have been committed in the name of hyper-religious zeal throughout history.
Until he grapples with this undeniable dark side of "exalting the passions" (a dark side that I readily admit can also afflict the non-religious), his argument will evoke little more than a rolling of my eyes. He's simply asking secularism to make the same mistake most if not all religions have made.
Until he grapples with this undeniable dark side of "exalting the passions" (a dark side that I readily admit can also afflict the non-religious), his argument will evoke little more than a rolling of my eyes. He's simply asking secularism to make the same mistake most if not all religions have made.
3
I think the main thing we are looking at here is people's morality, which, at a basic level, can be bifurcated into moral reasoning and moral behavior. Most would hold that moral behavior is more important for obvious reasons.
Some time ago, psychological research sought to determine whether people's moral reasoning led to congruent moral behavior. The outcomes were disappointing; moral reasoning at all levels of complexity did not lead to congruent moral behavior. The correlations were weak; on moral issues, people did not act as they said they should.
An important question, then, is whether there are significant differences between religious and secular people regarding the congruence of their moral reasoning and moral behavior, whether they act in ways they say are morally right. To the best of my knowledge, this question has not been tested. Maybe it should be.
Some time ago, psychological research sought to determine whether people's moral reasoning led to congruent moral behavior. The outcomes were disappointing; moral reasoning at all levels of complexity did not lead to congruent moral behavior. The correlations were weak; on moral issues, people did not act as they said they should.
An important question, then, is whether there are significant differences between religious and secular people regarding the congruence of their moral reasoning and moral behavior, whether they act in ways they say are morally right. To the best of my knowledge, this question has not been tested. Maybe it should be.
"Secular people have to create their own set times for when to pull back and reflect on spiritual matters" : I am fully secular and an atheist, and I don't know what you call 'spiritual matters'. For me, that includes the sense of being connected to the rest of mankind and to nature, and of acting in order to help and protect them. It is an everyday, every minute state of mind, not something you have to 'set times' to 'pull back and reflect' upon. The prospects of the world would be better if everybody had a permanent sense of his/her responsibility towards the others and the earth, including during working hours.
4
Totally agree. BTW only one living science Nobelist is religious and the one who is, is an indoctrinated Irish catholic.
The tasks which David regards as so difficult are, in fact, rewarding. I much prefer to struggle through those challenges that to have my life be guided by religious doctrine that purports to have all the answers.
6
I do not believe in God, although, it would be more truthful to say I don't concern myself with God. I don't need to see anyone who does believe in God change their belief to further bolster my lack of theistic faith. When those who are prone to religious belief, like Mr. Brooks, speak about atheists, they imply that we non-believers are missing some deep wellspring of comfort that the believers must certainly have. The notion that I might want what believers seem to have ignores the fact that I truly don't. Like many who were raised in religious families I tried it but it never spoke to my heart or my mind. I do not define myself, however, by what I don't believe in but rather by what I do, which is Humanism, the part of Secular Humanism that Mr. Brooks ignores. If I have faith in anything it is in the capacity of humans to advance in thought and in heart. There is a line in a Joni Mitchell song which refers to humans as "billion year old carbon". The first time I heard that and realized the scientific truth of it I thought, "now that is truly miraculous." We are this amazing combination of chemicals and minerals bound together by a genetic code. The research and study of other humans conveyed this information to me. I have read books and listened to music which has made me weep, laugh, be angry or thoughtful -- other humans have shared their hearts and minds with me. I have plenty to believe in -- you are all around me.
5
Secular people have often begun with religious backgrounds. It is not necessarily a mutually exclusive condition.
5
"Joe Nocera is off today". so is David Brooks.
10
Brooks is too smart and well informed to be so confused. He portrays secularism as a optional world view, one among other many including substantive religious views. Secularism didn't arise to replace religion but to guarantee religious freedom--it defines the political context in which people may exercise their right to choose what they believe. So those of us who value religion should value secularism which is the foundation of democracy. It is scary that more and more religious fundamentalists want to wage a war against secularism. They do great harm to the possibility of free religious life and they undermine democracy.
5
My heart is just fine, since instead of devoting my energy worshiping some unknown deity, I do what I can to love and support my family and my friends with all my heart, and to do what I can to improve the lives of everyone else.
6
To live the Golden Rule and lead a good life while helping those in need, to me that is emotional as well as rational.
Evolution by natural selection allowed empathy, cooperation, and altruism to become prominent in human societies. Such morality can be expressed in secular or religious ways.
See M. Numan (2015). The Neurobiology of Social Behavior: Toward an Understanding of the Prosocial and Antisocial Brain, Elsevier.
Evolution by natural selection allowed empathy, cooperation, and altruism to become prominent in human societies. Such morality can be expressed in secular or religious ways.
See M. Numan (2015). The Neurobiology of Social Behavior: Toward an Understanding of the Prosocial and Antisocial Brain, Elsevier.
1
Why does Brooks believe that secularists must build their own institutions and belief systems? Unless one lives in a theocracy where everyone subscribes to the same religious creed, there must be a set of underlying core beliefs and principles that bind the members of society together, religious and secular alike - call it the social contract. I don't need to adhere to the beliefs and rituals of my fellow citizens to regard them as such, or to grant them the same respect and consisderation that I expect from them. This to me is the beauty of living in such a culturally diverse nation. Perhaps this is what's meant by the phrase "E Pluribus Unum."
5
If he in fact did, I wish Zuckerman hadn't defined himself over-against religious people, because he gets it wrong, or at least wrong for many.
Not all religion requires lock-step obedience to someone else's authority. The freedom of the conscience is an imbedded truth in many religious systems, requiring individual believers to search and obey their own consciences, and not merely the teaching of their religious authorities. The stories of every religious system include that of dissenters who in a moment, rejected those in charge. It is not merely secularists who "think for themselves." Moreover, the "eye in the sky" is invariably an inscrutable one, requiring a good deal of interpretation. As to "individual responsibility" -- I don't believe religious systems, as a whole, fail to underscore that either.
Not all religion requires lock-step obedience to someone else's authority. The freedom of the conscience is an imbedded truth in many religious systems, requiring individual believers to search and obey their own consciences, and not merely the teaching of their religious authorities. The stories of every religious system include that of dissenters who in a moment, rejected those in charge. It is not merely secularists who "think for themselves." Moreover, the "eye in the sky" is invariably an inscrutable one, requiring a good deal of interpretation. As to "individual responsibility" -- I don't believe religious systems, as a whole, fail to underscore that either.
3
“They (secularists) may not be articulate about why they behave as they do...”
How’s this for articulate:
“Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.” Robert Ingersoll, The Great Agnostic.
David cites things religious people have which secularists don’t. Well, here’s one thing agnostic Humanists like myself have, which religious people do not. We have the truth. The truth is that NONE of us knows the ultimate answers to our existence but we agnostics admit that truth and don’t pretend something is true when it is not proven because it makes us feel good, i.e., faith.
And we KNOW we want to be happy and as much as possible make others so. I’m speaking of Humanistic rationalists (in the spirit of the Enlightenment, Jefferson, Paine and Ingersoll), not atheists who force their beliefs on others as occurred often in the 20th century.
Reason and compassion are our guides. It gives us meaning, motivation, means and method. That’s enough.
How’s this for articulate:
“Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.” Robert Ingersoll, The Great Agnostic.
David cites things religious people have which secularists don’t. Well, here’s one thing agnostic Humanists like myself have, which religious people do not. We have the truth. The truth is that NONE of us knows the ultimate answers to our existence but we agnostics admit that truth and don’t pretend something is true when it is not proven because it makes us feel good, i.e., faith.
And we KNOW we want to be happy and as much as possible make others so. I’m speaking of Humanistic rationalists (in the spirit of the Enlightenment, Jefferson, Paine and Ingersoll), not atheists who force their beliefs on others as occurred often in the 20th century.
Reason and compassion are our guides. It gives us meaning, motivation, means and method. That’s enough.
11
Mr. Brooks would do well to acknowledge that a good set of ethics can be far more powerfully beneficial to society than any religion's set of morals. Confucius, writing, teaching and highly functioning in 5th century BC China still shines a far brighter light on the human condition than any supposed deity before or since.
2
Why reject the ideal of autonomous rationality in light of the findings of cognitive science? Even if we are not really rational animals, this does not mean that we should not aspire to be so. Brooks would never argue against Judeo-Christian thought that we should abandon ideals like moral excellence simply because of our fallen nature, so why treat secular humanist thought differently?
1
Who is it that a non-religious person prays to while falling out of an airplane?
I guess if you were going to completely and totally surrender to a religion, you would no longer be "of the earth" -- that is, secular. Unless you consider the earth to be of God, consider everything that is to be of God. Either way, that which some call God in a religious book, others can conceive of abstractly, as that which is meta to everything else and to itself.
I guess if you were going to completely and totally surrender to a religion, you would no longer be "of the earth" -- that is, secular. Unless you consider the earth to be of God, consider everything that is to be of God. Either way, that which some call God in a religious book, others can conceive of abstractly, as that which is meta to everything else and to itself.
"To live outside the law you must be honest....."
Bob Dylan
Bob Dylan
4
I suggest thought be given to the conceptual space between science and the supernatural where we try to find meaning in our day-to-day lives.
Briefly, we can find meaning in our daily experiences by pursuing a considered “way of life” that includes respect for self and others, kindness, fairness for each and every person, and self-reliance, to the extent that one has the capacity and the opportunity to exercise it.
On the other hand, I don’t think that we can ever answer the spiritual question “What is the meaning of life?” While contemplated by religious scholars, examined by philosophical reasoning and scientific observation, and envisioned by mysticism, the answer appears beyond human discovery.
Briefly, we can find meaning in our daily experiences by pursuing a considered “way of life” that includes respect for self and others, kindness, fairness for each and every person, and self-reliance, to the extent that one has the capacity and the opportunity to exercise it.
On the other hand, I don’t think that we can ever answer the spiritual question “What is the meaning of life?” While contemplated by religious scholars, examined by philosophical reasoning and scientific observation, and envisioned by mysticism, the answer appears beyond human discovery.
I all the religious people with such deep meaningful lives guided by morality are somehow different from the religious people who used the Bible to justify slavery, segregation, opposition to mixed-race marriages, and gay marriage. And don't forget, prayer-leader-in-chief George W. Bush was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. But otherwise, religious belief leads to morality. Well OK then.
14
I don't agree with Mr. Brook's definition of a secularist. I find secularists as defined by the religions themselves; as folks who are most likely to follow cultural aspects but not those detailed rules which they don't feel to be important. I am sure if asked, they would say I am a Catholic,Jew etc. Of course there are some who would perhaps say as in the article,I am who believes in , responsibility,choice etc, but not many, since such words are undefined from person to person. I feel there is no such thing as a "secular community." Unfortunately,today, because in part of "political correctness", we are scared to really call to task, destruction, killings,murders etc which are as a minimum are still based on condoned aspects of various religions.But being "secular" is no excuse for not speaking out against such atrocities along with the so called "moderate" religious followers.
1
"Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies. Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries"
While I am not a secularist, I would argue that it is a good thing to evaluate your beliefs and moral philosophies. Inheriting creeds requires no thinking and encourages moral laziness and extreme beliefs - You can't have women priests because Jesus did not have women disciples - historical creed plain and simple, no thought required. And of course you can add many such examples from all religions.
While I am not a secularist, I would argue that it is a good thing to evaluate your beliefs and moral philosophies. Inheriting creeds requires no thinking and encourages moral laziness and extreme beliefs - You can't have women priests because Jesus did not have women disciples - historical creed plain and simple, no thought required. And of course you can add many such examples from all religions.
9
That's the Roman Catholic church. The Protestant Episcopal church ordains both genders.
1
So much for Socrates and Western Civilization's dedication to reason. But then, what good is religion in setting moral values if we are irrational souls lacking free will--that is, at least enough free will to attempt to choose between good and evil.
2
Yes, what good is air or water, either? Religion is part of our necessary sustenance. Even if we lack free will (a point I will not try to debate at all),
something that affects our behavior is a part of the world in which we live.
Whether it is 'necessary' to us to affect our behavior, presumes we could operate independently of it. The statement Bursiek makes is without rational basis because it makes that false presumption.
something that affects our behavior is a part of the world in which we live.
Whether it is 'necessary' to us to affect our behavior, presumes we could operate independently of it. The statement Bursiek makes is without rational basis because it makes that false presumption.
Interesting, for sure. Mr. Brooks is a bit off the mark, though. He doesn't mention humanism, which is the philosophy I most take part in---but the soul stirring rousing he thinks is missing in secularists is present in me, and I suspect in others, in the form of the 'this world mysteries and beauties.' It's why science and art are soul stirring for me. And the fact that we don't really have meeting houses and old books to rely on is fine. I'd rather err on the side of looking forward to the future than be bound by the past, not that it is 100% one or the other.
4
I think you are giving typical, mainstream practicioners of religion waaaaay too much credit. Ask your average Christian in America to describe their moral philosophies - I doubt you're going to get much beyond the golden rule (which, as you noted, is what many freethinkers/secularists would likely refer to) and something about Jesus dying and washing away our sins and a quest to get into a mysterious but purportedly very pleasant place called heaven. C'mon, man, it is not really that hard to imagine living a life where the guiding principles are try to enjoy yourself, try to help and lift up your fellow man, try to leave the world a better place and generally try to treat other people with respect. It is quite simple stuff unless for some reason you feel the compelling need to have thousands of pages of something akin to "scripture" or analogous rules to guide you through life. You are looking at freethinking people and secular worldviews through the lens of the framework supplied by religion, assuming that there have to intricate rituals and large thick books of rules written down somewhere. You are over-complicating things. The golden rule is about as good as it gets, it's so simple no one has to write it down, and wallah now we have more time to spend helping eachother and enjoying life because we're not too busy trying to formalize the details of our "creed." It's really not as difficult as you make it out to be.
5
The description of what secularists "have to do" is funny to this atheist! This list is obviously seen through the lens of somebody who grew up with religious indoctrination. Speaking for myself, I never consider what I 'have to do" as a secularist, and the thought of "building my own community" or my own "moral philosophy" or "my own sabbath" (that's a funny one!), is the farthest thing from my mind. The premise here seems to be entirely false: that something needs to fill the void left by removing religion. But there is no void, Mr. Brooks. Moral and ethical choices come as naturally as deciding what to have for lunch. And maybe the best part of it is, I don't get to behave badly and then get myself off the hook by repenting and seeking forgiveness from an imaginary god..
15
My father insisted that his children have a Jewish education, and so he took us to "Sunday School" until we were "confirmed" in the Jewish faith. My mother, also Jewish, was secular, and it was from her that I learned how to be moral and compassionate. I can't count the times she cited The Golden Rule or explained that the bullies on the playground were unhappy children. My father modeled nothing, taught nothing.
When my father's brother and his wife committed suicide, my mother jumped into the breach. Only she stepped up to the overwhelming challenge of making room for four severely traumatized children—and then there were seven children under the age of thirteen (the youngest was two), depending on her.
My aunt was a refugee from Nazi Germany; her father spent time in the camps. After the war, the family was relocated by a Jewish relief agency. I have no doubt her depression was related to having survived constant bombing and hiding. My compassion for others comes directly from my mother's teachings and my early exposure to suffering.
David Brooks is projecting his needs onto secularists and I find his analysis insulting. People develop a moral core from many sources. I'm Jewish and will always identify as a Jew, but I have rejected organized religion and a belief in any kind of godhead. And yet, I care deeply. I find transcendence in nature and in great art and music. My community is diverse. I have a rich inner life.
When my father's brother and his wife committed suicide, my mother jumped into the breach. Only she stepped up to the overwhelming challenge of making room for four severely traumatized children—and then there were seven children under the age of thirteen (the youngest was two), depending on her.
My aunt was a refugee from Nazi Germany; her father spent time in the camps. After the war, the family was relocated by a Jewish relief agency. I have no doubt her depression was related to having survived constant bombing and hiding. My compassion for others comes directly from my mother's teachings and my early exposure to suffering.
David Brooks is projecting his needs onto secularists and I find his analysis insulting. People develop a moral core from many sources. I'm Jewish and will always identify as a Jew, but I have rejected organized religion and a belief in any kind of godhead. And yet, I care deeply. I find transcendence in nature and in great art and music. My community is diverse. I have a rich inner life.
19
Brooks - you are an atheist in denial. You don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God anymore than I do. So just stop. We do not need to become more spiritual - but rather more EARTHY! We come from the earth via our creators (ie. mom and dad), hopefully we live happy and fulfilling lives, but no matter what, we die and return to the earth from whence we came. And that is beautiful - it's the life cycle. We don't need to build a community around that idea. It's called being a self-aware human being. Enlightenment. Unfortunately, there's a small number of us here who've found it, but that's ok. The rest of you might get here some day. I mean, the God of Abraham?! Come on.
1
Re "Religions don’t just ask believers to respect others; rather each soul is worthy of the highest dignity because it radiates divine light."
No. Each soul IN THE CHOSEN GROUP is worthy of the highest dignity, you should have said. Each soul OUT of the group is apostate, and can be treated with anything from mild disrespect to murderous hatred righteously. Religion is collective superego; the great advantage of secularism is precisely that it isn't.
No. Each soul IN THE CHOSEN GROUP is worthy of the highest dignity, you should have said. Each soul OUT of the group is apostate, and can be treated with anything from mild disrespect to murderous hatred righteously. Religion is collective superego; the great advantage of secularism is precisely that it isn't.
6
No we need an article called "Building a Better God-Worshiper". Most of what I see in our world with Islam, despite rituals and community, have led to an extremism that is revolting. The breaking news of ISIS burning a man alive turned my stomach.
Mormons and Catholics still will not let gays get married or women to become priests--not very enchanting.
Mormons and Catholics still will not let gays get married or women to become priests--not very enchanting.
5
A number of good points particularly the need for societies to develop a moral code. however, atheism is the lack of belief in the supernatural including gods. It does not imply a secular moral system or exclude it. Zuckerman's claim that secularism is built around individual reason, individual choice and individual responsibility and that reason can be the basis for a secular morality doesn't fly. It ignores that humans are social and instinctual animals. It ignores the transactional aspect of morality. Added to this is politicized model making which can range Christianity to Nazism to Jainism. The claim that the religious developed morality because of their love or fear of a god seems weak. Following a primitive rule book administered by a political organization is not morality. Starting in the enlightenment morality did develop but in many cases it was despite religion not because of it. Although the religious led the fight to get rid of slavery it was despite the rule book. Sharia has many of the characteristics of Christian religious morality prior to the enlightenment. The emphasis on reason however in the enlightenment did not create the new morality. After all if you are a slave owner it is more reasonable to remain one. It was social, transactional, and instinctual (eg empathy) that created the new morality once free of religious restrictions. Religion does however create social structures that talk of morality which is missing in atheism.
Brooks is correct I think to highlight emotion and reason in a discussion of the constituent parts of a moral philosophy, but I am surprised there was no mention of critical virtues such as compassion, courage, perseverance and not least of all wisdom. Religions represent the only form of lifelong education worth talking about, with apologies to the education marketers. Perhaps they together, regardless of their differences in theology, doctrine and practice, would do well to understand their collective objective must be to relieve human suffering and promote human happiness by assisting each of their congregants and members develop the confidence to cultivate the aforementioned virtues in their lives.
1
A secular person is not without faith in God; but he is just not into all of the religion that goes along with that faith. There is a difference between faith in God and religion. And it is a big one.
2
Here's one scientist/philosopher's answer to your challenge David:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/?ref=o...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/?ref=o...
1
Secularists do have something magical, something miraculous as our core belief, we just haven't been good at articulating it. Life. If you pause for one second, and realize that all of our carbon and oxygen atoms were formed in the core of stars before being scattered around the universe by supernovae, then were able to somehow organize themselves into beings that can now type comments about philosophy on the New York Times web page, as well as love and produce art and discover things about our world, I'd say that is the miracle we need to base everything else on, the miracle of life.
2
Want a path to self-transcendence? Try taking a course in mathematics or one of the physical sciences.
2
Normally, I agree a significant amount with Mr. Brooks (or at least can see his side of things). However, today, I think he missed the mark. He repeats over and over the various things that secular people "have" to do. But Mr. Brooks chose the wrong phrasing. Those are things we secularists "GET" to do (we consciously choose them). The religious-minded are, in fact, the ones who "have" to do certain things "commanded" by their deity.
6
"...soul...divine light...sanctification.." ??? These are unsubstantiated states, and troublesome concepts. Not the least because each creed believes itself and its God(s) to be the true one, better and above all others. We all know what that has wrought and still does as history and today's newspaper clearly testify.
Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater the main current religions, Abrahamic and Buddhist do command and promote constructive and socially beneficial ways to treat our fellow human beings. I would assume that these principles have deeply influenced secularists of all stripes through many ages and still stand on their own merits i.e. they work-- for both individuals and groups.
One thing not mentioned in the column is that that there is wide experiential proof that one of the best and immediate ways to have self esteem is to
do something good for a fellow human being. So being and acting ethical is its own reward. Makes evolutionary sense as well. As does a weekly day of rest.
Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater the main current religions, Abrahamic and Buddhist do command and promote constructive and socially beneficial ways to treat our fellow human beings. I would assume that these principles have deeply influenced secularists of all stripes through many ages and still stand on their own merits i.e. they work-- for both individuals and groups.
One thing not mentioned in the column is that that there is wide experiential proof that one of the best and immediate ways to have self esteem is to
do something good for a fellow human being. So being and acting ethical is its own reward. Makes evolutionary sense as well. As does a weekly day of rest.
1
I am afraid that I find the community and the sense of common purpose offered by books, art, philosophy, Nature and about 15 other things a lot more useful and enlightening than religioin as such.
And I'd point out, Mr. Brooks, that not only is there a very extended history of secular philosophy and institutions to draw upon, but America has its own particular strands running through Emerson and Thoreau, into Muir and the Sierra Club, to the Beats and Gary Snyder, and a thousand more, to draw on.
We're really not just starting from scratch, you know. Nor does one necessarily need to believe in the ethereal luminosity of the universe: as any half-decent Zen type knows, right here, right now, is all the heaven there ever needs to be.
And I'd point out, Mr. Brooks, that not only is there a very extended history of secular philosophy and institutions to draw upon, but America has its own particular strands running through Emerson and Thoreau, into Muir and the Sierra Club, to the Beats and Gary Snyder, and a thousand more, to draw on.
We're really not just starting from scratch, you know. Nor does one necessarily need to believe in the ethereal luminosity of the universe: as any half-decent Zen type knows, right here, right now, is all the heaven there ever needs to be.
4
"....an age of mass secularization is an age in which millions of people have put unprecedented moral burdens upon themselves. People who don’t know how to take up these burdens don’t turn bad, but they drift. They suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives"
Better to drift in boredom than to burn others alive out of some deranged concept of what a "higher power" might oblige you to do to your fellow 'apostate' human beings.
Religion? Pah
Better to drift in boredom than to burn others alive out of some deranged concept of what a "higher power" might oblige you to do to your fellow 'apostate' human beings.
Religion? Pah
2
Oh, it's not an "unprecedented moral burden." Check out the Constitution.
4
I have a big problem with the phrase "the spiritual urge in each of us" and the idea that secular people "set times for when to pull back and reflect on spiritual matters." As an atheist, I consider spirituality to be within the realm of religion, be it organized religion or of a more personal, "new-age" nature. If Brooks believes that spirituality is a big component of atheism, I think he's a bit confused.
"But only religion can make a good person willingly do evil."
Are you saying Communism, Fascism, Nazism, the worship of money, science and the self, are religions? Can secular humanist do evil in the name of good? Is secular humanism just another schism of people trying to claim moral superiority to those lesser than themselves.
Are you saying Communism, Fascism, Nazism, the worship of money, science and the self, are religions? Can secular humanist do evil in the name of good? Is secular humanism just another schism of people trying to claim moral superiority to those lesser than themselves.
1
Mr. Brooks wants us secularists to be just like one of his brethren; irrational, dependent, scared, and above all believing in our own god who he can criticize to justify his own.
1
Mr. Brroks, one of the main reasons (perhaps the most common reason) why a person decides to declare himself an atheist is the realization, the conviction, that a system of morality is NOT invented and mandated by a god, and interpreted in context by the associated priesthood. Thus he often has no need to reset his moral compass, except to discard items that are outmoded relics of old commandments or to choose to add features of other creeds, or of his own devising, that seem good to him. He has no need to wait for a papal bull or a fatwa to do this, or to heed pundits who press him to substitute a secular focus of zeal for his old affiliation. An a-theist ‘one without a god’ is simply one who has no need for a god or the livery of a tightly-tailaored moral outfit. Stop pestering him; he’ll be all right.
3
Comparison:
1. Scandinavian countries. Secular, peaceful, transparent, progressive, social democracies.
2. Middle East. Theocratic, intolerant, violent, autocratic, backward looking.
1. Scandinavian countries. Secular, peaceful, transparent, progressive, social democracies.
2. Middle East. Theocratic, intolerant, violent, autocratic, backward looking.
13
David --- Do any clues ever make their way inside the prison where those medieval myths keep your brain as a pet? If one ever does, be sure and make note of it. It might be ... Oh, what's the word? ... Enlightening.
4
I know many secularists. I see them regularly in our spiritual community, the Unitarian Universalist Society. it wasn't that difficult to find this community every place I've lived, and the people have always been welcoming.
Many of the secularists I know are "genial, low-key people who...are leading peaceful and rewarding lives", until they start talking about social justice or other issues that interest them, when they become quite lively, even passionate.
We have built our own moral philosophies, which seem to me to be more authentic sacred convictions than those of someone who believes something because the church says it is so, without question.
Why do we have to have a set time at which to pull back and reflect on spiritual matters? Why not do that when the spirit moves you? Or at the solstices? Or when there is a full moon?
And I would like to see evidence that religious people are more morally motivated to do well by others because of their fervent desire to please God than are secular people.
There are many things besides gods that arouse the higher emotions; here are some that confound me: the earth is traveling through space amidst all of those stars and we're sitting on it. How do an egg and a sperm develop into a living being with so few mistakes? Wouldn't it be cool if I had a tail?
Many of the secularists I know are "genial, low-key people who...are leading peaceful and rewarding lives", until they start talking about social justice or other issues that interest them, when they become quite lively, even passionate.
We have built our own moral philosophies, which seem to me to be more authentic sacred convictions than those of someone who believes something because the church says it is so, without question.
Why do we have to have a set time at which to pull back and reflect on spiritual matters? Why not do that when the spirit moves you? Or at the solstices? Or when there is a full moon?
And I would like to see evidence that religious people are more morally motivated to do well by others because of their fervent desire to please God than are secular people.
There are many things besides gods that arouse the higher emotions; here are some that confound me: the earth is traveling through space amidst all of those stars and we're sitting on it. How do an egg and a sperm develop into a living being with so few mistakes? Wouldn't it be cool if I had a tail?
3
I too love the UUs!
1
The column's tone is quite condescending. "They suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives." That entire sentence is smug, but "unconscious" really twists the dagger. Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for making me realize how bored I've been all along.
I enjoy Mr. Brooks's political analysis but his metaphysical musings often leave me scratching my head.
I enjoy Mr. Brooks's political analysis but his metaphysical musings often leave me scratching my head.
3
It is possible to be part of a religious group and choose your own path. "Cherry Pick"
Just, no need to accept the supernatural. Nothing immoral about that.
Just, no need to accept the supernatural. Nothing immoral about that.
So the idea is that individuals should surrender to institutions. But how do we judge institutions, how do we correct them, how do we assure their morality? The burden of responsibility is inherently, irreducibly with individuals--surrendering or submitting to religion does not make one moral, it makes one conformist. Any thoughtful religious person is still dependent on personal judgment, because religious texts are too complex to provide unambiguous direction.
Autonomy is a synonym for freedom, so in disavowing it Brooks is making a deeply retrograde argument--truly a reactionary denial of individual freedom and the independence of souls. Have the physical sciences really proven that free will is illusory? I like the joke: "I believe in free will because I can't help it." But if complete physical determination were really the law of all causality--if personal choice and the responsibility for choice were entirely delusory--then it would follow that religion is a pack of lies. Without freedom, no transcendence. Being a real Mensch is hard work--there are no short cuts to morality, no guarantees, and naive conformism is a disaster in a world as complex and corrupt as our planet.
Autonomy is a synonym for freedom, so in disavowing it Brooks is making a deeply retrograde argument--truly a reactionary denial of individual freedom and the independence of souls. Have the physical sciences really proven that free will is illusory? I like the joke: "I believe in free will because I can't help it." But if complete physical determination were really the law of all causality--if personal choice and the responsibility for choice were entirely delusory--then it would follow that religion is a pack of lies. Without freedom, no transcendence. Being a real Mensch is hard work--there are no short cuts to morality, no guarantees, and naive conformism is a disaster in a world as complex and corrupt as our planet.
2
Quote: "Neither is the point that religious people are better than secular people. That defies social science evidence and common observation."
Really? Well that's interesting. For atheism brought us the gulags, concentration camps, cultural revolutions, famines, killing fields, and wanton suffering of the 20th century which continue to this day. In their numbers and scope, empowered secularists have killed more and have caused more suffering upon humans and animals than any jihad, crusade, or holy war before or since.
Perhaps the author should recalibrate his snide, marginal comments in light of these inconvenient truths.
Really? Well that's interesting. For atheism brought us the gulags, concentration camps, cultural revolutions, famines, killing fields, and wanton suffering of the 20th century which continue to this day. In their numbers and scope, empowered secularists have killed more and have caused more suffering upon humans and animals than any jihad, crusade, or holy war before or since.
Perhaps the author should recalibrate his snide, marginal comments in light of these inconvenient truths.
The current issue regarding measles and the refusal to vaccinate bears stark testimony to the accuracy of Brooks statement that, "Past secular creeds were built on the 18th-century enlightenment view of man as an autonomous, rational creature who could reason his way to virtue. The past half-century of cognitive science has shown that that creature doesn’t exist."
Fundamentally, it is not about the pandering, hypocritical, cowardly politics of the likes of would-be Presidents Paul and Christie but, rather, why so many otherwise intelligent people actually believe that the danger of vaccines is greater than the danger of disease. Essentially it boils down to cult behavior, a retreat from the complexities of the modern world into the certainty of simplification. (While this is much more common on the Right, it is also evident on the Left, perhaps described as The Cult of The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Fear versus The Cult of The Self-Deluding Prophecy of Goodness.)
To an unfortunately large degree, people do not form their views on the basis of evidence; to the contrary, the "evidence" they see and select is more often the product of their already established view of life, frequently a projection of fear-based hope rather than reality. Thus, there is a widespread tendency to to confuse the "is" with the "ought", to confuse how the world functions with how we wish it would or are afraid that it does function.
Fundamentally, it is not about the pandering, hypocritical, cowardly politics of the likes of would-be Presidents Paul and Christie but, rather, why so many otherwise intelligent people actually believe that the danger of vaccines is greater than the danger of disease. Essentially it boils down to cult behavior, a retreat from the complexities of the modern world into the certainty of simplification. (While this is much more common on the Right, it is also evident on the Left, perhaps described as The Cult of The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Fear versus The Cult of The Self-Deluding Prophecy of Goodness.)
To an unfortunately large degree, people do not form their views on the basis of evidence; to the contrary, the "evidence" they see and select is more often the product of their already established view of life, frequently a projection of fear-based hope rather than reality. Thus, there is a widespread tendency to to confuse the "is" with the "ought", to confuse how the world functions with how we wish it would or are afraid that it does function.
2
Secularists do not have to "fashion their own moral motivation" or "come up with their own powerful drive that will compel sacrifice and service." Secularism is an expression of who you are, not an invented faux-religious substitute.
When you toss away God you do not seek out a replacement. It is already there, inside you.
When you toss away God you do not seek out a replacement. It is already there, inside you.
'But I can’t avoid the conclusion that the secular writers are so eager to make the case for their creed, they are minimizing the struggle required to live by it.'
Thanks for your concern, David. I appreciate it. But I am not struggling! When I come to a conundrum I learn as much as I can about the pro/con arguments and then I make a decision based on facts! When I want to read the writings of ancient men I'll turn to the Greeks and Romans. Old Sextus Empiricus was a smarty and a good spokesman for Rational Thought. It makes no difference to him what I wear or eat or how I choose to spend my Friday evenings, or Saturdays, or Sundays. That's real freedom, baby!
Thanks for your concern, David. I appreciate it. But I am not struggling! When I come to a conundrum I learn as much as I can about the pro/con arguments and then I make a decision based on facts! When I want to read the writings of ancient men I'll turn to the Greeks and Romans. Old Sextus Empiricus was a smarty and a good spokesman for Rational Thought. It makes no difference to him what I wear or eat or how I choose to spend my Friday evenings, or Saturdays, or Sundays. That's real freedom, baby!
1
I really appreciate this article by David Brooks and I agree with him totally that if one is a non-believer (as I am) then it becomes necessary to decid just it is you do believe in and to form a more positive vision of how one sees oneself in he modern world. As a member of the Ethical Society of St. Louis and as one who considers himself to be a humanist, I do not feel alone in this quest and I think it is very helpful to be a part of a broader community of like-minded people who are exploring ethical issues. The really important thing which all of us, believers or non-believers, secularists or non-secularists, have to do is to develop our own moral philosophy and internalize it so that it guides our behavior in somewhat of an instinctive sense. The Ethical Culture movement, which got its start in New York City over 100 years ago, aims to help people do just that.
1. "Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies." No. Social evolution builds moral philosophies. Morality is intrinsic to being human: http://amorpha.blogspot.com/2012/10/very-briefly-god-science-and-moralit...
2. "Secular individuals have to build their own communities." No reason we need religion, which often as not is socially divisive, to build communities. Find a healthier way.
3. "Secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation." What's better (and healthier) motivation for doing right: fear of being punished by a wrathful God, or doing right because it is RIGHT?
Once we learn that our moral sense is innate to being human, not dictated by God, we will be well on our way to building a better humanity. If the only thing that keeps us from being socially deviant is fear of punishment, then we are moral infants.
2. "Secular individuals have to build their own communities." No reason we need religion, which often as not is socially divisive, to build communities. Find a healthier way.
3. "Secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation." What's better (and healthier) motivation for doing right: fear of being punished by a wrathful God, or doing right because it is RIGHT?
Once we learn that our moral sense is innate to being human, not dictated by God, we will be well on our way to building a better humanity. If the only thing that keeps us from being socially deviant is fear of punishment, then we are moral infants.
2
Here we go again -- another ponderous unintelligible Brooks column stringing together lofty phrases with calls to ecstasy. Written about a subject about which he obviously knows nothing and appreciates even less. As for human souls "radiating divine light"... Geez, what poppycock!
7
No.
"... the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification" is exactly what turns religion sour. The sacred and the secular meet at patience and kindness. See Adams and Jefferson.
"... the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification" is exactly what turns religion sour. The sacred and the secular meet at patience and kindness. See Adams and Jefferson.
2
Mr. Brooks forgets that religions, at base, steal from others. Christians, for example, declare that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles while alive and rose from the dead. Yet, 500 years before Christ, Zoraster did all these things as well. This is the common stuff of writings from that era. Some Jews think God is a real estate dealer. To credit such writings - as religions do - makes the case for a secular life. Secularists do not have to steal and lie to justify an honorable life - which the core of most religious beliefs seem to do.
1
I write from the perspective of a product of 16 years of Catholic education. I have been a member of ten different parishes.
I have found that saying an Hour Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be to the Father daily gives me all the religious direction I need.
Bishops living in mansions, treating the poor as helpless individuals requiring direction and social services rather than personal responsibility and jobs simply is counter to my experiencence in places like Camden , NJ.
The weekly Mass routine trivializes the gospels and makes the experience stale. The same music, the same sermons every single week. There are countless ways to follow Jesus in a highly personal way, sharing your wealth with people you know by name.
The High Holidays Jewish tradition concentrates formal religious observances and leaves time for a more personal religious expression of actions necessary to follow Jesus.
I have found that saying an Hour Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be to the Father daily gives me all the religious direction I need.
Bishops living in mansions, treating the poor as helpless individuals requiring direction and social services rather than personal responsibility and jobs simply is counter to my experiencence in places like Camden , NJ.
The weekly Mass routine trivializes the gospels and makes the experience stale. The same music, the same sermons every single week. There are countless ways to follow Jesus in a highly personal way, sharing your wealth with people you know by name.
The High Holidays Jewish tradition concentrates formal religious observances and leaves time for a more personal religious expression of actions necessary to follow Jesus.
secularism has not and probably could not arise without religion as a precursor. However, that work has been done. Most secularists believe in most of the ten commandments, believe in a judeo christian sense of justice, and adopt most of Christ's screed of love thy neighbor. We (I am one) do not have to create the mentioned structures out of thin air, but can use our socialization and customs to fit easily in the world. We just do not need to pretend that ANY of these philosophical beliefs came from anywhere other than human civilization.
2
"You either believe in God or you don't." Really? I think both positions are pretty arrogant. Why does everything have to be animated by such a belief? Pick sides! Be prepared to kill for your side!
The last sentence is the essence of what Brooks is never able to understand about his cosmology. He is searching for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification. These are the hopes of the child in front of the father. The first is the root of racism, the second, self-loathing the third, hate. Oh, it can be other things. That he thinks us secularists without tradition, is mockingly harsh. You think my father, a man who helped to put men on the moon, didn't have a tradition? He did, its just not one from the bleating masses. Trust of the world, trust of god if you will, requires nothing more than a love of reason and a humbling of oneself before the enormity of reality rather than a monkey like hooting for our bipedal superiority. It is religion that needs to change. Traditions that do not improve the human condition are atavistic wishes for a world that no longer exists. That is what secularism provides. A measuring stick based on something other than the received wisdom of ancients who left false promises rather than hope.
The last sentence is the essence of what Brooks is never able to understand about his cosmology. He is searching for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification. These are the hopes of the child in front of the father. The first is the root of racism, the second, self-loathing the third, hate. Oh, it can be other things. That he thinks us secularists without tradition, is mockingly harsh. You think my father, a man who helped to put men on the moon, didn't have a tradition? He did, its just not one from the bleating masses. Trust of the world, trust of god if you will, requires nothing more than a love of reason and a humbling of oneself before the enormity of reality rather than a monkey like hooting for our bipedal superiority. It is religion that needs to change. Traditions that do not improve the human condition are atavistic wishes for a world that no longer exists. That is what secularism provides. A measuring stick based on something other than the received wisdom of ancients who left false promises rather than hope.
3
I agree totally, I think its an open question. This is at the heart of the difference between the conservative mind who wants pat answers and the liberal mind that is much more comfortable with the gray zone and questioning. Brooks always lays out the polemic.
Since when is it "not enough to be a decent person"? As always, it is nice of you to explain the short- comings of ideas you do not understand. You cannot imagine a life without a divinity that provides an eternal retirement plan. In what way does that enable you to judge the minds of those that can? Your stunning conclusion: secularism needs the emotional rituals of religion (a sabbath?) to remove the "burden" of morality from those who live without the threat of divine judgement.
Obviously, you don't think that secularism has much to offer in its present state and leads to a "loss of meaning and unconscious boredom". I don't know what that means. I don't think you do either. Sounds more like you are hoping secularists have these maladies to justify your belief system.
You seem to have an issue with the loss of enchantment in our modern world, it comes up in many of your columns of late. It seems to be the cure-all for what ails us. Is it only enchantment that can arouse the higher emotions and make "heart strings vibrate". I think not. Perhaps "mere benevolence" rates a little higher on the scale of values for some than it does for you. I am excited by the prospect of a "hotter and more consuming" secularism, although it bears some resemblance to a religious afterlife, unintentional I'm sure, perhaps an expression of your "mind riddled biases". i
am taking a course in how to speak in tongues.
Obviously, you don't think that secularism has much to offer in its present state and leads to a "loss of meaning and unconscious boredom". I don't know what that means. I don't think you do either. Sounds more like you are hoping secularists have these maladies to justify your belief system.
You seem to have an issue with the loss of enchantment in our modern world, it comes up in many of your columns of late. It seems to be the cure-all for what ails us. Is it only enchantment that can arouse the higher emotions and make "heart strings vibrate". I think not. Perhaps "mere benevolence" rates a little higher on the scale of values for some than it does for you. I am excited by the prospect of a "hotter and more consuming" secularism, although it bears some resemblance to a religious afterlife, unintentional I'm sure, perhaps an expression of your "mind riddled biases". i
am taking a course in how to speak in tongues.
3
A lot is to be said for "mere benevolence."
While Mr. Brooks presents an interesting case on the challenges of being a secular person, I disagree with him on the difficulty in cultivating a meaningful secular life. I've often said that, as a secular person, the god that I worship is the human spirit: the one that allows us to create art and science and literature, and one that I believe is common to all persons throughout the globe. Mr. Brooks is right in that I have to mold my own moral guidelines for how to best contribute positively to that spirit. However, the motivation itself to ethically participate in humanity isn't hard to find.
The tension between dependence/independence of "the other" goes back to reformation/renaissance and to the dawn of consciousness.
What a lot of nonsense. I went to church when I was a child. Around the age of 12, I decided religion just made no sense and stopped going. My mom said - "you don't have to go to church to be a good person". I don't have to come up with my own reason to compel sacrifice and service. And, I have met a lot of religious people who may have been motivated to do good by their love of God, but they sure didn't act like it.
4
Secular people do NOT need to "pull back and reflect on spiritual matters". What part of secular do you not understand? There is no spiritual to reflect upon.
3
Sad.
1
Brooks doesn't take his analysis of religion outside of those that he's familiar with: Christianity and Judaism. But what about Eastern religions (or perhaps more properly philosophies) like Buddhism and Taoism? They are alternative ways to look at the world and one's place in it, ways that do involve an emotional as well as rational commitment. It would be interesting for Brooks to examine these ancient belief systems. In many ways, they come close to fulfilling the moral and belief structure that Brooks feels is lacking in a strictly "rational" atheism. Start with the writings of Thich Nhah Hanh, who espouses a Buddhism for Westerners.
1
Religion carries a big share of negative baggage, and is not an overwhelmingly positive force. People pick and choose which tenets or lessons from their scripture to believe, often using it as justification to mistreat "others." They use their religion to justify their own bad behavior as they choose. Many "religious" people and institutions have perverted good moral lessons and teachings that are the basis of their faith into legalistic frameworks designed to preserve the power of the institution and to maintain control over believers. I don't see that abandoning that kind of baggage is a bad thing.
1
As unbiased as this article tries to be, the title suggests being mere secularists are not good enough. There is a "betterment" to be had. In this article, David listed the numerous benefits that organized religions provide to its believers, yet none of the bad and the terrible things.
Yet all of these benefits hinges on a "fervent desire to please" someone. This is not an altruistic motive as ironic as that sounds. At best, I call these benefits as placebo pills; if one is led to believe in god, he/she may derive these benefits from him, when in actuality there is no evidence of god just as there is no active medicine in the pills. This may be benignly Okay if there weren't so many side-effects.
In the strictest sense, this is not Okay at all. Blind belief is not a good thing in all other regards in the world, except for religious beliefs. In religions, blind belief is required, and a must-have.
For secularists, the search for reason and a mortal compass is what makes him/her a better person. The process is just as important as the outcome. Religious folks are all but stripped of the process as there is by definition no foundation to build on. Using another crude analogy, someone who worked hard to become a millionaire would spend wisely, whereas a lottery winner may return to the original state in a matter of days.
Yet all of these benefits hinges on a "fervent desire to please" someone. This is not an altruistic motive as ironic as that sounds. At best, I call these benefits as placebo pills; if one is led to believe in god, he/she may derive these benefits from him, when in actuality there is no evidence of god just as there is no active medicine in the pills. This may be benignly Okay if there weren't so many side-effects.
In the strictest sense, this is not Okay at all. Blind belief is not a good thing in all other regards in the world, except for religious beliefs. In religions, blind belief is required, and a must-have.
For secularists, the search for reason and a mortal compass is what makes him/her a better person. The process is just as important as the outcome. Religious folks are all but stripped of the process as there is by definition no foundation to build on. Using another crude analogy, someone who worked hard to become a millionaire would spend wisely, whereas a lottery winner may return to the original state in a matter of days.
2
"Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies. Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries. "
Yes - the burden to think is great. "Religious people" are spared that heavy lifting as they have allowed other to think - and decide - for them.
Yes - the burden to think is great. "Religious people" are spared that heavy lifting as they have allowed other to think - and decide - for them.
3
I notice that Mr. Brooks doesn't mention the millions and millions of people that have been killed in the name of religion over the centuries — all because one group thinks its god is better than another group's god. Look at the Middle East today, for example. This is a huge price to pay in order to have sociable experiences on a Sabbath day. It's much better to join a chorus and make music together.
And what does "spiritual" mean exactly? A feeling of smallness compared to the universe perhaps? I get that feeling when I look up at the stars at night. Or when I look carefully at a flower. I don't need to believe in something that doesn't exist.
And what does "spiritual" mean exactly? A feeling of smallness compared to the universe perhaps? I get that feeling when I look up at the stars at night. Or when I look carefully at a flower. I don't need to believe in something that doesn't exist.
1
"Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him." Oh, really? My sense is that most of them are motivated by their fear of burning in hell, being set upon by plagues and/or locust, being struck down by a vengeful god, or some other horrible fate from their "loving creator". Thanks, but I'll take my chances with the vast, dark void of a godless universe.
1
Citation needed here: "People who don’t know how to take up these burdens don’t turn bad, but they drift. They suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives."
Is there any proof of this? Brooks' whole argument rests on this unsubstantiated assertion, and it seems like self-evident fact than a comforting story religious people tell themselves.
Another thing to consider: If atheism is true, then there are no God-given moralities that free one from the burden of creating your own moral compass. Religious believers may think they have objective moral standards outside their own consciences, but in fact they're improvising like the rest of us.
Is there any proof of this? Brooks' whole argument rests on this unsubstantiated assertion, and it seems like self-evident fact than a comforting story religious people tell themselves.
Another thing to consider: If atheism is true, then there are no God-given moralities that free one from the burden of creating your own moral compass. Religious believers may think they have objective moral standards outside their own consciences, but in fact they're improvising like the rest of us.
1
Perhaps secularism is an red herring. Secularist or not, moderation is the key. Secular fanatics are not better than religious fanatics. The world is awash of extremists these days, the remedy is not extremists of different clothing but tolerant people of all faiths, including secularism
1
Which "secular fanatics" do you accuse?
1
People like Dworkins. And the political communists of course,
1
And how about Scientology? Or any of the variants
1
Mr. Brooks, in his attempt to cast aspersions, kindly ones, on we secularists, writes "But I can;t avoid the conclusion that the secular writers are so eager to make the case for their creed, they are minimizing the struggle to live by it." I must put his mind at rest. As, in Gore Vidal's apt declaration that he is a "born-again atheist," I have no struggle living it, none at all. My metaphysical contentment became resolved once I gave myself permission to stop believing in the mythologies of unverifiable creeds. And while I once recited the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed as a devotee of the 1928 edition of the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer with rote fervor, I found that I could adhere to my own moral philosophy, participate in my own community of fellow non-believers, discarding those "covenantal rituals" adapted from pagan worship since early man "struggled" diligently to find explanations for why he was here, no longer in need of any Sabbath to allow spiritual reflection as my reflections still result in the joy of my own motivations, not those prescribed by prelates' and pastors' pontificating in elegantly embroidered robes of rich fabrics (to make them appear more authoritative to the masses, the peasants without education?), and living each day to the fullest as it may be my last as I could never honestly accept an afterlife. Having my own sense of morality is not a burden. "Divine light?" Now really. . . .
5
@Russell, too true. I would like to add on to your comment by pointing out that while Mr. Brooks implies the book is cherry picking the most beneficial aspects of secularism, he fails to draw attention to the inherently punitive nature of almost all religions. Most notably, while explaining how religion motivates people to live decent lives, he points to loving God and the desire to please. Conspicuously absent from Mr. Brooks' analysis is the fact that the same religions promise shockingly perverse punishments for disobedience from the absolute letter of their behavioral codes. A secularist may seek to resolve their own ethical leanings within generally accepted norms, but religion grants no such discretion. Even if modern religious observers no longer murder non-believers or heretics themselves (although some still DO), they are assured such people will receive eternal damnation. With that aspect of the issue in place, we see that what Mr. Brooks describes as "love for" and a "desire to please" God is more akin to a hostage situation than a healthy lifestyle. Once someone has been convinced of the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, jealous, and vengeful being, I imagine they WOULD be motivated by a "desire to please" in the same sense that a horribly beaten child loves and is "motivated" to please their abusive parents (who will also invariably claim to love their children...deep down).
1
You write:
The only secularism that can really arouse moral motivation and impel action is an enchanted secularism, one that puts emotional relations first and autonomy second. I suspect that over the next years secularism will change its face and become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence, and more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification.
But you don't actually understand secularism at all. You and I, in all likelihood, would respond in exactly the same way upon seeing a beautiful sunset or listening to an inspiring piece of music. The overwhelming feeling of spirituality is not exclusive to religious people. I, and I suspect many others, would be in awe of nature and the human spirit, though you might call it God's creation and religiosity.
And that does not make us adrift at all. Instead, we seek to understand and appreciate the beauty and wonder of it all. Call it science, if you like, which in turn will lead mankind to a modern world where diseases are eradicated, hunger and thirst quenched and a planet that will survive extreme abuse. Once we have contained the urge to climb over our neighbors in search of greater personal wealth, mankind will be on a trajectory to a sustainable future. We are not longing for some mythical, pie-in-the-sky event when we all ascend to a place ancients dreamed up twenty centuries ago. What we have here is good enough to last a lifetime.
The only secularism that can really arouse moral motivation and impel action is an enchanted secularism, one that puts emotional relations first and autonomy second. I suspect that over the next years secularism will change its face and become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence, and more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification.
But you don't actually understand secularism at all. You and I, in all likelihood, would respond in exactly the same way upon seeing a beautiful sunset or listening to an inspiring piece of music. The overwhelming feeling of spirituality is not exclusive to religious people. I, and I suspect many others, would be in awe of nature and the human spirit, though you might call it God's creation and religiosity.
And that does not make us adrift at all. Instead, we seek to understand and appreciate the beauty and wonder of it all. Call it science, if you like, which in turn will lead mankind to a modern world where diseases are eradicated, hunger and thirst quenched and a planet that will survive extreme abuse. Once we have contained the urge to climb over our neighbors in search of greater personal wealth, mankind will be on a trajectory to a sustainable future. We are not longing for some mythical, pie-in-the-sky event when we all ascend to a place ancients dreamed up twenty centuries ago. What we have here is good enough to last a lifetime.
1
There is a downside to religion. All religions are a business. They are all about controlling their flock, wringing money from their flock. That's the bottom line. And religion has been the root of much evil in this world. Sacrificing people (think Aztecs etc.), inciting wars and mistreatment of people (think the Inquisition), think our current wars in the middle east.
Religion is very bad and that's why I'm a secularist. Atheist too. Infallible Pope? no women allowed in the hierarchy, Virgin birth? Really? Their myths are taken literally to no good end.
And I am fine and dandy as a recovering Episcopalian married to a recovering R. Catholic.
Religion is very bad and that's why I'm a secularist. Atheist too. Infallible Pope? no women allowed in the hierarchy, Virgin birth? Really? Their myths are taken literally to no good end.
And I am fine and dandy as a recovering Episcopalian married to a recovering R. Catholic.
4
Brooks conflates two different things: people who have not chosen an affiliation or drifted away from an affiliation with an organized religion and people who believe in an affirmative and distinct philosophy of life called "secularism." He also assumes that all or most who are affiliated with a religion actually believe in what it preaches - but many don't.
I and many like me are in the unaffiliated group, and that's it. The religion in which I was raised contains many people who clearly don't live according to its values and belong only because they enjoy its rituals and its social aspects. To me, that's a bit like eating a delicious meal and then vomiting it up immediately afterward so you won't gain weight. The purpose of eating is to nourish the body not to enjoy a momentary thrill, but binge and purge eaters treat the latter as important and not the former. The purpose of religion is spiritual enrichment, not social control or an excuse to give parties.
I'm unaffiliated because I don't want to be part of a group of hypocrites. Others are unaffiliated because they consider some of their religion's views as incompatible with modern life and don't want to deal with people who will judge them for it. Fine. But the unaffiliated and the affiliated live in the same country and that can't work unless all recognize certain rules of behavior. Whether those rules are based on religious belief or not does not matter - what matters is that we all believe in them.
I and many like me are in the unaffiliated group, and that's it. The religion in which I was raised contains many people who clearly don't live according to its values and belong only because they enjoy its rituals and its social aspects. To me, that's a bit like eating a delicious meal and then vomiting it up immediately afterward so you won't gain weight. The purpose of eating is to nourish the body not to enjoy a momentary thrill, but binge and purge eaters treat the latter as important and not the former. The purpose of religion is spiritual enrichment, not social control or an excuse to give parties.
I'm unaffiliated because I don't want to be part of a group of hypocrites. Others are unaffiliated because they consider some of their religion's views as incompatible with modern life and don't want to deal with people who will judge them for it. Fine. But the unaffiliated and the affiliated live in the same country and that can't work unless all recognize certain rules of behavior. Whether those rules are based on religious belief or not does not matter - what matters is that we all believe in them.
Obviously you did not see the news story today regarding the rise of Sharia Law on the campus of UC at Davis. The rise of secularism in this country is tied to the rise of complacency and ignorance. By the time all you secularists realize what's happened it will be too late.
2
I believe it was Marx that stated free will eventually leads a person to do wrong. Meaning, as I see it, that even with all the guidelines of religions or what secularists use as guidelines, eventually the human will do wrong.
This is what the religions believe also. Humans will do wrong. The main difference between religious persons belief in God and those that do not believe in God is this: The believers have a system in place to steadily observe their behaviors and a way to seek forgiveness, renewal, and reformation after the wrong deed, non-believers have no system in place to do so.
Religions based on God recognize that humans do wrong and all truly religious people know that they do wrong and seek to monitor and repair when wrong. To me the individual non-believer in God has a massive denial system in place that also denies that that indivdual sometimes does wrong and no system in place to monitor and repair.
This is what the religions believe also. Humans will do wrong. The main difference between religious persons belief in God and those that do not believe in God is this: The believers have a system in place to steadily observe their behaviors and a way to seek forgiveness, renewal, and reformation after the wrong deed, non-believers have no system in place to do so.
Religions based on God recognize that humans do wrong and all truly religious people know that they do wrong and seek to monitor and repair when wrong. To me the individual non-believer in God has a massive denial system in place that also denies that that indivdual sometimes does wrong and no system in place to monitor and repair.
2
Wrong again, Mr. Brooks. What the secularists, or those who strive for personal meaning in life using their intellect rather than accepting an unproven package of beliefs, are trying to do is build a benevolent community. What religion all too often has come to represent is walls dividing people (at best) and hatred and bigotry (at its worst). No thanks.
8
Mr. Brooks writes with the ridiculous premise that religion fills a vital space in the lives of every human, and therefore secularism must work to fill the same space (philosophies, communities, sabbaths, etc). This is myopic, reductionist, and insulting to humankind. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most of the great philosophers of the world did not write from a religious perspective, but from a secular one. As social beings, the last thing humans need are a church or a temple to find a community. The sabbath? Seriously? That's an artificial concept created by the men who wrote "holy" texts. Secular folks can have as many, or as few, days of "rest" as they want, without some fairy tale book prescribing it. Living without religion requires no struggle except that which is required to counter the constant theocratic-based whims of our elected officials. In many ways, religion is a prison, and secularism is the ultimate freedom.
15
Hm, I agree that Brook's characterizations are in some ways misguided as you suggest; however, as a secularist myself (and one that continues to struggle with the lack of underlying moral anchors/assumptions on which we can build a fundamentally sound moral framework), I think organized religion at least provides those who follow it a premade moral framework (though note those don't always align with accepted societal norms). I'm certainly not defending organized religion on a logical basis, but from a cynical 'control of the masses' standpoint, religion can be fairly useful.
1
David should recall the story of Rabbi Hillel and the potential convert who wanted to learn Torah while standing on one foot. When asked to teach the man, Hillel replied "What is hateful to you, do not do to others. The rest (Torah) is commentary." In many regards, secularists in western-style countries, whom I would describe as those simply rejecting the idea/existence of god, take the Judeo-Christian ethos as the basis for their moral/ethical foundation. That is the commentary is embedded in our culture.
3
Morality is the consequence of the evolution of human societies. It arises from the beneficial effects of cooperating with and refraining from harming or unnecessarily angering people with whom we live and interact. Hunter - gatherer societies benefited from cooperating. Even wolves cooperate in a hunt.
Cooperation and refraining from angering or harming starts with family and expands to include tribe, nation, humanity, the planetary ecosystem. In general, people's success and survival is a function of their abilities to work productively together.
The codification of natural cooperation and restraint of harmful or noxious impulses as divine commandments is a relatively recent phenomenon in our evolutionary history. Such codification, starting a few thousand years ago, arrogated the entire concept of morality to the dictates of imaginary gods and their prophets, sibyls, shamans, and priests.
But the roots of morality go much deeper than the relatively recent "revelations" of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, or Joseph Smith. The roots of morality go tens of thousands of years back in human history and millions of years back in the behavior of animal societies.
Modern secularists realize that right and wrong are not the provinces of divinities and those who claim to speak for them. Enlightened morality naturally expands its inclusiveness and benefits as we become more and more conscious of all the real interrelations among people.
Supernatural moralists do harm.
Cooperation and refraining from angering or harming starts with family and expands to include tribe, nation, humanity, the planetary ecosystem. In general, people's success and survival is a function of their abilities to work productively together.
The codification of natural cooperation and restraint of harmful or noxious impulses as divine commandments is a relatively recent phenomenon in our evolutionary history. Such codification, starting a few thousand years ago, arrogated the entire concept of morality to the dictates of imaginary gods and their prophets, sibyls, shamans, and priests.
But the roots of morality go much deeper than the relatively recent "revelations" of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, or Joseph Smith. The roots of morality go tens of thousands of years back in human history and millions of years back in the behavior of animal societies.
Modern secularists realize that right and wrong are not the provinces of divinities and those who claim to speak for them. Enlightened morality naturally expands its inclusiveness and benefits as we become more and more conscious of all the real interrelations among people.
Supernatural moralists do harm.
5
I find Brooks is generally one of the more thoughtful columnists today and I generally enjoy his pieces. Occasionally, however, he just comes out of left field and gobsmacks me with how offbase he can be. This piece is a good example. As a secularist who flirts with various forms of eastern and western spirituality and philosophy, with many friends who are hard-core atheists or merely agnostic, I can say with some confidence that the hurdles that Brooks describes for secularists aren't present for most people. It's called normal life, work life, social life, love life, that provide the meaning most people need to stay sane. Yes, many of us still do need to find a higher meaning that transcends normal life, and this does require a bit of work for secularists because modern science is conspicuously lacking much in this regard. However, rather than the wholesale replacement of religious social structures that Brooks suggests is required for secularist, what is needed is a worldview that marries the best of scientific thinking with an opening for mystery and more spiritual ways of viewing the world and ourselves in it. We don't need to be necessarily mystical about it (even though there is room for mysticism even for secularists, with myself being in that camp) but we thinking people should be consciously striving to create a new reconciliation between the best of scientific insights and the spiritual yearning to find meaning.
7
"An enchanted secularism... more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us"... I love it! It seems more and more clear that a new spirituality is being born, free of the dogma and trappings of religion.
Amazingly, is seems that in our age the spiritual urge may be finding a way to blossom free of concepts of God.
I've discovered a beautiful pathway to a spiritual and moral life outside religion. It combines mindfulness practice with deep values work based on scientific inquiry into humanity. It's the Mindfulness Based Strengths Work (MBSP) program of Ryan Niemiec, education director at the VIA Institute on Character. VIA is where the Positive Psychology classification of 24 character strengths can be found which humans have been shown to have in common throughout the world and throughout time. These include the values espoused by the spiritual teachers at the heart of religions.
I feel strongly that there's a common core to human spirituality and that we can each evolve to be deeply spiritual and deeply good without any of the trappings of religion. Ryan is actually giving an online MBSP course beginning on Feb. 10. Search for "VIA Character" and you'll find it.
Amazingly, is seems that in our age the spiritual urge may be finding a way to blossom free of concepts of God.
I've discovered a beautiful pathway to a spiritual and moral life outside religion. It combines mindfulness practice with deep values work based on scientific inquiry into humanity. It's the Mindfulness Based Strengths Work (MBSP) program of Ryan Niemiec, education director at the VIA Institute on Character. VIA is where the Positive Psychology classification of 24 character strengths can be found which humans have been shown to have in common throughout the world and throughout time. These include the values espoused by the spiritual teachers at the heart of religions.
I feel strongly that there's a common core to human spirituality and that we can each evolve to be deeply spiritual and deeply good without any of the trappings of religion. Ryan is actually giving an online MBSP course beginning on Feb. 10. Search for "VIA Character" and you'll find it.
Secularism is, fortunately, here to stay, as it is rooted in reality, and the truth and beauty it entails. Religious dogma closes our minds to explore the world; instead, forces us to believe in magic, instilled since early childhood (indoctrination); the price is steep: it removes our own responsibility to make do, and accept our brain's inability to ever know whether there is a god or not. So far, the god of all religions we know of, is an invented creature made to conform to our own human thoughts, and all the characteristics found in the 'sacred books', no doubt written and compiled by primitive, ignorant and prejudiced men. The incognita is that so many believe in that, with no evidence whatsoever, and an insult to a 'loving and caring' creator, if true, in view of so much carnage and disease on innocent children, and so much injustice and cruelty. Although we consider our brain the ultimate and largest mystery and miracle of the known Universe, it seems imbued by moral knowledge of right from wrong, able to feel for others, especially if happy or if suffering; abstract thought and introspection; and even though we are essentially social animals, we appreciate our individual selves, our consciousness and, if able to go beyond our subjective-objective dualism, transcend and become one with nature and all that surrounds us, a spiritual bliss that makes theistic religion superfluous. Lets live in the 'here and now' , so fear of death goes away, the future a mirage.
3
Thanks to individuals who defied the Church and religion we've been able to evolve, in spite of people who lacked faith. Copernicus formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at its center.
Then there's Galileo. In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared his theory of heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."
Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered
... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
— The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.
Galileo was ordered to recant and placed under house arrest for last nine years of his life.
Rabies were first thought to be the result of a heretic's actions. People were "possessed" by the devil, and almost all human cases of rabies were fatal until a vaccine was developed in 1885 by Pasteur and Roux.
I prefer enlightened thought to religious magical thinking.
Then there's Galileo. In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared his theory of heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."
Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered
... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
— The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.
Galileo was ordered to recant and placed under house arrest for last nine years of his life.
Rabies were first thought to be the result of a heretic's actions. People were "possessed" by the devil, and almost all human cases of rabies were fatal until a vaccine was developed in 1885 by Pasteur and Roux.
I prefer enlightened thought to religious magical thinking.
10
Secular creeds that appeal to emotion and ritual and community certainly exist. They include Naziism and Stalinism. Cruelty and war in the name of religion exists as well.
Contrasting the best of religion with the worst of secularism, or contrasting the best of secularism (rationality and tolerance) with the worst of religion (the Inquisition, the Crusades, Islamic State), will score points for your side, but is no way to conduct a discussion of the sources of ethical conduct.
Most people judge their own belief system on the basis of the meaning it provides for life, and the belief system of others according to whether it produces ethical conduct. I'm with Mr. Zuckerman in preferring clarity of thought when discussing issues like these, no matter what side one comes down on.
Contrasting the best of religion with the worst of secularism, or contrasting the best of secularism (rationality and tolerance) with the worst of religion (the Inquisition, the Crusades, Islamic State), will score points for your side, but is no way to conduct a discussion of the sources of ethical conduct.
Most people judge their own belief system on the basis of the meaning it provides for life, and the belief system of others according to whether it produces ethical conduct. I'm with Mr. Zuckerman in preferring clarity of thought when discussing issues like these, no matter what side one comes down on.
3
What is Brooks talking about? We have just seen several examples of "inherited creeds", "covenantal rituals", actions "motivated by a love for God and a fervent desire to please Him", and people who are "responsive to the spiritual urge" and motivated by a "drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification". We've just seen it in Paris, Nigeria and Syria. This is Brooks' preferred alternative to secularism? Really?
5
The world is putting hope
In our secular Pope
In our secular Pope
3
Amen to that.
2
The founding assumption here seems to be that both secularism and religion seriously pursued lead to humane values? What is the basis of that? Certainly not in history. There is a dark side whether defined spiritually or not and it issues a strong and persistent call to human flesh and soul. Ritual torture of captives, genocide, mass murder and rape, domination and cruelty for the sheer joy of it, these things always return. Sometimes it is mixed with religious zeal as with ISIS, sometimes avowedly secular philosophy as with the brutality of communist revolutionaries in Russia, Cambodia, etc. But evil is real and is powerful.
1
When I was 18 I had to register for the draft. When I tried to register as a conscientious objector, I was told that was not permitted unless I was part of an established religious organization -- that my personal beliefs were not sufficient.
My former in-laws were devout evangelical Christians who raged against abortion until their 18-year-old daughter became pregnant (and no, not as a result of rape or incest).
My wife was raised Catholic but can't receive communion because she was divorced without ponying up the bucks for an annulment.
Pick up any paper, any day, and it's easy to find atrocities committed by devout followers of organized religion, or at least a rant against activities they disapprove of (gay marriage, gun control, etc.). Is this hypocrisy supposed to be the model of moral goodness for us secularists?
My former in-laws were devout evangelical Christians who raged against abortion until their 18-year-old daughter became pregnant (and no, not as a result of rape or incest).
My wife was raised Catholic but can't receive communion because she was divorced without ponying up the bucks for an annulment.
Pick up any paper, any day, and it's easy to find atrocities committed by devout followers of organized religion, or at least a rant against activities they disapprove of (gay marriage, gun control, etc.). Is this hypocrisy supposed to be the model of moral goodness for us secularists?
8
Even if God did not exist, religion would still be holy and divine.
God is the only being who, to govern, need not even exist...
Whether man ensnare his dupe on the boulevard, or pierce his prey in unknown forests, is he not eternal man, i.e. the most perfect beast of prey?
- Charles Baudelaire
---------
Those who lose faith in God often develop too much faith in homo sapiens. They forget that we are alive because our ancestors killed their enemies, and prey animals. They overestimate human nature and human potential.
The horrors committed during the twentieth century by adherents of secular alternatives to Christianity should chasten them.
God is the only being who, to govern, need not even exist...
Whether man ensnare his dupe on the boulevard, or pierce his prey in unknown forests, is he not eternal man, i.e. the most perfect beast of prey?
- Charles Baudelaire
---------
Those who lose faith in God often develop too much faith in homo sapiens. They forget that we are alive because our ancestors killed their enemies, and prey animals. They overestimate human nature and human potential.
The horrors committed during the twentieth century by adherents of secular alternatives to Christianity should chasten them.
1
In terms of death, destruction, and violence, the "horrors" committed by secularists is one one-millionth of the horrors committed in the name of religion, which persist today across the world. The statistics do not lie.
2
This piece demonstrates a profound ignorance of secularism. There is a long history of principled secularism and secular congregations in this country. Check out the history of the Freethinkers. Try reading Susan Jacoby's book.
4
As an atheist and Buddhist (there are no gods in Buddhism), I found this argument perplexing and absurd. I don't pattern my ethical behavior or the structure of my daily on the foundations of the active monotheists I find around me. There are scores of historical secularists one can consult, if needed, to understand a moral or ethical foundation for action and being in the world: Stoics, for example, provide such a foundation. Community? No one needs a god to form a community. A "Sabbath"? Why? Do I need the Christians in my overtly fundamentalist family to confer "meaning" to my life? No and no. What is my own "moral motivation"? If I am not kind to others because Jesus says so, does that mean I can find no reason in my own heart and mind to be compassionate? The Dalai Lama has often said that the heart of Buddhism is "Be kind." I myself have combined that with the adage, "Life is short--don't be a jerk." Those two phrases might answer most of Mr. Brooks's concerns.
6
Buddhism does in its essence contain some vestiges of previous pagan beliefs
of the societies that subscribe to it. Here and there one does meet supernatural beings such as the demon Mara who appeared to the Buddha trying to tempt him away from his initial meditation under that iconic tree.
of the societies that subscribe to it. Here and there one does meet supernatural beings such as the demon Mara who appeared to the Buddha trying to tempt him away from his initial meditation under that iconic tree.
Those deities are cultural vestiges. The human being who sought the truth of existence said nothing about gods or the afterlife. Those were added later: the conflation of very old stories with an ethical approach to living.
I have the impression that Mr. Brooks would like to take all of us sinners under his wing to provide us with some moral direction. Hogwash. Raised as a Christian, having spent many years reading the bible and studying other religions, I cannot put my faith in any one set of scripture written over 2000 years ago by supposed wise men who supposedly witnessed miracles. Scientific studies have proven that children are born with a sense of right and wrong. I don't need church to learn to be a good human being, to donate to good causes, or volunteer at my local homeless shelter. My heart simply goes out to those in need. I used to derive tremendous comfort from my religious beliefs and my faith, but I feel now as if it was rather childlike, suspension of disbelief, more than a true faith. Do I believe in God? Well, it's a truly difficult concept, and one which requires faith that there is some higher being who has constructed all of this. Just doesn't make much sense to me. Can I explain the existence of the universe? Goodness, no. It's a puzzle that we'll likely never understand, but that some entity created it all for us and then sent his/her son as a sacrifice to "save" us? Even more unlikely. But none of this means I don't have a profound love for my fellow man and innate desire to help others. My many communities (clubs, organizations, associations) provide me many opportunities to do so. In these groups we never discuss religion. We "do good" because it feels good.
6
Once again, conflating religion with spirituality. In short, Religions (priests, authority, moral absolutism, creeds that differentiate "us" and "them") are political structures, to organize group behavior around leaders. Spirituality is the individual awareness that are are on a journey to understanding and, perhaps, compassion. God is then an entirely personal (and undefinable) cosmic reality (the one who must not/can not be named. So give up trying to put a name on it. Follow your bliss. Do the right thing.
1
I think Mr. Brooks overestimates the ease with which a person of faith can navigates the world of moral choice and community. I never found that having a received moral code and a built-in community made the goal of living a good life any less of a stretch than my secular friends had.
8
Four words: George Carlin, organized religion
5
"We are not really rational animals; emotions play a central role in decision-making.."
Well Brooks, you've really driven this one high into the seats of abject sanctimony.
And oh yeah, my secularism "will become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence.." as I discard my blue chambray shirt & drape a smock over my business suit & sweep my own household steps before I head down to the county admin. bldg. to change my voter registration to Republican. You've provided the answer to spiritual gridlock as we march lockstep into a future where George Bush will take his rightful place on Mount Rushmore.
Well Brooks, you've really driven this one high into the seats of abject sanctimony.
And oh yeah, my secularism "will become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence.." as I discard my blue chambray shirt & drape a smock over my business suit & sweep my own household steps before I head down to the county admin. bldg. to change my voter registration to Republican. You've provided the answer to spiritual gridlock as we march lockstep into a future where George Bush will take his rightful place on Mount Rushmore.
2
Many Secularists were raised in a religion at one time. What frustrates them is the inability or refusal of people to question and debate their religion. If an idea is worth having, it's worth questioning, debating, and defending.
There are some exceptions, such as the Jesuit Order, that take science and religion as equals and forges a genuine intellectual world view from the two.
There are some exceptions, such as the Jesuit Order, that take science and religion as equals and forges a genuine intellectual world view from the two.
2
You don't have to guess what will happen if the US turns more agnostic/atheist. Just look at the other western countries which are all far less religious than the US.
I frankly don't understand why the US is so religious, but your claim religiosity correlates with moral convictions lacks evidence unless you're satisfied with anecdotes. All of the other western countries have a much cozier safety net than the US and much less crime.
Maybe your supposed piety just deludes you into thinking you have the moral highground and therefore makes it seem less necessary to listen to your conscience.
I for one am glad more people choose rational thinking over delusion. You have people who are excited about the future and want to improve life on this world on the one side and Inhofe, Iran and Isis on the other.
I frankly don't understand why the US is so religious, but your claim religiosity correlates with moral convictions lacks evidence unless you're satisfied with anecdotes. All of the other western countries have a much cozier safety net than the US and much less crime.
Maybe your supposed piety just deludes you into thinking you have the moral highground and therefore makes it seem less necessary to listen to your conscience.
I for one am glad more people choose rational thinking over delusion. You have people who are excited about the future and want to improve life on this world on the one side and Inhofe, Iran and Isis on the other.
6
What Mr. Brooks ignores is that there are many who simply do not see themselves in some bi-polar struggle for definition--they just are. And they are, because of values and practices within their families and social milieu, without a conscious decision to pick sides between people who presume to have absolute knowledge. After all, the argument is more about ego fulfillment than life quality.
2
We are all spiritual whether religious or secular. Its just that more and more people have stopped "relying on some eye in the sky to tell them what to do" and that they actually can live their lives without it. So the question is really whether a religous person subject to "covenantal rituals that bind people together, sacred practices that are beyond individual choice" is more spiritual than a secular person. It is true that we are not really rational animals as defined by social science, but our "irrationality" in this context does not necessarily mean we are more religiously disposed. It is much wider layed out than that. If you look around at what is happening in todays world, especially in the religious part of it, the statement "Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him" brings shivers down my spine. What about being motivated by "love of man and a desire to serve mankind".
1
To be human we need to recognize, in the words of Broadway's Candide that "We're neither pure, nor wise, nor good. We do the best we know." This bit of wisdom is accessible to both believers and secularists.
2
The Vedas teach that true liberation comes from acting righteously with no thought of a reward. To love simply for the sake of love, to be good with no expectation of heaven.
To some religionists confession seems to have replaced acting in a moral way. Being told that God will forgive your sins gives to some the freedom to sin.
Being a truly moral person, whether one's personal path involves a version of God or not, is a full time occupation. Mindfulness does not get a day off. It is not easy.
To some religionists confession seems to have replaced acting in a moral way. Being told that God will forgive your sins gives to some the freedom to sin.
Being a truly moral person, whether one's personal path involves a version of God or not, is a full time occupation. Mindfulness does not get a day off. It is not easy.
1
Religion probably does provide cohesion and moral leveling across its adherents that make the group live together more peacefully and collectively. History is also full of examples where this common moral direction and unquestioning belief have lead to horrible actions.
The main problem I have with religion is that it always comes down to willful self-delusion in pursuit of emotional comfort and inclusion in a group. It also seems to always arrive with a large mass of people unquestioningly following the "will of god", while a very small group at the top tells them exactly what god wants. The proof that god exists is always just around the corner; after the rapture, or even more conveniently, after you die.
The main problem I have with religion is that it always comes down to willful self-delusion in pursuit of emotional comfort and inclusion in a group. It also seems to always arrive with a large mass of people unquestioningly following the "will of god", while a very small group at the top tells them exactly what god wants. The proof that god exists is always just around the corner; after the rapture, or even more conveniently, after you die.
1
As an atheist I have consciously borrowed from Christianity one of the best dictums for running a civilization, it's called the Golden rule, and it is decidely
the one secular aspect of Christianity that I'm able to swallow. A Buddhist monk
could not concoct a better more universal way to teach a morality our children
can understand.
the one secular aspect of Christianity that I'm able to swallow. A Buddhist monk
could not concoct a better more universal way to teach a morality our children
can understand.
1
The Golden Rule exists in all contemporary religions and belief systems and probably goes back to pre-history as societies let alone civilizations could not exist and function without it.
Oh, please. I'm a vegetarian. My rabbi once told me that eating meat is a virtue, because it allows animals to fulfill G-d's purpose for them, which is to be eaten. A secularist is free to recognize the sacred in nonhuman life. Or, to put it differently, there is nothing in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim ethic that is dissuading us from destruction of the planet.
4
Love does not need Priests, Imams, Popes, and bureaucracy to be real, or actualized in life. If there is a God, and I hope there is, s/he has as much explaining to do to us as we to him/her. Just look at human history and the billions who have suffered and died at the hands of Believers.
2
Rather than taking on Mr. Brooks point by point, I will simply state that he has the problem completely reversed. What needs changing is not within secularism; it is religious people who need to start using reason and compassion to make decisions rather than relying on ancient writings as interpreted by their particular religious communities.
5
I'm an atheist and a musician, and I agree with much of what David Brooks writes here.
For a while, I subscribed to "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine, but I dropped it after a year, because the whole emphasis seemed to be on criticizing religious people for not believing in science. I love science, and wish many religious people took it more seriously, but I think a more significant problem for atheists is us just that our music isn't as good as theirs.
If we could write atheist music as great and inspiring as Bach's, and built atheist "temples" as lovely as Notre Dame, and could bring people the same sense of beauty, meaning and community as the established religions do, I think we'd have a lot more "converts."
For a while, I subscribed to "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine, but I dropped it after a year, because the whole emphasis seemed to be on criticizing religious people for not believing in science. I love science, and wish many religious people took it more seriously, but I think a more significant problem for atheists is us just that our music isn't as good as theirs.
If we could write atheist music as great and inspiring as Bach's, and built atheist "temples" as lovely as Notre Dame, and could bring people the same sense of beauty, meaning and community as the established religions do, I think we'd have a lot more "converts."
3
As an atheist, I agree that secular people can and should do more to build communities that support our "souls," not just our brains. And we're already doing it. See Sunday Assembly, Unitarian Universalism and even Jerk Church.
3
Mr. Brooks fails to mention the many issues with organized religion that are also related to human emotion: hypocrisy, intolerance, self-anointed superiority, biblical justification for just about anything, and the ensuing abuse of power. Oh, yeah, let’s not forget the fleecing of the flocks by greedy mega church ministers. Organized religion AMPLIFIES these very human traits, and attempts to put an acceptable justification for them.
The separation of Church and State in this country is seen by many religious people as an affront. This would impact their proselytization and undermine their deeply held belief that THEIR religion is the TRUE religion, and everybody else is wrong (self-anointed superiority). Not all religions / denominations are extreme in this – but it exists in all religions to some degree. I firmly believe that these negatives outweigh the positive effects of religion. Spiritual accountability has become a disdained cliché, but I will take it over dogmatic, self-anointed superiority – and all the conflict spawned by such beliefs.
Maybe agnostics have the right balance. An acceptance of the concept of God without all the dogma.
The separation of Church and State in this country is seen by many religious people as an affront. This would impact their proselytization and undermine their deeply held belief that THEIR religion is the TRUE religion, and everybody else is wrong (self-anointed superiority). Not all religions / denominations are extreme in this – but it exists in all religions to some degree. I firmly believe that these negatives outweigh the positive effects of religion. Spiritual accountability has become a disdained cliché, but I will take it over dogmatic, self-anointed superiority – and all the conflict spawned by such beliefs.
Maybe agnostics have the right balance. An acceptance of the concept of God without all the dogma.
Does not really sound like any religious people I know.
They use whatever established religion they have latched onto and then pick and choose which parts the want to follow - they are making their own creed as they go.
I see secularism as more a reaction against being told we are 'bad' 'wrong' 'going to hell' 'cant be moral because we have no religion'. We are not that but I don't know yet that we have anything positive to offer in return other than 'we are not religion; we are not controlled by God'
They use whatever established religion they have latched onto and then pick and choose which parts the want to follow - they are making their own creed as they go.
I see secularism as more a reaction against being told we are 'bad' 'wrong' 'going to hell' 'cant be moral because we have no religion'. We are not that but I don't know yet that we have anything positive to offer in return other than 'we are not religion; we are not controlled by God'
Mr. Brooks advocates a secularism that mimics the worst characteristics of today's religious fanatics, one that "become(s) hotter and more consuming." Nothing could be more dangerous and ugly than encouraging even more people in this world to become hotter and more consumed with the notion that they are right and everybody else is wrong. Brooks is hoping to see a future I would describe as dystopian.....
Secularists know that only they themselves can build a better secularist and no one else God or others can do it.
2
What nonsense, a Secularist is born, not made. I was a realist at the age of six and informed my brother, age eight, and my sister, age ten, that there was no Santa Claus. I knew for a fact because I looked through the key hole in the door and confirmed what I thought, I saw my parents putting the gifts under the tree. I maintained the same objectivity for the Good Tooth Fairy, God, Superman and other improbable beings. It wasn't taught, it was simply the personality I was born with. It has been no burden on my morality or feelings towards others or living my life. It seems to me that it is the person, like Mr. Brooks who is troubled by his beliefs.
I would argue that the struggle that the secular person must go through to create their own community, develop a philosophy (secular philosophies have existed since antiquity, so this is not in a vacuum), create their own Sabbath (when to contemplate the "spiritual" in this account sounds like the noble pursuit of Philosophy...where religion ends philosophy begins), & fashion a justification for moral action, is the very struggle that people would have discarded religion seek (they have found the received wisdom immoral, nonsensical, harmful) and that the difficulty of the process of living through one's own prism of morality, community etc. is in fact it's own reward.
Life lived in intellectual and moral struggle to determine what is really important seems to me far preferable to a life of revealed "wisdom" that only chains the devotee to the prejudices and mistakes of the past.
The sort of Romantic Secularism that Brooks advocates, based on "emotional relations" (what does that actually mean?), appears to adopt the transcendent qualities that religion invokes, while stripping away the very idea that motivates those feelings-God.
Can you not find transcendence in nature, art or love? Of course you can. Attempting to co-opt religion's emotional core & elevate that over the rational outlook (whether Rational Man exists or not) undermines what is most appealing.
Life lived in intellectual and moral struggle to determine what is really important seems to me far preferable to a life of revealed "wisdom" that only chains the devotee to the prejudices and mistakes of the past.
The sort of Romantic Secularism that Brooks advocates, based on "emotional relations" (what does that actually mean?), appears to adopt the transcendent qualities that religion invokes, while stripping away the very idea that motivates those feelings-God.
Can you not find transcendence in nature, art or love? Of course you can. Attempting to co-opt religion's emotional core & elevate that over the rational outlook (whether Rational Man exists or not) undermines what is most appealing.
Brooks is here doing here with the word secular what he does best, taking a broad concept and defining in its narrowest sense, as a creed that seeks to replace religious faith. He totally ignores the more modern definition, for example in Wikipedia, as "...the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries" and quite well explained here: http://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism.html.
One need not be an atheist nor even non-religious to be a secularist and acknowledge that no religion should be privileged nor intrude into government. Secular to most of us is everything that is not religious. When we talk about the secular we are speaking about the non-religious world, that and nothing more. One could acknowledge the secular and still have religious faith, just as one can accept the theory of evolution and still believe in God. Maybe we need a new word, one that eschews any kind of philosophy or creed to describe that, but until it comes along, we are stuck with secular, with a small "s". Get used to it.
One need not be an atheist nor even non-religious to be a secularist and acknowledge that no religion should be privileged nor intrude into government. Secular to most of us is everything that is not religious. When we talk about the secular we are speaking about the non-religious world, that and nothing more. One could acknowledge the secular and still have religious faith, just as one can accept the theory of evolution and still believe in God. Maybe we need a new word, one that eschews any kind of philosophy or creed to describe that, but until it comes along, we are stuck with secular, with a small "s". Get used to it.
The ancient world did not look to their gods for moral guidance. Instead the Greeks and the Romans, at least, lived in a shame culture rather then a guilt culture. They took their moral cues from how they would be perceived by others in their society.
Another inane column by Mr. Brooks who should know by now that Organized Religion is a business, an industry.
The Abrahamic religions started when a man (or group of men) figured out that there was more gold to be made by consolidating all the gods into one. As simple as that.
All the rituals and the rest of the hocus pocus is just window dressing; what matters at the end is what is in the collection plate.
The Abrahamic religions started when a man (or group of men) figured out that there was more gold to be made by consolidating all the gods into one. As simple as that.
All the rituals and the rest of the hocus pocus is just window dressing; what matters at the end is what is in the collection plate.
1
I don't think Mr. Brooks read the same book I did. If he did, he would have noticed that Mr. Zuckerman spends many pages listing the ways in which secular societies are far morally superior to God worshiping ones.
It scares me that a seemingly intelligent individual could ignore the large picture and choose the parts that seemingly agree with their (limited) worldview.
It scares me that a seemingly intelligent individual could ignore the large picture and choose the parts that seemingly agree with their (limited) worldview.
1
Just as religious people sometimes complain that non-believers have a pale and superficial view of the real think, so, too, does Brooks re: secularism. He sets up a straw man - secularists believe morality is "rational" and we know man is irrational, QED.
Nonsense. Secularism as a view merely states that there is no book, no creed, no religion, no priest who is fit to dictate "the" answers. I would call that wise common sense and emotional maturity, learned the hard way. The Golden Rule is not a "rational" principle; it is a fundamentally humbling emotional grounding, too. We transcend our ego.
All of us who are deeply moved by other people, nature, children, unselfish behavior, death, FEEL it. I have no idea why Brooks believes that transcendence is only possible in a formal religion, but it is a very naive view - yet he keeps returning to it over and over in this column.
Nonsense. Secularism as a view merely states that there is no book, no creed, no religion, no priest who is fit to dictate "the" answers. I would call that wise common sense and emotional maturity, learned the hard way. The Golden Rule is not a "rational" principle; it is a fundamentally humbling emotional grounding, too. We transcend our ego.
All of us who are deeply moved by other people, nature, children, unselfish behavior, death, FEEL it. I have no idea why Brooks believes that transcendence is only possible in a formal religion, but it is a very naive view - yet he keeps returning to it over and over in this column.
6
One can practice a traditional religion while acknowledging religious doubts. I do.
1
"...the spiritual urge in each of us," Hard to talk about spiritual urges when it is very difficult for all of us to realize which ones are genuine and which ones are induced by the ones that love power and control (and money) using God as an excuse.
1
The elephant in the room; religious conflict is and has been a primary source of deadly human conflict since the invention of religion. Someone who needs an elaborate story to keep them from harming others is far more likely to rationalize their destructive behaviors than someone who cleaves to the simple notion that we should follow the golden rule and recognize the impact that we--individually and as a species--have on one another. Secularists strive to do this for the same reason that religious people have woven these ideas into their stories and system. It is a product of our evolution as social beings. Too simple for Mr. Brooks apparently.
Notice the formula for this essay: First, pick a source that you can at least quote to the effect that there is no social or emotive aspect to secularism. Second, describe all of the social and emotive equipment that this atomized straw secularist will have to invent for himself or herself. Third, assume that religion is an unmitigated good that produced all moral equipment. Fourth, conclude that if secularists want to be moral, they will have to imitate religionaries. Brooks seems not to notice that the straw secularist is exposed when he says “we are not really autonomous.”
In an alternate account, secular morality has its origins in our biological and social evolution in small communities where, given our intense and intimate interdependence, morality was adaptive--contributory to survival. From there, it is far more likely that men put morality in gods’ mouths than the other way around. That morality has been and is cultivated in families, in neighborhoods, in friendship networks, in work and business, in the law, in associations, in government, and in philosophy—as well as in religion.
Not content to be just one of the moral projects and venues, religionaries have long claimed that they and their gods are the sole origins and sponsors of morality, and that their activities are the sole carriers of morality. I bet that claim has far more to do with status striving and power grabbing than with human moral history.
In an alternate account, secular morality has its origins in our biological and social evolution in small communities where, given our intense and intimate interdependence, morality was adaptive--contributory to survival. From there, it is far more likely that men put morality in gods’ mouths than the other way around. That morality has been and is cultivated in families, in neighborhoods, in friendship networks, in work and business, in the law, in associations, in government, and in philosophy—as well as in religion.
Not content to be just one of the moral projects and venues, religionaries have long claimed that they and their gods are the sole origins and sponsors of morality, and that their activities are the sole carriers of morality. I bet that claim has far more to do with status striving and power grabbing than with human moral history.
The Lord looks upon us with great spiritual light. If we turn our backs, what do we see except shadows of who we are? Shadows cannot embrace each other. Shadows cannot help each other. Shadows cannot love one another.
1
Speaking as, one described by Brooks, as a secularist, I wonder why we don't have universal health insurance, why we have so many impoverished people, why 1 out of 5 children in our country don't have enough to eat and suffer from mal-nutrion, why 1% of the population possess more wealth than 80% of all others.
Oh, yeah, I just remembered these are the same conditions that conservative Republicans strive to preserve because they say God will take care of them.
Oh, yeah, I just remembered these are the same conditions that conservative Republicans strive to preserve because they say God will take care of them.
5
"Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies. Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries."
And yet this is why so many are secularists. Given what passes for evolution of creeds over centuries, building one's own moral philosophy is far more attractive. Loving and pleasing a deity simply isn't compelling, or even credible. Morality and ethics that are functional are invariably secular because the goal is about doing the right thing for the right reasons, not to fulfill a deity's expectations.
I know many secularists, and their emotions are just fine. They care deeply about economic inequity and the working poor, they care about the environment and the planet they live on, they care about government that works, not what size it is. Look at religious conservatives and tell me that they have any of these qualities in ways that matter. I don't see it.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
And yet this is why so many are secularists. Given what passes for evolution of creeds over centuries, building one's own moral philosophy is far more attractive. Loving and pleasing a deity simply isn't compelling, or even credible. Morality and ethics that are functional are invariably secular because the goal is about doing the right thing for the right reasons, not to fulfill a deity's expectations.
I know many secularists, and their emotions are just fine. They care deeply about economic inequity and the working poor, they care about the environment and the planet they live on, they care about government that works, not what size it is. Look at religious conservatives and tell me that they have any of these qualities in ways that matter. I don't see it.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
1
Just because I do not believe in deities does not mean I lack meaning in life. Mr. Brooks seems to think that just because he might feel adrift without religion, others would too. Possible. But others, like me, have neither the need nor capacity for faith. I do not search for the spiritual or transcendent because they are illusions, just like religion. I do feel empathy, like most humans. This is what I base my moral compass on. Why people assume that without 'God' we would devolve into ravening hordes, I will never understand. Atheists are not psychopaths or sociopaths.
4
Its not that the kind of secularism described by D B is inherently bad; it contains a lot of practical advice for Christians. The problem is that it ignores the true source of all truth and knowledge, our creator God , and His demand that we worship him, and is therefore doomed to failure.
The need of the religious to fit the world of the atheist into the convenient boxes of provided by religious belief is tiresome. Do not try to "Build a Better Secularist", instead try to harder to fit the fantasy and fairytales of religion into the your common sense understanding of the world. Leave us alone. The universe is enough awe and wonder for us.
You end the piece with "I suspect that over the next years secularism will change its face and become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence, and more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification."
You assume we will fill our empty lives with a spiritual urge. No.
You assume we will seek purity and sanctification. No, we have seen what the religious right (whether Christian or Muslim) has done in the name or purity. We will have none of that.
You end the piece with "I suspect that over the next years secularism will change its face and become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence, and more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification."
You assume we will fill our empty lives with a spiritual urge. No.
You assume we will seek purity and sanctification. No, we have seen what the religious right (whether Christian or Muslim) has done in the name or purity. We will have none of that.
2
Secularists want to have it both ways. They argue that everyone is free to define morality for himself or herself. (I agree with the notion that people can adopt any form of morality that suits them; however, as a devout Christian, I disagree that all definitions of morality are “equal”.) If one genuinely believes that morality is based on individual choice, then one CANNOT condemn others who have adopted a different moral standard – even one in which, for example, it is acceptable to murder others with whom one disagrees. Many secularists go on to argue that “most” people tend to cherish a common set of values, most specifically as embodied in the “Golden Rule”. Fine. However, they should carefully consider what, specifically, makes those who break the Golden Rule “immoral”. The bottom line is that, while each of us can (and should be able to) choose our own moral path, those who go down the road of secularism should avoid calling others “immoral” for breaking what amounts to a non-universal “moral” code.
"People who don’t know how to take up these burdens don’t turn bad, but they drift. They suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives."
So, in other words, people aren't capable of thinking and making sense of the world without something organized to follow? How does that square with free will and humanity's insatiable curiosity? Although Mr. Brooks says he doesn't elevate the religious above those who don't believe, he clearly thinks there is something deficient with those who don't need to have faith to live lives worth having.
So, in other words, people aren't capable of thinking and making sense of the world without something organized to follow? How does that square with free will and humanity's insatiable curiosity? Although Mr. Brooks says he doesn't elevate the religious above those who don't believe, he clearly thinks there is something deficient with those who don't need to have faith to live lives worth having.
1
My belief, religions are man made satisfying our spiritual craving for answers. However we have discovered that, better than anything else, religion is the glue that holds society together - better than anything else tried.
2
Reading through the comments, I think many take for granted the role religions have played in our societies and in our own thinking, even in our secular thinking. I don't believe I think the way I do because of my own understanding, many generations laid the groundwork.
1
I am an atheist. I am not a "secularist," and consider that a nincompoop word.
As a lifelong atheist, I can tell you that we don't ever, ever "pull back and reflect on spiritual matters." There are no spirits; no fuzzy forces out there in need of love and obedience.
I may not get away with claiming that I am "better than secular people," but I sure do say, if I'm asked, that I'm smarter -- because I know how to live a good, happy and useful life without having to follow laws set down by a bunch of men with who-knows-what mental problems many centuries ago.
At 77 and still cheerily counting, I haven't yet found myself adrift or suffering "from a loss of meaning and unconscious boredom" in my life. (What is "meaning" in a life, anyway?) In fact, being an atheist in this ever-dumbing down world means that I am never bored; there's too much delight to be taken in the nonsense and comedy of religion.
As a lifelong atheist, I can tell you that we don't ever, ever "pull back and reflect on spiritual matters." There are no spirits; no fuzzy forces out there in need of love and obedience.
I may not get away with claiming that I am "better than secular people," but I sure do say, if I'm asked, that I'm smarter -- because I know how to live a good, happy and useful life without having to follow laws set down by a bunch of men with who-knows-what mental problems many centuries ago.
At 77 and still cheerily counting, I haven't yet found myself adrift or suffering "from a loss of meaning and unconscious boredom" in my life. (What is "meaning" in a life, anyway?) In fact, being an atheist in this ever-dumbing down world means that I am never bored; there's too much delight to be taken in the nonsense and comedy of religion.
5
Thank you, thank you. Yes, "secularist" IS a nincompoop word. When I read it, it makes the backs of my eyeballs itch.
One of Mr. Brooks' problems is the statement "You either believe in God or you don't." In other words, God exists, and we atheists just don't believe in it. The fact is that there is no god, and thus nothing to not believe in. It tires me when god-believers think that my aetheism is simply that I have not found god, and am not a believer.
3
Mr Brooks:
Since when is it "not enough to be a decent person"? As always, it is nice of you to explain the short- comings of ideas you do not understand. You cannot imagine a life without a divinity that provides an eternal retirement plan. In what way does that enable you to judge the minds of those that can? Your stunning conclusion: secularism needs the emotional rituals of religion (a sabbath?) to remove the "burden" of morality from those who live without the threat of divine judgement.
Obviously, you don't think that secularism
Since when is it "not enough to be a decent person"? As always, it is nice of you to explain the short- comings of ideas you do not understand. You cannot imagine a life without a divinity that provides an eternal retirement plan. In what way does that enable you to judge the minds of those that can? Your stunning conclusion: secularism needs the emotional rituals of religion (a sabbath?) to remove the "burden" of morality from those who live without the threat of divine judgement.
Obviously, you don't think that secularism
2
I don't think anyone, religious or irreligious, either builds their own moral philosophy from scratch OR simply receives it unthinkingly from authority. All this talk of wherever will we find the motivation ... No. Much more comes down to how we were treated as children. Those treated kindly and with love and respect don't struggle terribly in trying to treat other people that way. In this religious and unreligious people are probably on the same ground.
2
Here's a set of essays that addresses Mr. Brooks' concerns about how hard it is to live a secular atheistic life - http://agonica.com/category/roaming-the-outfield/ - using baseball as its central 'religion' Enjoy!!!
As a secularist and yes, an atheist, I have no problem in defining a moral philosophy. It is simply to be kind, to help other people, and to make the world a better place. That often means extending myself beyond what is easy or comfortable or what I really want to do at the moment. Do I often fail? Yes, indeed. But I don't fail because I lack a religious passion. I fail because like most human beings including those of religious persuasion, I am not always strong enough. From what I have seen and read of religious passion it often leads to bad outcomes like hatred of those different or like abandoning reason in the pursuit of ritual. I don't think that I find it harder to do the right thing than a religious person does. If this is the only life we have, then we must do our very best while we are here.
I take joy in the natural world and find it beautiful to reflect upon the laws of Nature, including evolution. My sacred practices are in taking walks, working in the garden, taking photographs of beautiful things, reading amazing literature. One does not have to be religious to be grateful for our world and to want to take care of it. It is not so hard to build one's own community. I find warmth and support in those friendships that I have been lucky enough to stumble upon and nurture over the years. We share more important bonds than doctrine and ritual.
I take joy in the natural world and find it beautiful to reflect upon the laws of Nature, including evolution. My sacred practices are in taking walks, working in the garden, taking photographs of beautiful things, reading amazing literature. One does not have to be religious to be grateful for our world and to want to take care of it. It is not so hard to build one's own community. I find warmth and support in those friendships that I have been lucky enough to stumble upon and nurture over the years. We share more important bonds than doctrine and ritual.
2
Dear Mr. Brooks,
What makes you think that 'secular' morality is some new ground that we must stumble about in, unguided by the past? There are great and long traditions (more than Christianity's 2,000 years) of philosophical thought on moral issues. Socrates, Plato, Kungfutze (Confucius), Laotze, and many others.
It is not as though careful consideration of morality is limited to religious people.
And let us not forget the 'morality' of the Christian religious people who marched Jews into the fires during the Black Plague that came to Europe in 1438 because they were unwilling to convert to Christianity and thus 'save Europe'.
I'll take reasoned morality over those horrors guided by the Godly, thank you.
Michael Ryan
What makes you think that 'secular' morality is some new ground that we must stumble about in, unguided by the past? There are great and long traditions (more than Christianity's 2,000 years) of philosophical thought on moral issues. Socrates, Plato, Kungfutze (Confucius), Laotze, and many others.
It is not as though careful consideration of morality is limited to religious people.
And let us not forget the 'morality' of the Christian religious people who marched Jews into the fires during the Black Plague that came to Europe in 1438 because they were unwilling to convert to Christianity and thus 'save Europe'.
I'll take reasoned morality over those horrors guided by the Godly, thank you.
Michael Ryan
2
What you call for already is being addressed. See Sam Harris' most recent book: Waking Up. Even the 18th century Enlightenment recognize a "social contract".
1
First off I think he's got secularism mixed up with humanism, and both of them mixed up with atheism and agnosticism. The notion that the state should be separate from religion doesn't really carry all the burdens and angst he's tried to heap on it.
1
"Enchanted secularism" is a good definition of religion. After all, religions are simply stories and communities and rituals that people created to help ourselves live happier and more meaningful lives. There's no reason that people can't still have inspiring stories, supportive communities, and engaging rituals that help us live happier and more meaningful lives, and that are based on reality. Ethical Societies have been doing this for over 100 years, and growing numbers of humanist communities are now as well.
Yet another false choice by the master of same. Religion gives you EVERYTHING! But "secularists" (code word for anyone who hasn't drunk the Koolaid) have to "build their own moral philosophies," and "build their own communities," and "build their own Sabbaths," and "fashion their own moral motivation." Oh, please. Isn't that what every religion had to do at some point, starting from scratch? Modern humans were around at least 190,000 years before anything like organized religion appeared on the scene. Were all those people bouncing off rocks, clueless about how to lead their lives? The same folks who harnessed fire, invented the wheel, learned astronomy, built Stonehenge, created art and music, started domesticating animals and experimenting with agriculture? But I learned something new today: "Religious people are motivated [to do the right thing] by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him." And here I thought it was all about fear of Hell and Damnation. And excommunication. And being burned at the stake. And being shunned. Why else would the Church need to lock Galileo up under house arrest? Or sell indulgences, or hold "confession?" Thanks for the insight, Mr. Brooks.
2
Rejecting the metaphysics of the religion your parents chose for you doesn't mean you must also reject its ethics.
3
As a doubting secularist, I found this article deeply thought-provoking. You write these views at the same time I have just discovered the great theological thinker Rabbi Harold Schulweis who recently passed away. I find the concept that God is within us and we have a responsibility to him and ourselves to discover this God a life-changing revelation. His words are powerful for Jews and non Jews alike. They are starting me on a new journey you so succinctly put forth.
Most peoples' actual moral codes (the ones that actually guide their behavior, good or bad) don't come from theology; they are absorbed from their cultural peers, religious or nonreligious. It's also absurd to say that secular people, in particular, have to build their own moral code from scratch--in some sense, everyone who questions a received morality has to do that. And everyone should, so as not to become part of a blind army. It's really the people whose hearts are vibrating with certainty that are the cause for concern.
4
This is, without a doubt, the most errant nonsense I have ever heard.
Not because you have misrepresented secularism, which you most definitely have. But because you present a totally false image of religion and the religious.
The one central feature of all religions throughout all of history is that they prey upon the fears and cupidity of the common man to channel them into acts of war, enslavement and suppression of others. In this manner they are the precursors of both government and corporations.
As to religion easing the assumption of a moral compass, please provide proof. You cannot, for there is none. Religion does not create empathy, it merely informs whatever empathy might already exist in certain individuals. Which is why abolitionists were few and far between in a land with churches on virtually every town square.
Today we see the residue of this puffed up mistaken view of religion in the inability of empathic religious leaders to rein in their parishioners when the mobs start to form to chase down and devour muslims, gays or atheists.
From your view it is easier to be good and religious. But if you would open your eyes you would see that it is neither easier nor harder, for being good has absolutely nothing to do with either your religion nor religion in general.
Not because you have misrepresented secularism, which you most definitely have. But because you present a totally false image of religion and the religious.
The one central feature of all religions throughout all of history is that they prey upon the fears and cupidity of the common man to channel them into acts of war, enslavement and suppression of others. In this manner they are the precursors of both government and corporations.
As to religion easing the assumption of a moral compass, please provide proof. You cannot, for there is none. Religion does not create empathy, it merely informs whatever empathy might already exist in certain individuals. Which is why abolitionists were few and far between in a land with churches on virtually every town square.
Today we see the residue of this puffed up mistaken view of religion in the inability of empathic religious leaders to rein in their parishioners when the mobs start to form to chase down and devour muslims, gays or atheists.
From your view it is easier to be good and religious. But if you would open your eyes you would see that it is neither easier nor harder, for being good has absolutely nothing to do with either your religion nor religion in general.
5
"It seems to me that if secularism is going to be a positive creed, it can’t just speak to the rational aspects of our nature. "
Big mistake right there. The point is that secularism is not a creed and never will be. It is based upon rationality, common sense, critical thinking all of which lead to empathy and what is best for the common good of all people. Religious belief is not rational and often excludes common sense and critical thinking which leads to exclusion of others and lack of empathy for others. It also fuels hatred which leads to wars and death.
Big mistake right there. The point is that secularism is not a creed and never will be. It is based upon rationality, common sense, critical thinking all of which lead to empathy and what is best for the common good of all people. Religious belief is not rational and often excludes common sense and critical thinking which leads to exclusion of others and lack of empathy for others. It also fuels hatred which leads to wars and death.
3
It seems to me that your definition of a secular quest to gain purity, self-transcendence and sanctification is what the traditional religions have come to be. Why would you expect this transcendence of the secular to be able to reach the same level of developement as the traditional religions evolvement? The secular would need to advance to the religiousity of belief in a transcendent power effecting this universe and how long do you think it would take the secularists to realize they have found God at that point of their developement?
I believe in god. I just don't believe in church centered religions. My relationship with god is vital. Its the longest relationship I have. When I was a kid I realized god is a good thing to believe in. And, that a persons got to believe in something in order to make sense of the world.
Mr Brooks seems to argue that religious people are more motivated to be moral because of their love of God, whom they desire to please. But this demonstrates a narrow understanding of secularism, which should not be viewed through such a rationalist lens.
People can be motivated by other kinds of love than just the divine. Love of family and friends can be extended to love of humanity. Love of our homes can be extended to love of the world around us.
As for the power of ritual and community, one has only to look at france where the Laicite - state enforced secular conformism in the public sphere - demonstrates the power of enforcement of like-minded worldviews on a society (with, I would argue, equally compromised results as one might find elsewhere). In fact one could argue that being French - or a republican or a member of Peta or a hedge fund manager and so on - is to worship something other than God with the same kind of fervency.
Perhaps Mr Brooks would be well served by viewing secularism not through some 18th century rationalist prism, but instead through that of 19th century Romantics for whom love was not confined only to the divine.
People can be motivated by other kinds of love than just the divine. Love of family and friends can be extended to love of humanity. Love of our homes can be extended to love of the world around us.
As for the power of ritual and community, one has only to look at france where the Laicite - state enforced secular conformism in the public sphere - demonstrates the power of enforcement of like-minded worldviews on a society (with, I would argue, equally compromised results as one might find elsewhere). In fact one could argue that being French - or a republican or a member of Peta or a hedge fund manager and so on - is to worship something other than God with the same kind of fervency.
Perhaps Mr Brooks would be well served by viewing secularism not through some 18th century rationalist prism, but instead through that of 19th century Romantics for whom love was not confined only to the divine.
Some people would call me a secularist, because I am a Unitarian. That doesn't mean we are without morals (are all the fighters for specific religious beliefs today and in the past, moral?) . We are also very spiritual. What is important, among other beliefs, is a respect for all human beings, whatever their beliefs about God. Many of us know there are mysteries, but we do not necessarily believe in the Supernatural. Nor do we profess to know what God is or wants of us. We also have emotions, just like everyone else. We do believe that our government should be secular, not tied to a particular religious belief. The Bible has a lot of wisdom, but it also has a lot of judgment and violence. In my view, it also reflects particular beliefs of its times which no longer apply, or have been found to be scientifically untrue. That is where my belief in rationality kicks in.
1
"Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action."
Why, though? Talk to atheists and others opposed to religiosity and they will point to exactly this tendency - the tendency to demand that people "do what they believe is right" - as the core of all of the wickedness that zealotry can cause.
Secular morality is actually much easier: "don't be a jerk." The modern Golden Rule. It leaves no room for insinuating yourself into another's life for no reason. It leaves no room for aggressive proselytizing. It leaves no room for violence, or prejudice, or aggression. It says, quite simply, stop being a friggin' jerk.
Secularism doesn't need to need to be a "positive creed." Or a negative creed, or a neutral creed. It needn't be a creed at all. Secularism doesn't need to be an alternative to religion. It can just be people not being jerks all the time. Overthinking that principle can cause a lot of problems.
Why, though? Talk to atheists and others opposed to religiosity and they will point to exactly this tendency - the tendency to demand that people "do what they believe is right" - as the core of all of the wickedness that zealotry can cause.
Secular morality is actually much easier: "don't be a jerk." The modern Golden Rule. It leaves no room for insinuating yourself into another's life for no reason. It leaves no room for aggressive proselytizing. It leaves no room for violence, or prejudice, or aggression. It says, quite simply, stop being a friggin' jerk.
Secularism doesn't need to need to be a "positive creed." Or a negative creed, or a neutral creed. It needn't be a creed at all. Secularism doesn't need to be an alternative to religion. It can just be people not being jerks all the time. Overthinking that principle can cause a lot of problems.
1
What the secularists in general disregard —mainly because of lack of proof— is what could have caused time and space, since human thinking must have been present in one form or other at the beginning of everything we think we know as space and time and all what they contain.
Stephen Hawking's last belief is that time and space have been self-generated; there was nothing, and then, suddenly, time and space started on their own...
From the very beginning, Evolution has followed a pattern as if a thought have been directing it, being it the making and death of stars and black holes to the making of that minimal cosmic particle we call Earth.
So, whatever moral ingrained tendencies we may have that motivates us, they must be part of that perennial or all encompassing thought that was at the beginning of everything we think we know. Call it as you wish, it has to be there, unless you want to believe that nothingness can create reality.
So, in order to become a world changing force (let's hope for the better), Secularism will have to find its proper place in the Evolution based on whatever they will want to believe that initial thought was and is...
Stephen Hawking's last belief is that time and space have been self-generated; there was nothing, and then, suddenly, time and space started on their own...
From the very beginning, Evolution has followed a pattern as if a thought have been directing it, being it the making and death of stars and black holes to the making of that minimal cosmic particle we call Earth.
So, whatever moral ingrained tendencies we may have that motivates us, they must be part of that perennial or all encompassing thought that was at the beginning of everything we think we know. Call it as you wish, it has to be there, unless you want to believe that nothingness can create reality.
So, in order to become a world changing force (let's hope for the better), Secularism will have to find its proper place in the Evolution based on whatever they will want to believe that initial thought was and is...
1
Okay, but who created God?
Did "nothingness create God?"
Why is it more satisfying for you to believe that God came from nothingness (or to believe that "God was always here") than to believe in a universe that started with a big bang (or a series of universes that cycle through big bangs and big crunches.)
The "ultimate origin" argument for God's existence which you repeat here has always struck me as ridiculous. Some questions are probably too big for human beings to ever understand. That doesn't justify inventing an invisible and all-powerful being who answers all your questions for you.
Did "nothingness create God?"
Why is it more satisfying for you to believe that God came from nothingness (or to believe that "God was always here") than to believe in a universe that started with a big bang (or a series of universes that cycle through big bangs and big crunches.)
The "ultimate origin" argument for God's existence which you repeat here has always struck me as ridiculous. Some questions are probably too big for human beings to ever understand. That doesn't justify inventing an invisible and all-powerful being who answers all your questions for you.
2
I don't even know where to begin this comment. The amount of evil that has been done in the name of religion and the belief that God was on our side is unfathomable. The actions of politicians who use religion to bolster their positions while being unwilling to help those in need are inexcusable. There are so many people who claim to be religious who refuse to help others in need.
I was raised by parents who were forced to leave Europe due to the Nazis, yet they raised us with an understanding of morality and the Golden Rule. I started out in a Presbyterian church, but ended up going to a Unitarian church. I learned to respect the beliefs of others without imposing my views. I learned the morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition without the need to believe in any god. I developed my own beliefs and I learned how to handle difficult situations without explaining them as "God's will". I behave the way I do because it is the right thing to do, not because I expect to be rewarded.
It is not an easy way to live. I have to cope with difficulties using inner strength and by accepting help from my family and friends. I provide the same support for them when needed. I do what I can to help others, both friends and strangers. I do it all because it is right.
I was raised by parents who were forced to leave Europe due to the Nazis, yet they raised us with an understanding of morality and the Golden Rule. I started out in a Presbyterian church, but ended up going to a Unitarian church. I learned to respect the beliefs of others without imposing my views. I learned the morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition without the need to believe in any god. I developed my own beliefs and I learned how to handle difficult situations without explaining them as "God's will". I behave the way I do because it is the right thing to do, not because I expect to be rewarded.
It is not an easy way to live. I have to cope with difficulties using inner strength and by accepting help from my family and friends. I provide the same support for them when needed. I do what I can to help others, both friends and strangers. I do it all because it is right.
1
"exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action." Isn't that what's going on with Islamic terrorists? No, thanks. I do not wish to burn with "a selfless, sacricficial love." (martyrdom). Enough to strive to walk in beauty, as the the Navajo say.
I would have read this article except I was too busy creating my own moral philosophy, community and practices and generally angsting over how to be a decent human. Should I kill my co-worker and steal his property, or not? Who will I brunch with on Sunday? How will I know when to stop working and take a day off? Life's such a burden when you can't just cut and paste your grandparents' moral code.
1
"You either believe in God or you don’t. Neither is the point that religious people are better than secular people."
This is a very convoluted sentence, David. The first part is very black and white, but the last part is highly relative.
I believe that God exists but I don't have a God. My childhood is filled with memories of boy scout meetings in a church basement and camping out with Catholic friends at a seminary university but I don't necessarily remember my God. My adulthood is attached to the vastness of the coastal areas, and if there is a God, he is my Sunsets - everyday.
Secularism is not an entity. It is more akin to randomness, albeit in large number. It is not acquired. It is always there, like Nature, around and surrounded. On the other hand, religion must be learned and be passed down the generations. It requires meanings that one can search for an entire life. Most of us don't go that deep, but we bonded by our "Faith."
It is a sense of "Faith" that is the key that opens the door to the religious domain. Not "Faith," but a sense of it. Modernity has made it difficult. Perhaps because people have chosen data of the known over faith of the unknowns.
Machines give us data, but what is needed is people. Humans are the children of the Almighty, and he does not give us easily the answers through us. Yet, the answers for all eternity are within us. To connect to another human, we need "Trust," not Data and Machines.
Trust is the sense that will lead to Faith.
This is a very convoluted sentence, David. The first part is very black and white, but the last part is highly relative.
I believe that God exists but I don't have a God. My childhood is filled with memories of boy scout meetings in a church basement and camping out with Catholic friends at a seminary university but I don't necessarily remember my God. My adulthood is attached to the vastness of the coastal areas, and if there is a God, he is my Sunsets - everyday.
Secularism is not an entity. It is more akin to randomness, albeit in large number. It is not acquired. It is always there, like Nature, around and surrounded. On the other hand, religion must be learned and be passed down the generations. It requires meanings that one can search for an entire life. Most of us don't go that deep, but we bonded by our "Faith."
It is a sense of "Faith" that is the key that opens the door to the religious domain. Not "Faith," but a sense of it. Modernity has made it difficult. Perhaps because people have chosen data of the known over faith of the unknowns.
Machines give us data, but what is needed is people. Humans are the children of the Almighty, and he does not give us easily the answers through us. Yet, the answers for all eternity are within us. To connect to another human, we need "Trust," not Data and Machines.
Trust is the sense that will lead to Faith.
We atheists have only "mild" feelings? Are you f-ing serious?! Faced with "unprecedented moral burdens", I sometimes choose to spend my own "set time" strolling the beach at Sunset, hiking in our nearby mountains, or volunteering at one of the many service organizations my family supports. Wherever did I find the "motivation" to do so without that "eye in the sky"?? It's a miracle! (NOT!!) I know it must seem truly burdensome to have to build my "own moral philosophy" but, I suppose, if Aristotle did it, so can I. Or, maybe, I will be like those hundreds of millions of faith-based citizens on the planet, and just read what someone else wrote.
1
Mr. Brooks unintentionally proves the secularists point by even broaching this subject. He, unlike secularists, insists on injecting faith or belief in a God into a situation where it's entirely unneeded. Could there exist a divine being mysteriously leading faithful believers through this confusing, turbulent life and us secularists are missing an important component to a fulfilling or successful survival? Sure. But most if not all answers to life seem to be answered without taking that being into account. The simplest answer is usually the best. We believe in Gods to provide sociological and psychological stability when faced with the ubiquitous chaos of existence. If I succeed in life, attributing it to a God is less self-ingratiating while blaming a God for trials or difficulties relieves the person of facing self-examination for their mistakes. I for one prefer deep self-analysis and accurately attributing events in life to the natural causes in order to prevent future mistakes and pursue the good things. 'I think, therefore I am.' Not 'I simplify complexities and cling to past traditions'.
1
I was raised in a home that was not religious. Belief in god has always seemed silly and unnecessary to me. All my life I have marveled that some people could actually seem to believe the supernatural, bizarre stories of Christianity (the religion I was surrounded by), although I could also see the beauty of some of the stories. The Bible itself is full of contradictions; vaguely worded, confusing, disagreed-upon meanings. Adherents seem to use the Bible to mean whatever they choose it to mean, which has just emphasized to me the pointlessness of the whole endeavor.
There have been times, particularly when I was younger, when I have felt the disapproval of believers, even slightly threatened. I am embarrassed to say that sometimes I would use my membership as a Unitarian Universalist as a "cover" for those times when I felt pressured to put a religious affiliation on the blank line. And, of course, examples are rife of all the violence and repression that has, and is, being done in the world in the name of religion. If there was no religion, would humans have found another standard under which to rally to do those harmful things to others?
There have been times, particularly when I was younger, when I have felt the disapproval of believers, even slightly threatened. I am embarrassed to say that sometimes I would use my membership as a Unitarian Universalist as a "cover" for those times when I felt pressured to put a religious affiliation on the blank line. And, of course, examples are rife of all the violence and repression that has, and is, being done in the world in the name of religion. If there was no religion, would humans have found another standard under which to rally to do those harmful things to others?
1
If you accept that Brooks is using "secularist" in its broader sense, then the article begins well. But then he goes on to point out that man is not a purely rational creature--true, but, so what? If he's going to say that about secularists, he should also note the effects of our irrational nature on religionists.
But he doesn't do that. Instead he draws a conclusion which simply doesn't follow: "It seems to me that if secularism is going to be a positive creed, it can’t just speak to the rational aspects of our nature. Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action."
Why assume that secularism needs to be a "positive creed?" It seems to me that it isn't a creed at all--at least not in a more traditional sense of that word. Why can't someone say "I don't want religion taught in public schools," without having to defend such a statement using religious arguments? It reminds me of Imperialists shouting at the natives until they succumb and learn to speak the Imperialist language just to get a bit of peace and quiet.
But he doesn't do that. Instead he draws a conclusion which simply doesn't follow: "It seems to me that if secularism is going to be a positive creed, it can’t just speak to the rational aspects of our nature. Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action."
Why assume that secularism needs to be a "positive creed?" It seems to me that it isn't a creed at all--at least not in a more traditional sense of that word. Why can't someone say "I don't want religion taught in public schools," without having to defend such a statement using religious arguments? It reminds me of Imperialists shouting at the natives until they succumb and learn to speak the Imperialist language just to get a bit of peace and quiet.
1
I'm assuming this column will be followed by one entitled, "Building Better Christians." Mr. Brooks assumes that God-fearing people act out of love of God rather than fear of a fiery afterlife. I choose to surround myself with a community of people who act out of love for humankind. And I didn't have to "work" to create that community. It already exists.
http://www.cheesefoodnation.com
http://www.cheesefoodnation.com
3
My antipathy for religion dates from my prepubescent childhood when my parents joined a church. I was seven years old. I found myself instinctively shrinking from people who invoked "Jesus." They were always confusing to me, emitting emotional signals that made me uncomfortable. I now understand that these people were trying to control me without my noticing. When I reached puberty, religious people started intruding into personal things about myself that I again instinctively shrank away from. I'm not saying they molested me, but they asked me questions that were none of their business. They invaded my natural boundaries. As I moved deeper into adolescence I noticed that when people around me adopted religion--not just the one my parents had adopted--they always seemed to be deeply unhappy. I was now old enough to hazard some crude guesses at the causes for their unhappiness (unhappy marriage, frightening medical diagnosis) but, still instinctively, I shrank away from these people.
I wonder how many other people have had similar experiences in childhood but then silenced those natural misgivings possibly because of sophistries from the likes of Mr. Brooks.
I wonder how many other people have had similar experiences in childhood but then silenced those natural misgivings possibly because of sophistries from the likes of Mr. Brooks.
What a patronizing screed from a deluded religionist! Secular people struggle to be good? No, Mr. Brooks, it's the other way around.
Show me the hordes of atheists, secularists and scientists burning those they disagree with at the stake, demanding that books they disagree with be removed from libraries, or films they find offensive be banned. I can show you thousands of such incidents from annals of the supposedly moral religious.
Securalists lack meaning and are bored with their own lives? What planet do you live on? What could be more boring than listening to some man in a dress drone out platitudes and nonsense from a fairytale book written by desert-dwellers two thousand years ago or more? What could be more meaningless than devoting your life to the pursuit of delusion?
And what about this: "Religions don’t just ask believers to respect others; rather each soul is worthy of the highest dignity because it radiates divine light."
Unless, of course, that soul belongs to someone who believes other than you do. Then pogroms, persecutions, crusades, and jihads are in order. It's a strange kind of respect that ISIS shows to others by sawing their heads off on camera. Or that abortion-clinic bombers and murderers show their victims.
What utter tosh! Brooks has sunk to new levels of absurdity in this paean to a pernicious set of creeds that has unleashed more suffering on more people for longer than any other other human habit of mind.
Show me the hordes of atheists, secularists and scientists burning those they disagree with at the stake, demanding that books they disagree with be removed from libraries, or films they find offensive be banned. I can show you thousands of such incidents from annals of the supposedly moral religious.
Securalists lack meaning and are bored with their own lives? What planet do you live on? What could be more boring than listening to some man in a dress drone out platitudes and nonsense from a fairytale book written by desert-dwellers two thousand years ago or more? What could be more meaningless than devoting your life to the pursuit of delusion?
And what about this: "Religions don’t just ask believers to respect others; rather each soul is worthy of the highest dignity because it radiates divine light."
Unless, of course, that soul belongs to someone who believes other than you do. Then pogroms, persecutions, crusades, and jihads are in order. It's a strange kind of respect that ISIS shows to others by sawing their heads off on camera. Or that abortion-clinic bombers and murderers show their victims.
What utter tosh! Brooks has sunk to new levels of absurdity in this paean to a pernicious set of creeds that has unleashed more suffering on more people for longer than any other other human habit of mind.
1
We don't need "better" secularists- thank you very much Mr. Brooks! We secularists don't need to be "enchanted." Rather, all of you irrational faith-based non-thinkers need to be less enchanted.
In short, we don't need your "religiously informed" (ultimate oxymoron) advice about how to be better human beings. We're already way ahead of you.
In short, we don't need your "religiously informed" (ultimate oxymoron) advice about how to be better human beings. We're already way ahead of you.
1
David, are you saying that I cannot include thou shalt not kill in my moral philosophy because Christianity already has trademarked that commandment? That I cannot have my day of rest and contemplation on Sunday (and indeed on Saturday as well) since those days are taken by religions? Being soundly secular I can cherry pick what works for me and avoid the dark aspects that are part of each and every organized religion.
There is an organized system that instructs a good life without being a religion. It is called Taoism.
I would also suggest that when Brooks says "Religions come equipped with covenantal rituals that bind people together " he should consider that while religions bind some people together they have also driven wedges between groups of people throughout history.
I would also suggest that when Brooks says "Religions come equipped with covenantal rituals that bind people together " he should consider that while religions bind some people together they have also driven wedges between groups of people throughout history.
David Brooks religious House of Cards is finally crashing to the ground, 'thank God'.
Now he's trying to give more false hope to the billions of religious masses who have already been horribly and shamelessly duped by religious false hope.
Not very nice, David.
Why not just admit to people that the Earth really does revolve around the Sun like Copernicus said instead of fighting him and the plain truth like the medieval Christian establishment did ?
Religion always has to evolve toward reality and science, not the other way around.
Religion is always the slow student in class, always in need of remedial education classes in civics, kindness, human decency and equal rights.
Now he's trying to give more false hope to the billions of religious masses who have already been horribly and shamelessly duped by religious false hope.
Not very nice, David.
Why not just admit to people that the Earth really does revolve around the Sun like Copernicus said instead of fighting him and the plain truth like the medieval Christian establishment did ?
Religion always has to evolve toward reality and science, not the other way around.
Religion is always the slow student in class, always in need of remedial education classes in civics, kindness, human decency and equal rights.
8
Humans are naturally inclined to be kind. Research shows that any act of kindness - physical, material, psychological, verbal - towards other human beings, produces Dopamine in your brain and gives you a sense of happiness and bliss.
All that a religion does is put a brake to this natural instinct by prohibiting any acts of kindness towards "heathens, infidels, and non-believers."
All that a religion does is put a brake to this natural instinct by prohibiting any acts of kindness towards "heathens, infidels, and non-believers."
1
One should not need to be religious to be good. And yes one needs to define the term being good to other humans; what moral compass are we to use in defining good and evil?
It is not a new discourse, similar discourses have been happening for centuries to establish the definition of good and evil. Humans have defined them in their own terms, with the baggage they carry of religious/social/cultural upbringings and the confines therein.
Is epitome of secularism just another progression in our intellectual evolution of understanding how the universe works?
Human beings started in believing many gods to keep the universe churning (Polytheism): migrated with intellectual evolution to many gods but would follow one (Henotheism) and then to Judaism/Christianity god as one running the whole show (Monotheism). This again became a stricter version in oneness of god in Islam.
Could it be just another intellectual evolutionary phase for humans?
What next?
It is not a new discourse, similar discourses have been happening for centuries to establish the definition of good and evil. Humans have defined them in their own terms, with the baggage they carry of religious/social/cultural upbringings and the confines therein.
Is epitome of secularism just another progression in our intellectual evolution of understanding how the universe works?
Human beings started in believing many gods to keep the universe churning (Polytheism): migrated with intellectual evolution to many gods but would follow one (Henotheism) and then to Judaism/Christianity god as one running the whole show (Monotheism). This again became a stricter version in oneness of god in Islam.
Could it be just another intellectual evolutionary phase for humans?
What next?
1
Incisive. Painful but true. The hard part of secularism is the emotional and intellectual energy it takes to weave one's own moral reality. The scary part is that, in a climate of celebration of personal choice, secularism is so easy to embrace without doing the work.
1
I am atheist, and, generally, I agree with some he wrote, but I do not agree secular people's tasks are any greater than religious people's tasks. Let's not pretend that people who identify with a religion really know anything about it (according to Pew, seculars know more about it) or follow the moral precepts of their religion. People, religious or not, build moral philosophies or maybe just habits in the same way - by living in the world and seeing what other people think, say and do. A secular person can adopt religious morals the same or better than a religious person - or not. They also have "communities." It may just be as part of a neighborhood or country or a group of friends or people interested in the same things. Frankly, in the social media age, what does community even mean? Secular people do not have to build their own Sabbaths - they are free from the restriction of being spiritual (which they probably see as an emotional or natural thing) at set times. And for the same reasons as stated above regarding moral philosophies, they need no greater reason than a religious person to be decent people. It depends on things like how they were raised and what they have experienced. I know some wonderful religious people and some who would pick your pocket if they could get away with it. I can't say I know any secularists who would pick your pocket, but, I don't really know many of them.
In his still-relevant book A Common Faith, John Dewey makes the critical distinction between the word "religious" as an adjective and "religion" as a noun, that is, between human religious experience and organized, institutional religion.
Religion as an institution embodies the collective values and beliefs of a particular society at a certain point in historical time, whereas the religious experience is that sense of connectedness that we feel with the world, nature and society around us at any time or moment.
The problem today is how to preserve the human religious experience in a world and culture vastly different from that in which traditional organized religions were developed, to preserve the collective wisdom embodied in religious tradition and to apply it to the contemporary world we live in. As Dewey put it, religion as an institution should be the flower of a healthy, integrated culture rather than its root.
Religion as an institution embodies the collective values and beliefs of a particular society at a certain point in historical time, whereas the religious experience is that sense of connectedness that we feel with the world, nature and society around us at any time or moment.
The problem today is how to preserve the human religious experience in a world and culture vastly different from that in which traditional organized religions were developed, to preserve the collective wisdom embodied in religious tradition and to apply it to the contemporary world we live in. As Dewey put it, religion as an institution should be the flower of a healthy, integrated culture rather than its root.
Mr. Brooks is inventing problems which may not exist for secularists. My wife and I are both secularists, we live decent lives and we care for others. We are spiritual but we are not involved with organized religions and we do not struggle with the challenges Mr. Brooks say we will face. It's not that difficult to live a good life. To me, his column today is a waste of space and he should keep his beliefs to himself.
This secularist thinks religion is most useful in providing a path to understanding morality, which is deeply rooted in being human. Studying religion (and philosophy!) is an anthropological tool to understanding how humans view morality; it's useful, and good. But believing in a divine creator and judge is not necessary to living a moral life, it often clouds believer's moral reasoning because they're handing it off to others and not engaging it in their own minds (really no different a problem then what Brooks worries about for non-believers,) and it ferments cult-like behaviors that can be very antisocial and destructive; encouraging the view that believers in other faiths or non-believers are less than human.
Morality doesn't come from a creed, it comes from constantly questioning and learning and a deep willingness to question yourself and if you're wrong.
Morality doesn't come from a creed, it comes from constantly questioning and learning and a deep willingness to question yourself and if you're wrong.
I was brought up in the Methodist Church, and migrated to the Episcopal Church through my wife. I don't believe in God, but I still hold christian principles as my moral compass. I have no need to invent my own moral code. I have a track to run on, and can apply my own judgment when some variation is needed. If I had been brought up as a Catholic, I could still behave in a caring way towards the less fortunate, and be an ethical person, and totally reject church sillliness like prohibitions on birth control, etc. I'll bet there are milliions just like me. And many more of different faiths who see the world this way, but don't see a need for a special title, like "secularist".
"isms"- not believing in something does not an "ism" make. Feh.
This column appears to repeat the fallacy that only religious organizations are capable of fostering a sense of community, a sense of compassion and morality, or a sense of awe and emotional enlightenment about the world. This is patently false.
One can easily live a moral life without adherence to religious dogma. Nor is there a requirement of a set sabbath to create a mental or emotional space to consider complex ideas. And the idea that individuals require religion to form communal bonds is ludicrous- secular individuals form communities just as easily as others - based not on religion but upon friendship, shared interests, and common activities.
I don't feel bored with my life at all. I can have remarkable experiences and enlightenment through interaction with friends and loved ones, encounters with great artwork and music, visits to nature, understanding of scientific discoveries, and personal creative activity. The world is a full and rich place. And as an added plus, I can listen to Bach without him hating me for being gay.
One can easily live a moral life without adherence to religious dogma. Nor is there a requirement of a set sabbath to create a mental or emotional space to consider complex ideas. And the idea that individuals require religion to form communal bonds is ludicrous- secular individuals form communities just as easily as others - based not on religion but upon friendship, shared interests, and common activities.
I don't feel bored with my life at all. I can have remarkable experiences and enlightenment through interaction with friends and loved ones, encounters with great artwork and music, visits to nature, understanding of scientific discoveries, and personal creative activity. The world is a full and rich place. And as an added plus, I can listen to Bach without him hating me for being gay.
1
"Secular people have to build their own moral philosophies." Yes, and sometimes they get it completely wrong. Mao, Stalin and Hitler were secularists who went astray. Ayn Rand went astray in the same way, but at least she didn't kill anyone, just published silly books.
Religious people can get it wrong too, but they do so by ignoring the moral codes of religion, not by inventing new and immoral codes. The religious code is there in the background, and it is easier to criticize hypocritical deviation from a religous code than the invention of a new code by someone who denies the authority of an existing religous code.
Religious people can get it wrong too, but they do so by ignoring the moral codes of religion, not by inventing new and immoral codes. The religious code is there in the background, and it is easier to criticize hypocritical deviation from a religous code than the invention of a new code by someone who denies the authority of an existing religous code.
1
I'm a Christian agnostic. I have faith. I'm just not sure in whom or in what. I love my church for the community and the moral philosophy it provides. I loath it for its doctrine, its politics, its legalism. Call it the Dogma Dilemma -- man's (and woman's) need to humanize God. We (including Mr. Brooks) have a deep and heartfelt need to formalize, organize, institutionalize -- and too often ultimately demonize -- our beliefs. Thus the dark side of organized religion, from which so many of us try to flee.
This is not how I would approach secularism at all; atheist, agnosticism, spirituality are different context that can be debated in their own right.
Secularism is about not using the powers and authority of the State on behalf of a particular faith or religion. It secures a neutral spot for state institutions in a society presumed to be composed of individuals of different convictions. It leaves the support of particular faiths to private resources and initiatives. The judicial system does not use religious canon to codify law; it relies on principles that are designed to project individual freedom and right to property and expression. Thus, it is possible to be secular and catholic, methodist, muslim or jewish.
Secular political and social system does not have to offer a solution for spiritual needs as longas it can defend the freedom to search for one.
Secularism is about not using the powers and authority of the State on behalf of a particular faith or religion. It secures a neutral spot for state institutions in a society presumed to be composed of individuals of different convictions. It leaves the support of particular faiths to private resources and initiatives. The judicial system does not use religious canon to codify law; it relies on principles that are designed to project individual freedom and right to property and expression. Thus, it is possible to be secular and catholic, methodist, muslim or jewish.
Secular political and social system does not have to offer a solution for spiritual needs as longas it can defend the freedom to search for one.
Why don't religious folks show us the way by building better religious folks? Quite frankly, their alleged love, charity and mercy could use a coat of paint.
In Mr. Brooks home country, for instance, the most upfront, in-your-face Christians are no longer associated with supporting civil rights struggles and opposition to war, as when I was a kid; they're politically synonymous with support for war, pepper-spraying protestors, and cruelty to the poor....not just in government budgets, either - personal cruelty. (See: "sundaysaretheworst.com" for stories of southern restaurant staff serving after-church crowds; they're awful.)
Being kind and generous is simply not a religious value; it's a common human value independent of religion.
I try to be decent, not out of fear of God, but because I was raised on the Golden Rule (and religion; only the former stuck), and following the Golden Rule feels good and right.
I don't think I need any "building". Thanks, though.
In Mr. Brooks home country, for instance, the most upfront, in-your-face Christians are no longer associated with supporting civil rights struggles and opposition to war, as when I was a kid; they're politically synonymous with support for war, pepper-spraying protestors, and cruelty to the poor....not just in government budgets, either - personal cruelty. (See: "sundaysaretheworst.com" for stories of southern restaurant staff serving after-church crowds; they're awful.)
Being kind and generous is simply not a religious value; it's a common human value independent of religion.
I try to be decent, not out of fear of God, but because I was raised on the Golden Rule (and religion; only the former stuck), and following the Golden Rule feels good and right.
I don't think I need any "building". Thanks, though.
"Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies. Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries. Autonomous secular people are called upon to settle on their own individual sacred convictions."
That's called "thinking for yourself" isn't it? Surely that's better than simply following some ancient set of rules without questioning or considering their value.
That's called "thinking for yourself" isn't it? Surely that's better than simply following some ancient set of rules without questioning or considering their value.
2
Good article. I'd like to reinforce the idea that we Secularists have each developed our philosophy through extensive reading, exposure to other beliefs, and, yes, self-examination. We live our philosophy and take all the credit, and all the blame, for its consequences. We do not recruit, have team mottoes, team colors, liturgies, songs, meetings, or any of that other ritualistic stuff. Secularists do not need outside affirmation, because our belief in ourselves, our spirituality, and our morality, is that strong.
1
"...The past half-century of cognitive science has shown that that creature doesn’t exist. We are not really rational animals; emotions play a central role in decision-making. " Well before any cognitive science realization, the 19th Century Romanticism added emotions and sentiments to reason. So, nothing new here!
This article is undermined by a serious "straw man" logical fallacy--Brooks assumes that the people who he calls secularists somehow have been born, raised, and cast adrift through adulthood in some vacuum entirely separate from the world of religion, history, and humanity. In fact, the "secular world" is structured around these bones, and to assume that the moral values of say, Judeo-Christianity, doesn't critically shape secularists' beliefs is patently false. It forms the backbone of secularist belief here in the United States (while I would assume other religions and histories form the backbone of other types of secularism around the world). Many secularists themselves grew up in religious households or have had their morals influenced by the great figures of history and literature. Western civilization and all that it entails permeates every facet of modern western secularism.
For the first third of his column, I loved it. But Mr. Brooks seems unable to just let go of that ol' time religion, and by the near end of it, I was gone.
The author paints an overly rosy and optimistic view of secularism and atheism which seems at odds with the results in the world. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that atheism must ultimately lead to nihilism – a belief in nothing. Absent an Author of Life, can there be any special purpose or meaning to human life? So many of our children are growing up in a moral and spiritual vacuum and this fact lies at the heart of many of the social ills that plague American society.
The “secular humanists” described in this column enjoy the fruits of the Judeo-Christian ethic and seem to believe that they can always enjoy the fruits of that tree while trying to cut down the tree itself. Unfortunately many secularists are not content in their own atheism, but try to force it upon others by systematically exterminating any trace of religion from public life.
Europe has been leading America in secularization and the results are not encouraging. Economic stagnation, plummeting birth rates, and social dissolution seem to be the results.
The “secular humanists” described in this column enjoy the fruits of the Judeo-Christian ethic and seem to believe that they can always enjoy the fruits of that tree while trying to cut down the tree itself. Unfortunately many secularists are not content in their own atheism, but try to force it upon others by systematically exterminating any trace of religion from public life.
Europe has been leading America in secularization and the results are not encouraging. Economic stagnation, plummeting birth rates, and social dissolution seem to be the results.
18
JM's comment is simply a regurgitation of Religious Right talking points and has no basis in reality. An important survey of the beliefs of major scientists by Edward Larson and Larry Witham, published in Nature, 23 July 1998 ("Leading scientists still reject God"), found that over 90% of them are seculars, and yet it would be hard to regard them in the unfavorable light flashed by JM. Traditional religious beliefs are not necessary for a positive, constructive, ethical, compassionate life philosophy. What is important is that seculars and people with more traditional beliefs can and do work together to make ours a better world. -- Edd Doerr (arlinc.org)
1
If there were an "Author of Life" who assigns a "special purpose" to humans, would meaning be possible? Being a means to some omnipotent being's ends is not ennobling; it's degrading -- both to humans (whose value is innate and unconditional) and to God (whose goodness keeps Him from treating us as though we were mere tools instead of dignified people).
2
Maybe you should travel to Europe more often.
2
Secularism is simply the belief that religion should remain separate from the government and other public functions of society. The secularists Mr. Brooks is referring to, do not necessarily reject religion or God but the insertion of religion into every aspect of American society including our political parties. The exodus from party affiliation to Independent status is almost as common in American society as is the flight from alignment with traditional religious groups, as our political system often seems more driven by religious ideology than consideration of the common good of all Americans. We don't need to build better secularists but a better society that returns to the secular roots our founders demanded.
5
Ultimately secularism becomes a vague idea that Mr. Brooks contends as a particular problem. While Christianity and other religions revolve around a singular day, the Sabbath, to reflect, I would argue that they also involve incorporating belief into everyday life, creating the moral motivations of our day to day. Similarly, secularists have the ability to reflect at any point in their lives and then apply those reflections to their moral motivations, a part of secularism Brooks identifies as a problem but can in fact an idea that can become a type of freedom. At the end of the day, I don't think that secularists suffer from loss of meaning, but they do have a burden of finding it themselves, which can become one of the most fulfilling aspects of their lives.
1
Why does Mr. Brooks assume that secularists need to increase their passion, commitment and motivation? What's wrong with just going along quietly minding your own business, doing no harm and helping where and when you can? Unfortunately, most passion and commitment in religious people usually makes them arrogant, hostile and intolerant. Passion and commitment are not necessarily good things.
12
Mr. Brooks fail to mention that one advantage of the new secularism is that it does not rely upon any book of silly mythologies as a source of moral principles.
1
I disagree that secularists are dragging this heavy burden around. I also think that David Brooks has it backwards about the source of morality for the religious. I think that humans have a profound desire to be "good" embedded in their DNA, their emotions, their brains. Studies have shown that reward/punishment in the distant future are far less effective than more immediate motivators. Hence it is that day to day immediate desire to be good that drives human behavior.
Humans have also evolved to have a certain degree of selfishness, to simply keep the resources needed for survival. Thus the balance we see in everyday life.
Finally, I think that the promise of forgiveness of Christian teachings helps people justify bad behavior. I've also noticed a tendency of the religious to justify acts such as infidelity, embezzlement, greed by "God WANTS me to have this".
Humans have also evolved to have a certain degree of selfishness, to simply keep the resources needed for survival. Thus the balance we see in everyday life.
Finally, I think that the promise of forgiveness of Christian teachings helps people justify bad behavior. I've also noticed a tendency of the religious to justify acts such as infidelity, embezzlement, greed by "God WANTS me to have this".
2
You can be secular and spirtual, if not religious.
1
There you go. Some commenters on both ends of the spectrum think that "Yer either with us or against us." I wonder who truly coined that term ;>
2
I am more familiar with Christian ethics than other religious ethics but I wonder what in a Christian ethical system is unreasonable. For instance Kant's categorial imperative, arrived at through a rational argument, could arguably be said to be a restating of the Golden Rule, one of the foundations of Christian ethics.
"I suspect that over the next years secularism will change its face and become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence, and more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification."
Seriously, Mr. Brooks? Can you look at our self-identified religious politicians today and believe that they do what they do for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification? Cutting funding to the poor and helpless, legislating corporations into giants that rule the world, and an imperious disregard the environment that defies all logic?
Please, leave the pontificating on what it means to be religious or secular to those who actually know about it.
Seriously, Mr. Brooks? Can you look at our self-identified religious politicians today and believe that they do what they do for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification? Cutting funding to the poor and helpless, legislating corporations into giants that rule the world, and an imperious disregard the environment that defies all logic?
Please, leave the pontificating on what it means to be religious or secular to those who actually know about it.
4
As an individual who would describe himself as secular, that is, not tied to any of the organized churches, I have found that my brethren are more sensitive to the wonders of existence, more in awe of its mysteries, more outraged by injustice, more committed to peace on Earth, more spiritual in fact than most if not any of those who identify themselves as religious. I am deeply moved by the message of Christianity, have enormous respect for Jewish history and culture, and for all that Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism have given the world. As a bonus, I don't have to surrender my reason. It's a very good feeling.
2
This was a good read, as always, but secularism should not be equated with atheism. You can be a believing member of a religion and secular, too. Secularism is kind of a sliding scale that determines the relative weight of religion in our lives, public and private. Read Charles Taylor's A Secular Age (well, maybe not all 900 pages of it!) for more on this.
As far as I understand, Brooks is taking a position that morality can come only from a dogma accepted through faith, or a totally individual data-driven worldview where each person must build his own fact base. I can understand that many conservatives reject secular community values, but such values have been important parts of civilization for millennia. For example, I am willing to take moral actions right now on the basis that the scientific community thinks global warning is a problem and that vaccines are safe and effective. I still have a moral responsibility to monitor these working assumptions in case future developments suggest a new view is required.
Marcus Aurelius said it nicely: Nothing whatsoever—neither popularity, nor wealth, nor power, or the pleasures of the flesh, nor anything of the sort—should compete in your affection for the good that flows from reason and neighborliness. Although for a while these inferior loves may seem quite compatible with an orderly life, they will soon overpower and destroy you. Simply and freely choose what is best, and never let go of it.
That is a sound secularist creed. I wonder why Mr. Brooks feels he has the authority to judge it as wanting. Why, for example, must we institutionalize a Sabbath? My retreat consists of morning yoga and meditation. I don't need other people to do the same thing at the same time. Swimming laps was also a powerful meditation time because of the regular breathing required.
I have a community to help me in my search for meaning -- the Unitarian-Universalist congregation where I worship.
Secularists look not to what a person believes, but to what they do, and therein lies the challenge. What things can't we do? That is not a simple question.
Though they mouth the same prayers, other religionists also have their own Credo too -- they, for example, use birth control when the church tells them not to because they have their own moral structure. They espouse war when Jesus told them to love one another. Secularists want to cut out the hypocrisy and live a purer life.
That is a sound secularist creed. I wonder why Mr. Brooks feels he has the authority to judge it as wanting. Why, for example, must we institutionalize a Sabbath? My retreat consists of morning yoga and meditation. I don't need other people to do the same thing at the same time. Swimming laps was also a powerful meditation time because of the regular breathing required.
I have a community to help me in my search for meaning -- the Unitarian-Universalist congregation where I worship.
Secularists look not to what a person believes, but to what they do, and therein lies the challenge. What things can't we do? That is not a simple question.
Though they mouth the same prayers, other religionists also have their own Credo too -- they, for example, use birth control when the church tells them not to because they have their own moral structure. They espouse war when Jesus told them to love one another. Secularists want to cut out the hypocrisy and live a purer life.
2
Mr Brooks lectures us again, and this time on what we have to do to live "well'.
"Secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation..." What a depressing, and negative view of humanity. As if we can't do good works without the fear of retribution from some celestial policeman driving us on.
In the end, Mr Brooks decides for us that we "secularists" need less reason and more emotion. What patronizing nonsense!
"Secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation..." What a depressing, and negative view of humanity. As if we can't do good works without the fear of retribution from some celestial policeman driving us on.
In the end, Mr Brooks decides for us that we "secularists" need less reason and more emotion. What patronizing nonsense!
4
Living in a country where freedom of and from religion, where all you need to create a religion is to hang up a shingle and proclaim divine inspiration and all you have to do to change religions is to go to a different meeting place or just stop going to any, deciding which tenets among many of the sometimes contradictory tenets of the religions of the world to follow is the same issue for the religious as well as the secular. Belonging to a religion doesn't absolve one of making choices on what is or is not moral behavior. Religious people do not rely on some "eye in the sky" to tell them what to do, they rely on other people and texts that tell them what to do solely based on those people's and those texts' somewhat dubious claims to a connection to that "eye in the sky." Like a marriage, religions is something that you decide every day, every minute, whether you want to belong to it and follow its conventions. If not, it's not hard to go into a different direction.
Secularism has increased not only because of knowledge displacing myth based faith but also by the growth of religious fundamentalism and extremism.
As science reveals the beauty of existence it also replaces blind faith with knowledge and reason. If God is given credit for those things we don't understand, the "God of Gaps" is diminished with increased understanding. Few, if any, religions handle this well. Secularism becomes the only refuge for those who think and accept the wonder of revealed discovery.
As science reveals the beauty of existence it also replaces blind faith with knowledge and reason. If God is given credit for those things we don't understand, the "God of Gaps" is diminished with increased understanding. Few, if any, religions handle this well. Secularism becomes the only refuge for those who think and accept the wonder of revealed discovery.
I almost always read columns from Mr. Brooks because they are so thoughtful, philosophical, and - above all - devoid of the breathless rants and self-interest typical of so many editorial pieces.
But he has lost me on this one. I am puzzled and even a little offended. Human beings need some kind of collective glue and, presumably, authoritarian leadership to develop a moral compass? Really? We secularists should emulate organized religious institutions in order to live as responsible global citizens? I believe just the opposite is true: that those who subscribe to conventional religious dogma must exercise even greater willpower and determination to disassociate themselves from proscribed teachings that conflict with their personal views. In many cases, this is what drives people out of organized religion in the first place.
No doubt some atheists will look for like-minded groups to join, and that's fine. Maybe some of them seek communal reinforcement or validation, and I hope they find it. But I don't believe it's necessary for most of us.
But he has lost me on this one. I am puzzled and even a little offended. Human beings need some kind of collective glue and, presumably, authoritarian leadership to develop a moral compass? Really? We secularists should emulate organized religious institutions in order to live as responsible global citizens? I believe just the opposite is true: that those who subscribe to conventional religious dogma must exercise even greater willpower and determination to disassociate themselves from proscribed teachings that conflict with their personal views. In many cases, this is what drives people out of organized religion in the first place.
No doubt some atheists will look for like-minded groups to join, and that's fine. Maybe some of them seek communal reinforcement or validation, and I hope they find it. But I don't believe it's necessary for most of us.
3
What strikes me is that these comments, in the aggregate, are so much more intelligent and well thought out than what Mr. Brooks has written.
I am a secularist who has never needed an external moral compass. Nor did my atheist parents, nor has my wife, and nor have my children.
Mr. Brooks, in general in his columns, should try to be a bit less patronizing.
I am a secularist who has never needed an external moral compass. Nor did my atheist parents, nor has my wife, and nor have my children.
Mr. Brooks, in general in his columns, should try to be a bit less patronizing.
9
As a lifelong atheist, I experience none of the problems Mr. Brooks describes. I get my morals and ethics from the same source as religious people do: from growing up in a human family, community and society.
Religious people (Christians) do not get their ethics from the Bible. It cannot be used as a guidebook to morals because it is often immoral and vile, contradictory and insufficient.
We seculars and atheists do not have an empty space that is making our lives empty and miserable. I understand that a religious person might think so, but in reality we get our purpose in life from our family, friends, work, nature, and so on.
It feels genuinely odd that a religion could provide something that we need. Maybe religious people have a cyst (or in the worst case even a malignant tumor) instead of a vital organ, and that's a reason we seculars are just fine?
Religious people (Christians) do not get their ethics from the Bible. It cannot be used as a guidebook to morals because it is often immoral and vile, contradictory and insufficient.
We seculars and atheists do not have an empty space that is making our lives empty and miserable. I understand that a religious person might think so, but in reality we get our purpose in life from our family, friends, work, nature, and so on.
It feels genuinely odd that a religion could provide something that we need. Maybe religious people have a cyst (or in the worst case even a malignant tumor) instead of a vital organ, and that's a reason we seculars are just fine?
2
David ( nearly) always presents himself as a deep thinker only to throw in a clunker so ill conceived that I wish I could argue it face to face just to knock some sense into the guy.
Example: "Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries."
Well yes they do David. Creeds that are invested with bigotry, resentment and a not to subtle capacity for evil.
If secularist starts without that "creed" problem they are ahead of the game.
We will never hear of Athiests killing Agnostics over who's God is the real God.
Example: "Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries."
Well yes they do David. Creeds that are invested with bigotry, resentment and a not to subtle capacity for evil.
If secularist starts without that "creed" problem they are ahead of the game.
We will never hear of Athiests killing Agnostics over who's God is the real God.
8
For the sake of what I'm saying there are two different mentalities.One is a person who has to be highly motivated to do right witch I find prevalent in people who are religious and what draws them to the religion of their choice.They need to be saved. As a person who has to be highly motivated to do bad things (that I haven't done in thirty years) I don't want to be associated with people who are motivated to do wrong because they will at some time revert because that is their nature and they think they can be saved. In other words they think they can get away with it.
Interesting column. But to it should be added that for a very long time many thousands of people who are essentially seculars have found "spiritual" homes in Unitarian Universalist, Ethical Society and Humanistic Jewish congregations across the US, not to mention assorted Humanist groups. These 1,000-plus established institutions are inheritors of the 18th century Enlightenment and its concomitants.
Another consideration, this one troubling: While about 20 % of US eligible voters are "seculars" or unaffiliateds, the November 4 exit polls found that only 12% of the voters were in that category. We need to ask why.
Edd Doerr (arlinc.org)
Another consideration, this one troubling: While about 20 % of US eligible voters are "seculars" or unaffiliateds, the November 4 exit polls found that only 12% of the voters were in that category. We need to ask why.
Edd Doerr (arlinc.org)
34
It would be helpful to study the various creeds, eras and styles of world art. That system is what you are really speaking about. Secularism as a rising Internationalism that transcends borders or maybe even the "one true church." Walk very carefully and get your ducks in a row. Tillich said simply that faith was what you were Ultimately Concerned with in your life. That the definition of God as the core principle whatever that happened to be. Religion is a cultural institution time and space bound just like Art. All the arguments against religion have to do with proselytizing for some kind of universal standard. Not unlike your version of secularism. However, once there was a Secular Covenant with the founding fathers until it was replaced in the Industrial Revolution with a Drone Contract for workers and the destruction of local culture. Secularism is useful if you know and can comprehend mega systems. The problem is not religion but parochialism and provincialism, as in the Middle East today.
The appeal and beauty of being a "secular individual' is that I don't have to do anything Brooks claims is "necessary". I don't have to build community or observe "sabbath" [whatever that meanth] or "fashion our own morality to be a "decent" person. Religion and those who practice it are simply an alien culture. Usually, I avoid even discussing religion same as I avoid discussing a sport or any other activity that I find uninteresting, vulgar, or otherwise repulsive.
The condescension among the religious and those who discuss secularism, is also to be avoided. Brooks quotes Zuckerman "They [secularists] may not be articulate about why they behave as they do". No, we secularists can't prove a negative. But the idea that there is a sentient god behind all creation flies in the face of reason. The enormity and incomprehensibility of the universe and the absurdity of existence coupled with death scares the insides out of religious people; they can't cope, so they invent a cast of characters, a disneyland to put them in, and perpetuate their myths by force if necessary.
Simply because a backward people in a barren desert a couple thousand years ago, frightened of their own impending deaths, badly nourished and dehydrated, fashioned the nonsense of a sentient god-dictator doesn't mean that we all should follow that myth forevermore. After all, Brooks doesn't believe in Zeus and the Zeuscateers or any of that lot now. Or does he?
The condescension among the religious and those who discuss secularism, is also to be avoided. Brooks quotes Zuckerman "They [secularists] may not be articulate about why they behave as they do". No, we secularists can't prove a negative. But the idea that there is a sentient god behind all creation flies in the face of reason. The enormity and incomprehensibility of the universe and the absurdity of existence coupled with death scares the insides out of religious people; they can't cope, so they invent a cast of characters, a disneyland to put them in, and perpetuate their myths by force if necessary.
Simply because a backward people in a barren desert a couple thousand years ago, frightened of their own impending deaths, badly nourished and dehydrated, fashioned the nonsense of a sentient god-dictator doesn't mean that we all should follow that myth forevermore. After all, Brooks doesn't believe in Zeus and the Zeuscateers or any of that lot now. Or does he?
4
Normal measures of success are outdated. In 45 years of a career of coaching and mediation often at the highest level, I've come to stand for a new bottom line that judges the efficiency, rationality, and productivity of our corporations, institutions, education, healthcare, legal, government, corporations and personal behavior on how people are "being with" each other, themselves, and the environment. Measurement, growth, profit, are useful tools but what really matters to nourish human energy needed for ongoing success hasn't been the intent to maximize money and
power, but the intent to maximize caring, freedom, personal responsibility and noble purpose. This means never giving up your own or others freedom; compassion, personal growth as a condition of participation; expanding human energy; generous listening, humility, social and economic justice; nonviolence and encouraging people to transcend a utilitarian approach to nature and other human beings.
Though this Conversation comes from a profound commitment to betterment in companies, government and professionals, it is fundamentally about transformation of the individual and the impact this has on everything they touch.
power, but the intent to maximize caring, freedom, personal responsibility and noble purpose. This means never giving up your own or others freedom; compassion, personal growth as a condition of participation; expanding human energy; generous listening, humility, social and economic justice; nonviolence and encouraging people to transcend a utilitarian approach to nature and other human beings.
Though this Conversation comes from a profound commitment to betterment in companies, government and professionals, it is fundamentally about transformation of the individual and the impact this has on everything they touch.
The creed of secularism does have a "god" which serves to "arouse the "higher emotions" and "exalt the passions." It's called money, stuff, things. And its primary prayer consists in kneeling to distractions particularly those which appeal to the most base desires like sex and that good ole standby, violence.
Whatever dysfunctions human beings were able to twist out of traditional religions and whatever rational enlightenment today's secularists argue predominate in their superior creed, it doesn't look to me like we're headed to any better place than we were when those 'superstitious' religions prevailed.
Whatever dysfunctions human beings were able to twist out of traditional religions and whatever rational enlightenment today's secularists argue predominate in their superior creed, it doesn't look to me like we're headed to any better place than we were when those 'superstitious' religions prevailed.
The need to stratify humanity into definitive and distinct groups is the major source of conflict. A definitive dividing line between secularism and religiosity indicates mutual exclusion, and that is simply not true regardless of who draws that line. One can be individually religious but politically secular.
at least I like to think of myself that way; holding the tenets of faith as an individual, but living a secular life within society with common laws, ethics, and values that equate rather than making distinct people's identity.
at least I like to think of myself that way; holding the tenets of faith as an individual, but living a secular life within society with common laws, ethics, and values that equate rather than making distinct people's identity.
3
Why should a secularist seek a "spiritual" life ? I don't believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy and do not seek the metaphysical but consider as friends some who do. Only the religious engage in sectarian war and the secularist is quite willing to leave them to it. I would ask of the religious only to keep it to themselves privately and away from the public forum. Do not seek to impose any part of it on others, and remember that imposing religion on children is a form of child abuse.
6
There's a surprise. Santa Claus and the tooth fairy don't exist? OMG, then I must renounce my faith immediately and become a mutually exclusive secular.
We can't anchor religion itself to the criminal activity of of people. This is dilemma that those insist on labeling terrorism with a particular religion fail to exit. If you kill based sectarian rules then you are no longer a religious person. Exclusion is not the answer.
We can't anchor religion itself to the criminal activity of of people. This is dilemma that those insist on labeling terrorism with a particular religion fail to exit. If you kill based sectarian rules then you are no longer a religious person. Exclusion is not the answer.
2
It's not a suitable task for Brooks to build a better secularist, but it is the task of us all to build a better America, one where the core wishes of the Founding Fathers in regard to separation of Church and State are respected. In God We Trust and One Nation under God are just the tips of the iceberg field that is littered with creationism and all sorts of denial of science, denial, that is, of rational conclusions and models built on actual and repeated observations.
The assumption that all morals and ethics come from God via Moses and sundry Jewish prophets is simply another anti-intellectual symptom of religious organizations.
The assumption that all morals and ethics come from God via Moses and sundry Jewish prophets is simply another anti-intellectual symptom of religious organizations.
1
Please David, don't talk for me. I experience transcendence every time I hear great music, art and literature. That Rembrandt can, with a pint brush, create a person staring at us with eyes as deep as the ours, Mozart's music and the miracle of Shakespeare's plays is, well, miraculous? These were human beings who saw into the heart of humanity and there is nothing divine about them.
Let go David, and grow up. The Bible is flawed, just like the men who wrote it, and creating dogma around it is for frightened people who cannot face reality nor make an autonomous decisions.
Let go David, and grow up. The Bible is flawed, just like the men who wrote it, and creating dogma around it is for frightened people who cannot face reality nor make an autonomous decisions.
14
"Christianity doesn’t rely just on a mild feeling like empathy; it puts agape at the center of life, a fervent and selfless sacrificial love."
Indeed, among other powerfully orienting convictions. Contributing to the American spiritual muddle Mr. Brooks addresses is the reality that Christians in the pews every week, at least those of the mainline Protestant sort I saw from behind the pulpit for 35 years, are much like secularists in their actual practice. They consider themselves autonomous and pay more attention to daily life than eternal life. Even the most active of such Christians more frequently experience community projects and medical missions to Central America, for instance, to be "spiritually" enriching far more than deeply engaging sacred texts or long, focused contemplation. More than a few, including lay and clergy leaders, consciously reject many of the core tenets of even the most liberally interpreted Christian faith.
I could not agree more with Mr. Brooks' observations about the challenges for self-described secularists. It's just that the same challenges are faced by an enormous portion of America's self-describe Christians. I've known many, many warmly loving people, while living out my vocation, but precious few whose lives I'd describe (in my admittedly deconstructed, yet no less devoted, way) as having put "agape at the center of life, a fervent and selfless sacrificial love."
Secularists are not the only ones with serious soul searching to do.
Indeed, among other powerfully orienting convictions. Contributing to the American spiritual muddle Mr. Brooks addresses is the reality that Christians in the pews every week, at least those of the mainline Protestant sort I saw from behind the pulpit for 35 years, are much like secularists in their actual practice. They consider themselves autonomous and pay more attention to daily life than eternal life. Even the most active of such Christians more frequently experience community projects and medical missions to Central America, for instance, to be "spiritually" enriching far more than deeply engaging sacred texts or long, focused contemplation. More than a few, including lay and clergy leaders, consciously reject many of the core tenets of even the most liberally interpreted Christian faith.
I could not agree more with Mr. Brooks' observations about the challenges for self-described secularists. It's just that the same challenges are faced by an enormous portion of America's self-describe Christians. I've known many, many warmly loving people, while living out my vocation, but precious few whose lives I'd describe (in my admittedly deconstructed, yet no less devoted, way) as having put "agape at the center of life, a fervent and selfless sacrificial love."
Secularists are not the only ones with serious soul searching to do.
I believe Mr. Brooks has "buried the lede," in that his last point might well account for most if not all of the rest.
To the extent that a secular creed seeks to ground itself in "pure reason," as Mr. Brooks notes, it appeals to at best a fractured model of human existence. It has taken me many years to make peace with the fact that unruly emotions are to be celebrated, not subordinated to "reason."
But as a long-lapsed Catholic, I still seek the secular version of the thrill I would occasionally receive from the chanting of the Proclamation of Christmas at Midnight Mass.
To the extent that a secular creed seeks to ground itself in "pure reason," as Mr. Brooks notes, it appeals to at best a fractured model of human existence. It has taken me many years to make peace with the fact that unruly emotions are to be celebrated, not subordinated to "reason."
But as a long-lapsed Catholic, I still seek the secular version of the thrill I would occasionally receive from the chanting of the Proclamation of Christmas at Midnight Mass.
1
This column is full of incorrect assumptions. Mr. Brooks assumes that "positive secularism" requires all the accoutrements of religion: a creed, a Sabbath, a community, or even a "moral philosophy" (as if there are not plenty of those in existence that do not rely on the notion of god). None of these are necessary to live a good and "moral" life without what I consider the creepy baggage of an all-knowing and all-seeing god.
Furthermore, this country would be far better off if it was more secular, with less religious superstition sticking its nose into science and politics.
Furthermore, this country would be far better off if it was more secular, with less religious superstition sticking its nose into science and politics.
1
Why do I not see, in either column or comments, the two words Unitarian Universalist? Hello?
Boy, do you show a total lack of understanding of secular people. We also have evolved over centuries with community practices and philosophies that have been handed down without the we vs. them mentality.
1
I have to give Mr. Brooks credit for his public displays of his musings over spiritual and moral issues. This has become quite an exercise. As Mr. Brooks examines what it means to be a secularist vis-à-vis his own religious and moral underpinnings, he invites a critique on his beliefs. In reading the article and then the comments, I say “bravo” to David for opening up this dialogue.
1
In my small way, with the little time I have, I spend each day trying to make the world a better place for those less fortunate. I don't need religion to give me a moral philosophy, a community, a Sabbath, a moral motivation, or anything else. I don't call myself a secularist. I'm just a human being, and no different from a Somalian, Saudi, Serb, Swiss or Saskatchewan.
Your column could have been written by a sorority sister, pitying those who shun Greek life. How miserable the Greek-deprived existence must seem: those poor girls, stumbling about in their dark lonely lives without any meaning. No friends, no parties, no rituals -- how delusional those girls are, to think their lives are happy and free! If only they could see the light, and admit that pledging is the one thing, the only thing, that will bring them enlightenment...
Your column could have been written by a sorority sister, pitying those who shun Greek life. How miserable the Greek-deprived existence must seem: those poor girls, stumbling about in their dark lonely lives without any meaning. No friends, no parties, no rituals -- how delusional those girls are, to think their lives are happy and free! If only they could see the light, and admit that pledging is the one thing, the only thing, that will bring them enlightenment...
2
"Secular people have to choose their own communities and come up with their own practices".. Why? Can't I choose all communities? Must I cling to my Catholic community and shun all others? Can I only have Jewish friends? Are evangelicals the only ones I should associate with?
Philosophy is a big field, unless you only count religious philosophy.
Philosophy is a big field, unless you only count religious philosophy.
As usual, the conservative tends to value the individual over the collective. But, without some form of collective such as an effective form of government by the consent of the governed, this individualism cannot be sustained. Thus, systems of collective morality and thought, be they governmental or religious in nature, are vital to the continued health of the culture as a whole. Secularism, particularly of a kind that is highly individual, is enormously hard to sustain.
Gee whiz David, it sounds like you think we need a way to amuse all us secularists since we don't have pre-digested rituals to fall back on. But maybe we, like three year olds, can "see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower".
1
Mr. Brooks assumes that religion and sanctimonious belief automatically lead to better behavior. Rather religion very often gives those believers the justification and ability to deny that they have done anything wrong and to deny the the sanctity of others lives if they do not believe as you believe. Hypocrisy seems easier when you can claim some higher power is on your side. How many brutal behaviors are glossed over in this way. The hard examination of the self that is required to live a valuable life without accepting automatic dogma can build a character or wisdom in the face of the contradictions of our often seemingly senseless world and the awe and wonder that we exist at allis something that anyone can know if your life is open to it.
1
Gosh, Brooks makes it sound like secularism is completely unliveable. We have to build our own moral philosophies, communities, sabbaths, and moral motivation! No, secularism doesn't require all this work. It's not a way of life, it's just a response to a lack of scientific evidence for an imaginary sky-god. It just works. It's like that old French joke: "It works in practice, but how will it ever work in theory?"
3
Secularism: "It just works."
Isn't that the key complaint about religion, that adherents don't explain but merely believe they "just work"?
Isn't that the key complaint about religion, that adherents don't explain but merely believe they "just work"?
One of the great thinkers in the latter part of the 19th century, Robert Ingersoll, had his to say: " if we are, in any way, bound by the belief of our fathers, the doctrine will hold good back to the first people who had a religion; and if this doctrine is true, we ought now be believers in that first religion. In other words we would all be barbarians. You cannot show real respect to your parents by perpetuating their errors. If you wish to reflect credit upon your parents, accomplish more than they did, solve problems that they could not understand, and build better than they knew. Why should a son who has examined a subject, throw away his reason and adopt the views of his mother? Is not such a course dishonorable to both?
The book is entitled, "Some Mistakes of Moses." You might enjoy it, David.
The book is entitled, "Some Mistakes of Moses." You might enjoy it, David.
1
How presumptuously hypocritical (as per usual) for David Brooks to sermonize secularists about being good human beings while he regularly supports and defends Draconian GOP policies which inflict needless suffering on millions of the most vulnerable amongst us.
"Cast the first stone" much, David?
"Cast the first stone" much, David?
5
Yeah nothing's as articulate as people who believe in something without reason or evidence. I also don't know how I'll ever build my own sabbath, rather than, you know, just calling it Saturday.
2
Well I disagree with almost everything written in this column, as an atheist of more than 40 years standing I don't feel I need more passion or commitment in my life at all, I'm very passionate and committed just not to the things the religious are.
Oh and Secularism seems to have been redefined at least to this Brit, secularism means not favouring any one particular religion over any other or over none, it doesn't mean you are an atheist or agnostic, it is perfectly possible to be a Christain secularist, in fact in the UK that describes the vast majority of the religious.
Oh and Secularism seems to have been redefined at least to this Brit, secularism means not favouring any one particular religion over any other or over none, it doesn't mean you are an atheist or agnostic, it is perfectly possible to be a Christain secularist, in fact in the UK that describes the vast majority of the religious.
Mr Brooks continues with his muddles logic by insisting that religion serves to provide a "drive" for moral behavior. "Religious people are motivated by their love for God and a fervent desire to please Him. Secularists have to come up with their own powerful drive that will compel sacrifice and service." What rubbish. That is simply another way of stating that a person can abdicate their own responsibility for their actions by stating that God told me to act as I did. And that takes one down a long and ugly path of all of the horrors committed in the name of religion and God.
Yesterdays Times provides a nice, rational and emotionally satisfying counterpoint to Mr. Brooks. Massimo Pigliuci discusses Stoicism. (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/?hp&am...®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region.)
One of the tenets described is thinking of oneself as part of an ever widening circle of associations that includes "family and friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, humanity as a whole, all the way up to Nature itself." These ever widening circles of consideration are built in to a secularist philosophy that espouses harmonious moral and environmental communities as the desired end result. No need for a Sabbath, no need for ritualized assertions of moral superiority. In short the Golden Rule writ large.
Yesterdays Times provides a nice, rational and emotionally satisfying counterpoint to Mr. Brooks. Massimo Pigliuci discusses Stoicism. (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/?hp&am...®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region.)
One of the tenets described is thinking of oneself as part of an ever widening circle of associations that includes "family and friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, humanity as a whole, all the way up to Nature itself." These ever widening circles of consideration are built in to a secularist philosophy that espouses harmonious moral and environmental communities as the desired end result. No need for a Sabbath, no need for ritualized assertions of moral superiority. In short the Golden Rule writ large.
Mr. Brooks, I hope you aren't confusing secularism with atheism. I am compelled to point this out. I am agnostic, which means I don't spend a lot of time thinking about whether there is a personal God and appearing in church to show that I am holier than thou. But even atheists in this country, and in the Western World at least, have been brought up in a Judeo-Christian society. Of course we believe in the Golden Rule and taking care of our neighbors. It seems to me the religious folks are the ones who don't follow these guidelines, except with respect to their own fellow strict believers. They want to use the church and the word of God to control people. Agnostics, secularists, and atheists who don't pay much attention to the existence of a supreme being or to scripture, are, like myself, humanists. This is a reflection of the advancement of our culture.
1
Sir, I appreciate your insights, but as someone who has spent many years on this earth among religious people you seem to have a naive view of them. I think I can safely say that if a majority of religious people believed and acted the way you describe, the growth of secularism would not be happening. I much prefer my simple golden rule morality.
"The point is that an age of mass secularization is an age in which millions of people have put unprecedented moral burdens upon themselves. People who don’t know how to take up these burdens don’t turn bad, but they drift. They suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives."
Speak for yourself, Mr. Brooks. Living in a political vacuum as we do lends itself to turning away from God and looking for some logical atmosphere in which to exist.
Speak for yourself, Mr. Brooks. Living in a political vacuum as we do lends itself to turning away from God and looking for some logical atmosphere in which to exist.
Here is the key to the problem: "Past secular creeds were built on the 18th-century enlightenment view of man as an autonomous, rational creature who could reason his way to virtue. The past half-century of cognitive science has shown that that creature doesn’t exist. We are not really rational animals; emotions play a central role in decision-making, the vast majority of thought is unconscious, and our minds are riddled with biases. We are not really autonomous; our actions are powerfully shaped by others in ways we are not even aware of."
Is this not the struggle of all religions - making ourselves overcome our base animal instincts? Isn't this really why religions exit?
I am waiting for the advent of secular terrorists - should be interesting.
Is this not the struggle of all religions - making ourselves overcome our base animal instincts? Isn't this really why religions exit?
I am waiting for the advent of secular terrorists - should be interesting.
Why does secularism need to be a creed? It's NOT a religion, that's the point. Morality is independent of religious belief or creed. I'm just happy that more and more people are willing to admit to atheism.
What on earth is your evidence that secularists need to be built better? And how do you write an entire column on secularism and never mention the word humanist?
The American Humanist Association has a website that would have offered you several definitions that offer the prospects of a full life well connected to community. One quoted from the Bristol Humanist Group reads as follows:
"Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. "
Another reads " Humanism is a progressive life stance that, without supernaturalism , affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity".
Yes, David, like religious groups, secularists have organizations that provide support and like minded dialogue. And as far as I know, we generally do not go to war to impose our views.
KA
The American Humanist Association has a website that would have offered you several definitions that offer the prospects of a full life well connected to community. One quoted from the Bristol Humanist Group reads as follows:
"Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. "
Another reads " Humanism is a progressive life stance that, without supernaturalism , affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity".
Yes, David, like religious groups, secularists have organizations that provide support and like minded dialogue. And as far as I know, we generally do not go to war to impose our views.
KA
Secularists do not go around killing people because they are not secularists,but religious people will kill people who do not share their beliefs or interpretation of scriptures. How many wars and people killed in the last 2000 years have been fought in the name of "the prince of peace"?.
1
Now a secular agnostic, I am a former Catholic who, with 16 years of Catholic school education, understands the perspective Mr. Brooks is writing from when he writes that he "can’t avoid the conclusion that the secular writers are so eager to make the case for their creed, they are minimizing the struggle required to live by it."
Organized religion operates like the NFL. Last weekend, the Patriots and Seahawks brought together over 110 million people in an out of this world spectacle of absolute meaninglessness. The emotional reactions of the fans were real and true even though nothing of significance happened. To participate emotionally in a sport, or a religion, one has only to believe.
Mr Brooks assumes it was a struggle for me to walk away from The Spectacle, grab my rucksack and coat and go hunt wild mushrooms. But it was not a struggle to suspend my belief because once I walked away I found a much more fascinating world. I've read that the mathematicians think there are perhaps 8 dimensions and that physicists think maybe 11. Humans aren't even capable of fully comprehending what the world they live in is, much less why it exists.
Native Americans got it right, it's The Great Mystery and that's all humans can say about it because that's what it is.
And my secular agnostic compassion comes from the fact that we are all in this together and since we are all we have, we will either accommodate and help each other or we'll destroy each other.
Organized religion operates like the NFL. Last weekend, the Patriots and Seahawks brought together over 110 million people in an out of this world spectacle of absolute meaninglessness. The emotional reactions of the fans were real and true even though nothing of significance happened. To participate emotionally in a sport, or a religion, one has only to believe.
Mr Brooks assumes it was a struggle for me to walk away from The Spectacle, grab my rucksack and coat and go hunt wild mushrooms. But it was not a struggle to suspend my belief because once I walked away I found a much more fascinating world. I've read that the mathematicians think there are perhaps 8 dimensions and that physicists think maybe 11. Humans aren't even capable of fully comprehending what the world they live in is, much less why it exists.
Native Americans got it right, it's The Great Mystery and that's all humans can say about it because that's what it is.
And my secular agnostic compassion comes from the fact that we are all in this together and since we are all we have, we will either accommodate and help each other or we'll destroy each other.
Neither Brooks nor Zuckerman have adequate background learning to be leading this debate. Zuckerman as a sociologist ought to have enough theoretical understanding of anthropology to know that the range of social behavior which enables successful functioning of social groups is a (biologically) evolved characteristic which is hard-wired into our species. No sophistry is required to explain how humans find "morality" without reference to animistic religion; it's already in us, and develops within each person as they mature within their social environment. And atheism cannot be passive rejection of theistic myth going forward: for the long-term good of humanity atheists and secularists must insist that theism is positively nonfactual and that that nonfactuality is positively harmful to society and scientific endeavor and must be repressed through reprogramming and re-educating the society. Indefinite peaceful coexistence between theistic religion (animism) and science and secularism was never in the cards and the only rationally acceptable resolution is for intellectuals to work actively toward the suppression of religion and its replacement with healthy secular thinking...
1
Many commenters here condemn religions, especially those that require belief in something unprovable, as the sources of great suffering, and I agree with them. But let's not forget the great misery caused by adherence to certain social, economic, and political philosophies: Communism and Socialism; National Socialism; Fascism; Capitalism; Racism--all have been used recently as excuses for inflicting misery and death on fellow humans. And many of them have been completely secularist.
These problems seem to arise when philosophies or systems of thought become more important than the people around us. Perhaps the lesson is, treat the universe and those things in it with respect and in ways that are sustainable.
These problems seem to arise when philosophies or systems of thought become more important than the people around us. Perhaps the lesson is, treat the universe and those things in it with respect and in ways that are sustainable.
"Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action."
Yeah. Can't wait for the Secularist autodafes !
Yeah. Can't wait for the Secularist autodafes !
Secularists, among whom I count myself, indeed do not derive their morality from some all-seeing, all-knowing entity in the sky. That would be silly.
This said, however, moral codes spring from somewhere beyond the inner clockwork of human functioning. I submit that our moral wellsprings originate in the best that religion can teach us, whether or not we buy into the literal narrative fable.
The problem with western human morality, for example, hardly rests with the teaching of Jesus Christ or Moses. It is with organized groups lobbying their secular parochial interests of class and community, enshrouding themselves in the mantle of prophets while willfully ignoring the ethical essence of their lessons.
How else can we explain the mean-spirited, opportunistic "faith" of political standard-bearers who would snatch food from the months of babes, personal choice from the arsenal of adults and votes from the hand of the dispossessed?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
This said, however, moral codes spring from somewhere beyond the inner clockwork of human functioning. I submit that our moral wellsprings originate in the best that religion can teach us, whether or not we buy into the literal narrative fable.
The problem with western human morality, for example, hardly rests with the teaching of Jesus Christ or Moses. It is with organized groups lobbying their secular parochial interests of class and community, enshrouding themselves in the mantle of prophets while willfully ignoring the ethical essence of their lessons.
How else can we explain the mean-spirited, opportunistic "faith" of political standard-bearers who would snatch food from the months of babes, personal choice from the arsenal of adults and votes from the hand of the dispossessed?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
Secular people don't fly planes into buildings.
Secular people don't assassinate cartoonists.
Secular people don't exclude women from becoming Priests.
Secular people don't shoot girls in the head for going to school.
Secular people don't blow up abortion clinics and the people in them.
Secular people don't airbrush women out of photos (see Angela Merkel).
"Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him." Yes, they are. See the above examples.
I prefer secular people who have to fashion their own moral motivation and want to be a decent person over the alternative.
I prefer people who have to be powerfully motivated to behave well over the alternative.
Secular people don't assassinate cartoonists.
Secular people don't exclude women from becoming Priests.
Secular people don't shoot girls in the head for going to school.
Secular people don't blow up abortion clinics and the people in them.
Secular people don't airbrush women out of photos (see Angela Merkel).
"Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him." Yes, they are. See the above examples.
I prefer secular people who have to fashion their own moral motivation and want to be a decent person over the alternative.
I prefer people who have to be powerfully motivated to behave well over the alternative.
4
I prefer the label "differently believing" over non believer. It certainly is no match for the "chosenness" of the Israelites and realize it can take me only so far.
And what about them Non-Catholics?
We all inherit ancient creeds, whether we're churched or not. They are selectively incorporated both in our civil laws and in the informal codes of conduct and kindness with which we interact with our fellow citizens.
We are all born into communities: that has been part of our evolution as homo sapiens for thousands of millennia, far predating organized religions.
National holidays are not overtly religious; one doesn't need to be told by a cleric that taking a break is a good thing; it is no longer illegal in Massachusetts to bathe on Sunday.
"...desire to please Him." No, fear of God is the usual rationale, which is hardly a praise-worthy motivation. Again, human beings have evolved to be capable and desirous of cooperation and altruism within their groups.
One doesn't need a century of science to know that we are not simply logic machines, mere fleshy algorithms. And simply casting about ill-defined words such as "soul" or "spirit" doesn't tell us much either.
We don't need churches or isms of any sort to experience transcendence and wonder - for that look up at the sky at night or into the face of your new-born.
We are all born into communities: that has been part of our evolution as homo sapiens for thousands of millennia, far predating organized religions.
National holidays are not overtly religious; one doesn't need to be told by a cleric that taking a break is a good thing; it is no longer illegal in Massachusetts to bathe on Sunday.
"...desire to please Him." No, fear of God is the usual rationale, which is hardly a praise-worthy motivation. Again, human beings have evolved to be capable and desirous of cooperation and altruism within their groups.
One doesn't need a century of science to know that we are not simply logic machines, mere fleshy algorithms. And simply casting about ill-defined words such as "soul" or "spirit" doesn't tell us much either.
We don't need churches or isms of any sort to experience transcendence and wonder - for that look up at the sky at night or into the face of your new-born.
My mother once said that if she didn't believe in God, she would commit suicide. I feel just the opposite. If I believed in God (and took an honest look at the world), I would commit suicide.
This is consistent with recent trends to co-opt what people find good about religious lifestyles. Gay marriage is an example of gays opting-in on a fundamentally religious institution that separates man from animals, because they could never succeed at eliminating it.
In England, Professor Dawkins hopes public schools will begin teaching evolution to children before children are taught religion by their parents. Dawkins has given up persuading adults. He now wants to proselytize small children -- someone else's small children, and at state expense.
Now we see "positive secularism," which seeks to borrow other, highly positive attributes of religious lifestyles and help give atheists the many positive aspects of life they abandon when rejecting religious life.
In the column you'll even see the sympathy for those who struggle to be secularists repackaged into Jesus of Nazareth's Sermon on the Mount -- "blessed are ye when men" revile, persecute, etc. "for my name's sake." That's even seen in the Doctors Without Borders Ebola worker who was involuntarily quarantined too, although that was more a struggle against good common sense.
Even constitutional law scholars observe that America's freedom of religion is quickly being whittled down to nothing more than freedom of speech. All this occurring naturally wouldn't be such a big deal, but nowhere in the secularist creed is found the healthy wariness and rejection of oppressive government we cherish as Americans.
In England, Professor Dawkins hopes public schools will begin teaching evolution to children before children are taught religion by their parents. Dawkins has given up persuading adults. He now wants to proselytize small children -- someone else's small children, and at state expense.
Now we see "positive secularism," which seeks to borrow other, highly positive attributes of religious lifestyles and help give atheists the many positive aspects of life they abandon when rejecting religious life.
In the column you'll even see the sympathy for those who struggle to be secularists repackaged into Jesus of Nazareth's Sermon on the Mount -- "blessed are ye when men" revile, persecute, etc. "for my name's sake." That's even seen in the Doctors Without Borders Ebola worker who was involuntarily quarantined too, although that was more a struggle against good common sense.
Even constitutional law scholars observe that America's freedom of religion is quickly being whittled down to nothing more than freedom of speech. All this occurring naturally wouldn't be such a big deal, but nowhere in the secularist creed is found the healthy wariness and rejection of oppressive government we cherish as Americans.
I am 76 years old. I have gone through many different ideas on religion. Here is what I currently believe.
A psychologist once told me that a neurosis is a behavior pattern that once was useful, but over time has lost its usefulness or even become harmful. The classic example is sucking. When one is an infant, sucking is crucial. Later, not so much. If one begins to smoke in order to suck, it becomes harmful.
I think religion is a neurosis on two levels. When one is young, it is beneficial to have someone, parents, to advise on how to live even if you do not understand their reasoning. The neurotic behavior consists in wanting to have such an entity to tell you what to do even when you should be thinking and making your own decisions.
On a species level, when the human race was young, it was beneficial to believe in entities that provided some order into every day events. Would the crops get enough rain? Would the neighbors invade? As the race progressed, we can figure out many of the things on our own, based on science, but many people hate to think or even to learn. So they rely on the same kind of myths their ancestors relied upon.
When I was younger, I was willing to give fundamentalist some slack, just as one gives sick people slack, but more recently I have seen people fly airplanes into buildings, deny my daughters needed medical care, teach lies in place of science and, in general, force others, to follow their medieval beliefs. I am no longer so tolerant
A psychologist once told me that a neurosis is a behavior pattern that once was useful, but over time has lost its usefulness or even become harmful. The classic example is sucking. When one is an infant, sucking is crucial. Later, not so much. If one begins to smoke in order to suck, it becomes harmful.
I think religion is a neurosis on two levels. When one is young, it is beneficial to have someone, parents, to advise on how to live even if you do not understand their reasoning. The neurotic behavior consists in wanting to have such an entity to tell you what to do even when you should be thinking and making your own decisions.
On a species level, when the human race was young, it was beneficial to believe in entities that provided some order into every day events. Would the crops get enough rain? Would the neighbors invade? As the race progressed, we can figure out many of the things on our own, based on science, but many people hate to think or even to learn. So they rely on the same kind of myths their ancestors relied upon.
When I was younger, I was willing to give fundamentalist some slack, just as one gives sick people slack, but more recently I have seen people fly airplanes into buildings, deny my daughters needed medical care, teach lies in place of science and, in general, force others, to follow their medieval beliefs. I am no longer so tolerant
You realize, of course, that you are "dissing" a large group of the "Founding Fathers". Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and most of the rest were products of the Age of Reason. Our independence was a product of the Age of Reason (not any religion). Lewis and Clark had neither "prayer meetings" nor religious gatherings during their >2 year expedition.
Almost all of those people were "Deists". They simply and personally believed in God, not adherent to any given church dogma. Their public lives were all "SECULAR" as were their ideas for government.
Being secular doesn't mean that you are a godless heathen floundering with no moral direction or purpose. The opposite case is the more common and that moral direction and purpose is "theirs", not any church's.
Almost all of those people were "Deists". They simply and personally believed in God, not adherent to any given church dogma. Their public lives were all "SECULAR" as were their ideas for government.
Being secular doesn't mean that you are a godless heathen floundering with no moral direction or purpose. The opposite case is the more common and that moral direction and purpose is "theirs", not any church's.
Mr. Brooks seems to be arguing that nonreligion and antireligion are not legitimate personal philosophies unless and until they develop all of the trappings and bureaucracy of (his) religion. His premise isn't even wrong - more like totally incoherent.
But thank you so much, David, for telling us what we "have" to do, and for imperiously declaring that we non-believers suffer from "loss of meaning" and "unconscious boredom." Thank you for explaining that our personal convictions just don't count, compared to yours. Thank you for demanding that we take up the cup that you refused and invent our own personal philosophy from whole cloth as though that were necessary or even desirable.
Thank you, because every time someone like you says these ridiculous and condescending things it brings us one day closer to an era when organized religion and all of its prejudices and injusticies no longer holds sway over our society.
But thank you so much, David, for telling us what we "have" to do, and for imperiously declaring that we non-believers suffer from "loss of meaning" and "unconscious boredom." Thank you for explaining that our personal convictions just don't count, compared to yours. Thank you for demanding that we take up the cup that you refused and invent our own personal philosophy from whole cloth as though that were necessary or even desirable.
Thank you, because every time someone like you says these ridiculous and condescending things it brings us one day closer to an era when organized religion and all of its prejudices and injusticies no longer holds sway over our society.
Conventional religions have all but lost their usefulness and hold on human kind. Those who still hear its calling, do so out of a need to belong to something beyond themselves and will die defending it, not knowing why. Moral secularists believe in themselves and know that the path towards goodness lies in one selves. That they believe is worth struggling for.
"Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him."
You mean like sacrifice my son in order to please God? No thanks, I'll pass.
Mr Brooks raises an interesting point overall and acknowledges universal concepts of faith (morality, sense of kinship, etc). His observer status would most closely put him in the Deist camp intellectually, with a need to satisfy his tribal instinct by joining an organized religion. Quite frankly I respect that. It is worth noting that that greater lack of religious observance among the Scandanavian countries does not correlate with diminshed purpose can care for the needy. In fact there are fewer societal ills in those countries than here unfortunately. The same can be said about the comparison of the bible belt and the Northeast. Hmmm.
You mean like sacrifice my son in order to please God? No thanks, I'll pass.
Mr Brooks raises an interesting point overall and acknowledges universal concepts of faith (morality, sense of kinship, etc). His observer status would most closely put him in the Deist camp intellectually, with a need to satisfy his tribal instinct by joining an organized religion. Quite frankly I respect that. It is worth noting that that greater lack of religious observance among the Scandanavian countries does not correlate with diminshed purpose can care for the needy. In fact there are fewer societal ills in those countries than here unfortunately. The same can be said about the comparison of the bible belt and the Northeast. Hmmm.
Christianity, and maybe other religions as well, could well be on the cusp of new ways to be relevant to all humanity, not just to the traditionally religious. I am a Unitarian at best, maybe some would call me an atheist, and yet I receive a lot of spiritual nourishment from singing in a choir at a traditional but welcoming Episcopalian church. We are all human souls on a journey.
I can't see David Brooks's list of struggles and burdens supposedly faced by secularists as anything particularly daunting.
1. We don't have to build our own creeds. There are plenty of moral norms floating around for us to use, from parents, friends, in books, at school, on the playground, etc. And they're all pretty much consistent--or at least rather less inconsistent that the usual moral codes.
2. We have communities at work, on-line etc. Some people are obsessed with vintage turntables, others with Wittgenstein, others with curling, others with scrapbooking, or 1960s soul music, etc. etc. You find people who like what you like and build communities that way. That's what the internet's for.
3. There's a vast industry offering various kinds of meditative discipline--yoga, mindfulness, ancient Greek eudaimonistic philosophy, what have you--for those who crave it. I don't, myself.
4. Finally, your version of the Enlightenment is pretty sketchy. The Scottish variety was all about passions and emotions, sympathy with others, etc., in terms very much anticipatory of what many in cognitive science now assert. (There are books on this topic.) So yeah, no problem admitting and embracing the fact that feelings for others dominate our beliefs more than some rationalist vision of autonomy.
It's great to be a secularist. You actually get to believe in something plausible! It's a huge relief.
1. We don't have to build our own creeds. There are plenty of moral norms floating around for us to use, from parents, friends, in books, at school, on the playground, etc. And they're all pretty much consistent--or at least rather less inconsistent that the usual moral codes.
2. We have communities at work, on-line etc. Some people are obsessed with vintage turntables, others with Wittgenstein, others with curling, others with scrapbooking, or 1960s soul music, etc. etc. You find people who like what you like and build communities that way. That's what the internet's for.
3. There's a vast industry offering various kinds of meditative discipline--yoga, mindfulness, ancient Greek eudaimonistic philosophy, what have you--for those who crave it. I don't, myself.
4. Finally, your version of the Enlightenment is pretty sketchy. The Scottish variety was all about passions and emotions, sympathy with others, etc., in terms very much anticipatory of what many in cognitive science now assert. (There are books on this topic.) So yeah, no problem admitting and embracing the fact that feelings for others dominate our beliefs more than some rationalist vision of autonomy.
It's great to be a secularist. You actually get to believe in something plausible! It's a huge relief.
1
David Brooks has long divided society into liberals and conservatives, whatever those labels mean. Now he describes a sub-division (?), secularists, and a further subdivision, enchanted secularists. My brain is reeling, my heart is fluttering. And I still don't know if I am a liberal or a conservative.
1
In the face of the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish bloodshed in the Middle East and in North Africa, the column is sarcastic and unsubstantiated. This time, Mr. Brooks has it upside down. The modern West is relatively peaceful because of secularism - the separation of religion from the state and freedom from religion - not because of religion. America has been built on the hopes of believers in minority sects to escape religious persecution in Europe.
That secularists "suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives" is at the heart of religious belief and separatism. It is at the heart of the religious mechanism to bind AND to exclude. Seculars have no issue with intermarrying the religious. However, the religious intermarrying with another religion is often problematic, still in the 21st century. Ask any religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim.
Loss of meaning and boredom is rooted in one-dimensianal group think, not in secular openness to reality.
That secularists "suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives" is at the heart of religious belief and separatism. It is at the heart of the religious mechanism to bind AND to exclude. Seculars have no issue with intermarrying the religious. However, the religious intermarrying with another religion is often problematic, still in the 21st century. Ask any religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim.
Loss of meaning and boredom is rooted in one-dimensianal group think, not in secular openness to reality.
1
Mr. Brooks: I only agree with you about a third of time, but I normally find your views well thought through and at least somewhat enlightening. But not this time. Lumping all 'secularists' together is as useful as lumping all 'believers' into a single religion mindset or approach to daily life. Some secularist may indeed need and/or want a larger framework (Unitarian Universalist churches, to offer one example, can provide such a home base). But other non-believers can lead a rich, fulfilling -- and quite moral -- life without any such formal structure to guide them.
Secularists and the life of reason make a soft target--but only if you leave out the achievements of science. Yes, there are many religious scientists, but the practice of science demands a core skepticism that trumps tradition and dogma. Unlike religion, science produces testable results.
To disprove the role of reason in modern society, Brooks invokes a result from cognitive science. Isn't this a fundamental contradiction? Modern people see the world through a secular lens. Get over it. The Earth orbits the Sun. Life evolved. Humans are changing the climate.
But the piece also short-changes people of faith. Mid-way through this piece, there's this polemical whopper: " You either believe in God or you don’t." Brooks cannot seriously ignore hundreds of years of religious thought by men and women of all faiths and creeds, all of them striving to find, maintain, or rediscover a belief in God. Whatever path one might take toward God, anyone who walks it knows that it's just not that easy.
Most tellingly, Brooks glosses over the struggle that every society and every generation must go through to reconcile morality, faith, and tradition with challenges that defy faith, surmount tradition, and demand a deepened morality.
Albert Schweitzer said that every generation must rediscover faith upon the ashes of past failures. Brooks would have us believe that faith is a ready-made suit that fits everyone right off the rack. We all need to work much harder than that.
To disprove the role of reason in modern society, Brooks invokes a result from cognitive science. Isn't this a fundamental contradiction? Modern people see the world through a secular lens. Get over it. The Earth orbits the Sun. Life evolved. Humans are changing the climate.
But the piece also short-changes people of faith. Mid-way through this piece, there's this polemical whopper: " You either believe in God or you don’t." Brooks cannot seriously ignore hundreds of years of religious thought by men and women of all faiths and creeds, all of them striving to find, maintain, or rediscover a belief in God. Whatever path one might take toward God, anyone who walks it knows that it's just not that easy.
Most tellingly, Brooks glosses over the struggle that every society and every generation must go through to reconcile morality, faith, and tradition with challenges that defy faith, surmount tradition, and demand a deepened morality.
Albert Schweitzer said that every generation must rediscover faith upon the ashes of past failures. Brooks would have us believe that faith is a ready-made suit that fits everyone right off the rack. We all need to work much harder than that.
2
Gee whiz! Just read Ecclesiastes and be done with it.
David-
The problem with this piece is it is trying to use logical analysis to prove something that is highly suspect. You say that religious people have centuries of moral creeds to go by, but that secularists/agnostis/atheists have nothing to go on, and that is patently false. The teachings of religion don't disappear simply because you don't believe in God or go to church, the teachings of Judaism and Christianity and Buddhism and Islam and so forth are still available, the only difference is a non believer doesn't believe that God is going to throw them in hell if they have sex before marriage. Culturally, most secular people have grown up around those teachings, know of them, in a cultural sense, and more importantly,secularists because they aren't limited to one creed, can find among the many that which they need.
When you say it is hard for secularists to live into their morality, what you leave out is it is equally hard for religious people to do so, all you have to do is look at the meanness of many evangelicals, or the moral twisting that they and the Catholic leaders have done in turning Christianity into being anti gay and anti abortion while allowing the demonization of the poor and the hosannahs for the rich to see fear of God or not, the religious have the same problem.
The problem with this piece is it is trying to use logical analysis to prove something that is highly suspect. You say that religious people have centuries of moral creeds to go by, but that secularists/agnostis/atheists have nothing to go on, and that is patently false. The teachings of religion don't disappear simply because you don't believe in God or go to church, the teachings of Judaism and Christianity and Buddhism and Islam and so forth are still available, the only difference is a non believer doesn't believe that God is going to throw them in hell if they have sex before marriage. Culturally, most secular people have grown up around those teachings, know of them, in a cultural sense, and more importantly,secularists because they aren't limited to one creed, can find among the many that which they need.
When you say it is hard for secularists to live into their morality, what you leave out is it is equally hard for religious people to do so, all you have to do is look at the meanness of many evangelicals, or the moral twisting that they and the Catholic leaders have done in turning Christianity into being anti gay and anti abortion while allowing the demonization of the poor and the hosannahs for the rich to see fear of God or not, the religious have the same problem.
1
David, we are evolved social animals with a tendency to form cliques.
Are you getting happier yet?
Are you getting happier yet?
I'm a believe that god is made in man's image. Why is the causal arrow from religion creating good behavior, rather than from good behavior and a sense of community creating religion? Some variation of the golden rule just makes sense and is seen in other species as well. All that said, I feel religion serves a useful function in aiding in the development of mutual support communities, in helping those living in miserable conditions to have something to look forward to (an afterlife) and, for many, giving life meaning. What difference does it make if the belief is based in reality or not?
Why does it seem that the more religious a person is,, the more intolerant he or she is? Yes, there are sterling exceptions, but that seems to be the rule--including the religions of communism and fascism. As Eric Hoffer said, beware the true believer, of any stripe.
www.newyorkgritty.net
www.newyorkgritty.net
1
An atheist doesn't live in some cage separated from the believing world. We have access to all the collected wisdom (sic) of the past, both secular and religious. The idea that we simply have to make up our morality is offensive. There is also an entire strand of motivational art, literature and philosophy that is secular (Christopher Nolan's Beyond is a recent example). Much of Science Fiction is inspirational and does not hinge on their being a God.
Such a proud, thoughtful intellectual as David Brooks should recognize that a nonreligious human being can at the very least aspire to be a caring and rational being.
Such a proud, thoughtful intellectual as David Brooks should recognize that a nonreligious human being can at the very least aspire to be a caring and rational being.
You have access to all of that but you have to choose by what and towards what you will be inspired. His comment is not offensive, except that you choose to make it so by electing to be offended.
"secular morality is built around individual reason, individual choice and individual responsibility." What about the morality you learn from your parents and community ? We're not all on our own. That's the crux of secular morality that Brooks conveniently ignores.
2
So the take home message here is: Believe in random imaginary things so that you can get a comfy set of goodies such as a community of equally deluded people or a set of principles guided by a fear of retribution by a merciless magical entity
3
Their first step should be elimination of the war on the religious, the disrespect of religious is the worse of these so called rational people. Next they need some organization that practices government where it is the most effective tool for improvement and on charity where it is the most effective tool. They also must eliminate their demand for control of the lives of others and the lack of freedom. Not happening soon since human nature is not good at looking at the needs of many rather than the desires of some.
I spent decades of my life toiling for a god who was sending many good and loving people, including my own father, to an eternity suffering in hell because they were not "saved." I was finally saved from all that by secularism. Anyone who would not continue to help the needy even were it to be proven that no god exists is not motivated by love or goodness, whatever they tell themselves.
Wow, where to begin. First, . 'You have to be powerfully motivated to behave well.' Actually no, being a good person is quite easy. No 'eye in the sky' required. Try it, it comes naturally.
' Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him'. This motivation and fervent desire to please seems to lead to lots of death and destruction in the name of 'god'. How many will die at the hands of Secularists? None, perhaps?
' Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him'. This motivation and fervent desire to please seems to lead to lots of death and destruction in the name of 'god'. How many will die at the hands of Secularists? None, perhaps?
2
Secularism is not a creed. It isn't even an "ism". Simply a non-belief, like non-belief in Santa Clause.
5
My current favorite is "Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color".
2
This piece seems to me to be full of inherent contradictions.
"Secular people have to create their own set times for when to pull back and reflect on spiritual matters." Actually for secular people, there are no spiritual matters to reflect on.
"Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him." For every person like this there are ten who are motivated primarily by their fear of god and the consequences of displeasing him.
"Past secular creeds were built on the 18th-century enlightenment view of man as an autonomous, rational creature who could reason his way to virtue. The past half-century of cognitive science has shown that that creature doesn’t exist." Secularist are far more likely to accept all aspects of science, including cognitive science, than religious people who are routinely required to ignore science when it conflicts with dogma. Accepting things on faith is the antithesis of science.
The view you present here is completely indefensible, and the fact that many people will buy into it is a testament to the ability of religion to suppress rationality.
"Secular people have to create their own set times for when to pull back and reflect on spiritual matters." Actually for secular people, there are no spiritual matters to reflect on.
"Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him." For every person like this there are ten who are motivated primarily by their fear of god and the consequences of displeasing him.
"Past secular creeds were built on the 18th-century enlightenment view of man as an autonomous, rational creature who could reason his way to virtue. The past half-century of cognitive science has shown that that creature doesn’t exist." Secularist are far more likely to accept all aspects of science, including cognitive science, than religious people who are routinely required to ignore science when it conflicts with dogma. Accepting things on faith is the antithesis of science.
The view you present here is completely indefensible, and the fact that many people will buy into it is a testament to the ability of religion to suppress rationality.
3
In the end, we each have our own god. Each of our gods is different from the other. Some people join faith communities to justify the god they have manufactured. I have no problem with that as long as it does not lead to discrimination. Mr.Brooks is dangerously close to doing it here.
Many others including myself join communities to develop the god they seek. That faith community can occur anywhere, not just in a church or any formal setting. What gets me these days is that churches are too often seen as stifling one's journey. But there are plenty where this is not the case. I found the opposite in these churches.
I happen to like the god found in parts of the Biblical scriptures. That god may be similar to the god I seek. Ironically, that Biblical god (especially during the times when Babylonian or Roman gods ruled!) taught me to think this way. That god was secularist! Blasphemy!!
I am sick of any word of ends with "ism", at least when it discusses religion. It leads to labeling and worse!
Many others including myself join communities to develop the god they seek. That faith community can occur anywhere, not just in a church or any formal setting. What gets me these days is that churches are too often seen as stifling one's journey. But there are plenty where this is not the case. I found the opposite in these churches.
I happen to like the god found in parts of the Biblical scriptures. That god may be similar to the god I seek. Ironically, that Biblical god (especially during the times when Babylonian or Roman gods ruled!) taught me to think this way. That god was secularist! Blasphemy!!
I am sick of any word of ends with "ism", at least when it discusses religion. It leads to labeling and worse!
I've never believed in God (though I believe in Bach), but my moral compass is heavily indebted to the convergence of principles and thoughts about social life that you find in Plato or Aristotle and more generally in the remarkably convergent moral systems that developed in different parts of the world during the Axial Age as Jaspers called it. Those systems did not develop outside religion but they're not identical with it, since they cross religions. So, if you are a 'secularist' you will have a heritage as old as that of any believer. And you can be a good Burkean, as David Brooks is, without believing in God.
In other words the faithful today act in accordance with policies favored by Democrats and the secularists act in accordance with policies favored by Republicans.
Welcome aboard, David.
Welcome aboard, David.
Most reader dissatisfaction expressed in the comments is a result of Brooks' reliance on an ill-chosen book--a grievous fault for the Sidney Awards creator. There is a vast modern moral literature on secular morality. The reliance on Zuckerman to speak for secularism is the black box that explains this column's crash.
2
I am admittedly no religious scholar but, from the reading I've done, I understand that religions, in the eyes of many scholars, evolved once humans began to gather into communities and living in communities demanded certain moralities, e.g., prohibition against murder and violence against each other, the rise of something akin to the Golden Rule - looking after other members of the community so that the community as a whole prospered, and so forth. In other words, the morality of religions was born from secular impulses. Brooks seems to paint the world as black and white - you have coherent, behavior influencing morality that shapes the conduct of the faithful and incoherent, individualistic assortment of moralities among the non-faithful. That seems an ironic conclusion given that religious morality was born out of secular beginnings.
41
I think you have cause and effect reversed here. The development of brains capable of experiencing empathy (compassion for AND understanding of others) made it "common sense" that, if we did not want to be killed by another, he did not want to be killed by us. The extension is that we should not do to the other what we don't want the other to do to us (often referred to as the "Golden Rule," the template for ALL morality). Once we had developed emotional and intellectual capacities to this level we had evolved the ability to live in communities without constant friction and socially destructive behavior. It's not the "chicken and the egg" type of question. The empathetic ability to understand killing (short of self-defense) was unacceptable behavior made possible the rise of civilizations. The fact that mankind STILL is not completely evolved into empathetic and compassionate beings is responsible for all of the friction and bloody destruction, driven by hatred, fear, greed, and envy (all counter-empathetic) that our still imperfect societies and individuals continue to inflict on each other.
I'd love to be able to peek in after another ten or twenty thousand years of social evolution to see whether we finally do create a humane and civilized society - or eradicate ourselves, as seems more likely with the current rise of anti-intellectual know-nothingism and tribal nationalism we see all around us.
No, wingnuts, your ignorance is NOT as good as our knowledge!
I'd love to be able to peek in after another ten or twenty thousand years of social evolution to see whether we finally do create a humane and civilized society - or eradicate ourselves, as seems more likely with the current rise of anti-intellectual know-nothingism and tribal nationalism we see all around us.
No, wingnuts, your ignorance is NOT as good as our knowledge!
@ Fred
That's on the first page of the Bible. Whether you take scripture literally or as poetry/oral tradition (in the case of the Old Testament covering millennia prior to formal written language), you are not plumbing new depths here.
What I would like to see is a treatment of modern societies, or we can agree that all societies existing today are modern, that do not adhere to your simple descriptions. Why do many animist peoples leap when taught basic Biblical stories. Are they dumb? Or just gullible?
You seem to believe they should have nailed this down already. At least a few thousand years ago. Why didn't they?
That's on the first page of the Bible. Whether you take scripture literally or as poetry/oral tradition (in the case of the Old Testament covering millennia prior to formal written language), you are not plumbing new depths here.
What I would like to see is a treatment of modern societies, or we can agree that all societies existing today are modern, that do not adhere to your simple descriptions. Why do many animist peoples leap when taught basic Biblical stories. Are they dumb? Or just gullible?
You seem to believe they should have nailed this down already. At least a few thousand years ago. Why didn't they?
1
If you believe as I do that religion is man made, it's not so hard to see how a secular set of beliefs and principles can be made by man as well.
I love what David Brooks writes but this one was off the mark intellectually.
I love what David Brooks writes but this one was off the mark intellectually.
1
This is not a new problem and their are many enduring solutions. Buddhism and stoicism provide great philosophical depth for secularists. Buddhism also provides community.
Purity? Self-transcendence? Sanctification? Enchantment?
Your words express human desires that so often lead to ritual, exclusiveness, and religion and war. Hitler was a master at offering Purity, Self-Transcendence, Sanctification and Enchantment.
Every company and organization, from Apple Corporation, to Aryan Nation, to Boy Scouts and the Shriners, offers those emotional benefits.
And by the way, Secularism isn't an organization (that I know of) that can decide to offer Purity, Self-Transcendence, Sanctification and Enchantment.
But Straw Men are your forte.
Your words express human desires that so often lead to ritual, exclusiveness, and religion and war. Hitler was a master at offering Purity, Self-Transcendence, Sanctification and Enchantment.
Every company and organization, from Apple Corporation, to Aryan Nation, to Boy Scouts and the Shriners, offers those emotional benefits.
And by the way, Secularism isn't an organization (that I know of) that can decide to offer Purity, Self-Transcendence, Sanctification and Enchantment.
But Straw Men are your forte.
4
"Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries. Autonomous secular people are called upon to settle on their own individual sacred convictions."
Secular thinking also evolved over centuries, beginning with the great Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle being only the most eminent (though Plato approached a kind of near-monotheism, there are long stretches of his thought that are rational and secular). Down through the Christian centuries there were dissidents who questioned and rejected orthodoxy, like John Wycliff, and some of their thinking became part of secularist tradition, as did some of the thinking of Protestants who later criticized and broke away from the Catholic Church. The religious Roger Williams was one of the earliest and most influential proponents of the separation of church and state. The Enlightenment was preceded and informed by earlier secularist thinkers like Francis Bacon and Spinoza. It was succeeded by later secularist writers such as Thoreau and Emerson and many modern philosophers. Secular people have plenty of tradition to draw upon when they ask themselves important moral questions.
Secular thinking also evolved over centuries, beginning with the great Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle being only the most eminent (though Plato approached a kind of near-monotheism, there are long stretches of his thought that are rational and secular). Down through the Christian centuries there were dissidents who questioned and rejected orthodoxy, like John Wycliff, and some of their thinking became part of secularist tradition, as did some of the thinking of Protestants who later criticized and broke away from the Catholic Church. The religious Roger Williams was one of the earliest and most influential proponents of the separation of church and state. The Enlightenment was preceded and informed by earlier secularist thinkers like Francis Bacon and Spinoza. It was succeeded by later secularist writers such as Thoreau and Emerson and many modern philosophers. Secular people have plenty of tradition to draw upon when they ask themselves important moral questions.
1
My own "master" in the secularism I embrace is the cosmologist/physicist Steven Weinberg. a Nobel Prize winner. He states that that the onlt thing we have is statisical probability---chance. and for me that is enough. We have limited control of what we are and do--the cance of mixed genes and change of home envirnment as a start. I find that enough. Life is a randome crapshoot--and a taste of chaos makes existence easier to take.
This column strikes me as both arrogant and condescending. Mr. Brooks -- presumably a believer -- pontificates about what can or cannot enrich the lives of non-believers. My guess is that the vast majority of non-believers can do just fine without his smug moral tutelage.
3
"Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action."
The foregoing is laughable. Knowledge of the history of almost all major religions and an awareness of what is happening in the world today makes it obvious that religion has been the source of much immorality and horrors. Being religious is a matter of degree and, for many, it means being merely observant of a set of customs and rituals rather than being the source of heartfelt morality when self-sacrifice is called for.
Social scientists know that there is something more primal than religion. It is an innate imperative to perpetuate our species which manifests, first, to protect our family, then to protect our community/tribe, nation, etc. And social scientist and game theoreticians have learned that practices like cooperation and support among people and self-sacrifice are logical manifestations of our most primal needs.
Religions emerged, in part, as a way instructing us on our primal moral social responsibilities. Unfortunately, religions have often become corrupted and ineffective with cant and ritual replacing deeply received instruction.
The important point is that the absence of religion--being Brook's secularist--still leaves people with their primal morality. Indeed, removing the ritualistic veneer of religion often leaves one with a more sincere sense of morality.
The foregoing is laughable. Knowledge of the history of almost all major religions and an awareness of what is happening in the world today makes it obvious that religion has been the source of much immorality and horrors. Being religious is a matter of degree and, for many, it means being merely observant of a set of customs and rituals rather than being the source of heartfelt morality when self-sacrifice is called for.
Social scientists know that there is something more primal than religion. It is an innate imperative to perpetuate our species which manifests, first, to protect our family, then to protect our community/tribe, nation, etc. And social scientist and game theoreticians have learned that practices like cooperation and support among people and self-sacrifice are logical manifestations of our most primal needs.
Religions emerged, in part, as a way instructing us on our primal moral social responsibilities. Unfortunately, religions have often become corrupted and ineffective with cant and ritual replacing deeply received instruction.
The important point is that the absence of religion--being Brook's secularist--still leaves people with their primal morality. Indeed, removing the ritualistic veneer of religion often leaves one with a more sincere sense of morality.
It seems to me that religions emerge to fill cultural gaps. Different gaps exist at different epochs in cultural evolution. When there was no law, no judicial system, not codified rules of community responsibility and conduct, and no entity to enforce these rules even if they existed, Judaism arose to fill the gap; complete with an all powerful enforcer. Ultimately, the Romans (more or less) supplanted this role. Once this essential role was filled by secular culture, religion was again free to change. This allowed Christianity to flourish to fulfill the spiritual (rather than legal) void. This persisted until the Enlightenment and the American experiment embodied in the U.S. Constitution broke the monopole held by religion on one's spiritual life. This allowed new forces in society to guide the spiritual life without the help of the Christian creed. This view is not as cynical as it may seem. These cultural changes could not have occurred without the various world religions and when the culture grows up it incorporates their lessons deeply as they break free from their bonds. Of course the religions don't just go away when their offspring grow up but they are left with a diminished mandate and mission.
1
I am a secularist and I don't have all the problems Mr. Brooks has listed.
In particular he says, "Secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation. It’s not enough to want to be a decent person. You have to be powerfully motivated to behave well."
I just don't understand this at all. It really is that simple, just be a decent person. Doesn't take a lot of motivation for most of us.
In particular he says, "Secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation. It’s not enough to want to be a decent person. You have to be powerfully motivated to behave well."
I just don't understand this at all. It really is that simple, just be a decent person. Doesn't take a lot of motivation for most of us.
4
Morality is the definition of right and wrong. But the concept of what is right and what is wrong precedes morality.
What is right for you? How do you determine it?
Something is "right" if it enhances your life; something is "wrong" if it threatens your life. This is refined to: Your life is the standard of moral value for you. And your life requires the following: the right to exist (life), the right to operate without hindrance (liberty), the right to use or dispose of anything you produce (property), and the right to decide for yourself where your life shall take you (pursuit of happiness).
None of these rights require an organization based on the belief of anything outside of reality. No religions need apply. Morality derives from these rights, and from the fact that all humans have them, by default.
What is right for you? How do you determine it?
Something is "right" if it enhances your life; something is "wrong" if it threatens your life. This is refined to: Your life is the standard of moral value for you. And your life requires the following: the right to exist (life), the right to operate without hindrance (liberty), the right to use or dispose of anything you produce (property), and the right to decide for yourself where your life shall take you (pursuit of happiness).
None of these rights require an organization based on the belief of anything outside of reality. No religions need apply. Morality derives from these rights, and from the fact that all humans have them, by default.
1
The main problem that Mr. Brooks has is one of the most crucial aspects of Atheism that he seems not to understand. The majority of Atheists grew up, or were at some point in their lives, believers of some faith. The religious, most of whom have grown up worshiping a god, like Mr. Brooks, have no concept as to what it feels like to be a nonbeliever. t would be the same as if I professed, as a white person, that I understand what it feels like to be black.
Mr. Brooks, in this piece, is trying to tell the secular community what we need to do to better shape our morality. "As he describes them, secularists seem like genial, low-key people who have discarded metaphysical prejudices and are now leading peaceful and rewarding lives. "
Mr. Brooks can not, and does not want this to be true, as it contradicts the believers belief that, when there is no spiritual pain, there can be no blissful gain.
Mr. Brooks, in this piece, is trying to tell the secular community what we need to do to better shape our morality. "As he describes them, secularists seem like genial, low-key people who have discarded metaphysical prejudices and are now leading peaceful and rewarding lives. "
Mr. Brooks can not, and does not want this to be true, as it contradicts the believers belief that, when there is no spiritual pain, there can be no blissful gain.
1
Timely piece, especially with Mike Huckabee and others on the religious right trying to put more "religion" into our government and public schools, where I feel it doesn't belong. I am also glad that the reported number of atheists and agnostics are 30-40%. I do not follow an organized religion though I see it's benefits to people in a sense of built in community. It is harder to forge your own. You don't need to follow a religion to be "spiritual". One can find their religion in music, art and definitely in the beauty of nature. Love is all around.....
1
Learning facts is actually quite fun and not tediously burdensome as Mr. Brooks seems to believe. On the other hand, sitting through repetitious ritualistic invocations of a fictional deity is as boring as the heck that religious people make up to scare children into behaving.
Facts come in infinite varieties. There are facts of mathematics, science, daily experience, interpersonal relations, art, music, literature, etc. Learning them and incorporating them into our lives can be a joyful activity.
Passively adhering to religious fictions, once a person is no longer a child, is intellectually lazy, incompatible with humanitarianism, noxious to peace, unenlightened and morally wrong.
Facts come in infinite varieties. There are facts of mathematics, science, daily experience, interpersonal relations, art, music, literature, etc. Learning them and incorporating them into our lives can be a joyful activity.
Passively adhering to religious fictions, once a person is no longer a child, is intellectually lazy, incompatible with humanitarianism, noxious to peace, unenlightened and morally wrong.
2
Is a person who practices Buddhism counted as an atheist?
Isn't it telling that the two major conservative pundits at the NYT tend to talk about theology and religion (or today, non-religion) when they're not shilling for the heartless policies of the Republican party and the 1%? It's also revealing how they both leave out the bloody history of religion (crusades, hundred years' war, Sunni v. Shiite, Inquisition, etc.) when claiming the need for organized religion as a prerequisite for a good society.
4
Religion has and continues to be a major source of conflict and death. Secularism avoids these negatives, and keeps people in the real world whereas faith leads people to believe in unscientific ideas. If trends in major European states are the harbingers, it will not be long for successful Western countries to continue on their path to secularism. Perhaps, long after we are gone, religion will finally be replaced by secularism.
“Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never."
John Adams, Second President of the U.S.
Yes, we do have many shades, varieties, and flavors of deists and non-deist secularists, but they all depend on one thing; the individual taking action in their own life and applying principles based on learning, experience, and reflection. I have a religious belief, but also a deep affection for what are called the 'Great Books' and one of their proponents, Mortimer Adler. This has been part of my journey, but I would never impose it on anyone else, though I think it has incredible value.
Yes, many people are bored with life, and seek meaning through the material or sometimes the freakish and dangerous. They avoid the mind and spiritual work that human beings need to do, as Adams said to, conquer themselves. There are multiple opportunities available for this education, but as in all education you don't 'receive it' you 'take it'. You can't do it in a passive way and expect to somehow live an optimal life.
It is also variable. Some days you feel you are making progress, and on others you feel in a rut with you energies sapped and your spirit adrift. You have to be tolerant of this and ready to accept that it is linear, straight up progress. Finding others who are also struggling helps. You can always move faster by yourself, but if you want to go far, you need the support of others.
John Adams, Second President of the U.S.
Yes, we do have many shades, varieties, and flavors of deists and non-deist secularists, but they all depend on one thing; the individual taking action in their own life and applying principles based on learning, experience, and reflection. I have a religious belief, but also a deep affection for what are called the 'Great Books' and one of their proponents, Mortimer Adler. This has been part of my journey, but I would never impose it on anyone else, though I think it has incredible value.
Yes, many people are bored with life, and seek meaning through the material or sometimes the freakish and dangerous. They avoid the mind and spiritual work that human beings need to do, as Adams said to, conquer themselves. There are multiple opportunities available for this education, but as in all education you don't 'receive it' you 'take it'. You can't do it in a passive way and expect to somehow live an optimal life.
It is also variable. Some days you feel you are making progress, and on others you feel in a rut with you energies sapped and your spirit adrift. You have to be tolerant of this and ready to accept that it is linear, straight up progress. Finding others who are also struggling helps. You can always move faster by yourself, but if you want to go far, you need the support of others.
1
"They (secular people) suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives."
What nonsense. I've been an atheist for over half a century and do not experience any "loss of meaning" or "boredom" with my life.
What nonsense. I've been an atheist for over half a century and do not experience any "loss of meaning" or "boredom" with my life.
3
David,
You paint an unflattering picture of Christians when you imply that without the threat of God's punishment they would not know how to be moral people. Most people, religious or secular, are decent hardworking folk who try their best to do right by others in their community. It's really not that complicated.
You paint an unflattering picture of Christians when you imply that without the threat of God's punishment they would not know how to be moral people. Most people, religious or secular, are decent hardworking folk who try their best to do right by others in their community. It's really not that complicated.
1
It was not that long ago that the Moderator of the United Church proclaimed nonbelievers were welcome in Canada's largest Protestant church. The Deists who were in fact Christians that denied Christ's divinity but saw him only as a perfect man had amongst them many who would doubted the very existence of a divine.
Brooks' need to pigeonhole everyone and everything seems to me the very essence of the problems I have with conservatives. Your value as a human being is not dependent on whether you prefer the Beatles or the Rolling Stones or whether Mozart or Satie gets the endorphins moving. One size does not fit all and that goes for spiritual needs as well as spiritual understanding.
The Talmud says "He who devotes his life searching for what is, what was and what will be it were better he was not born.
The commandment of Tikkun Olam is for all believers and nonbelievers and that is making this world a kinder gentler and more respectful place. Maybe that is a message Brooks should bring to his conservative cohort not to the diverse audience of the NYT.
Brooks' need to pigeonhole everyone and everything seems to me the very essence of the problems I have with conservatives. Your value as a human being is not dependent on whether you prefer the Beatles or the Rolling Stones or whether Mozart or Satie gets the endorphins moving. One size does not fit all and that goes for spiritual needs as well as spiritual understanding.
The Talmud says "He who devotes his life searching for what is, what was and what will be it were better he was not born.
The commandment of Tikkun Olam is for all believers and nonbelievers and that is making this world a kinder gentler and more respectful place. Maybe that is a message Brooks should bring to his conservative cohort not to the diverse audience of the NYT.
1
Most people obey the laws of their Society. Most of us are social beings first. All these qualities you believe secular people "must" develop sounds like the many "must" inherent in religion. These "must" aspects seem inherent in any religion which values a hypothetical "second life" but creates a structure in this life that efficiently allows the flow of money and power to those who claim to speak for "God." And subjugates females.
2
Another great column by David Brooks. Sorry to be negative, but secularism seems to be mostly a great cop-out. While the religious practice of many may be described as tepid, at least, a reality is acknowledged that exceeds the mundane and defines our human existence as significant: Life matters. If not, why bother?
1
Life matters to secularists, heavens and the after life matter to religions people.
3
I don't think it's fair to accuse followers of being "tepid" in their religious practices. Sure, some have been tepid, but that's been balanced by massive numbers who've been the opposite of tepid, who've acted as fanatics, torturing, burning heretics, waging wars complete with Popes on horseback, swords in hand, all across the religious spectrum over many centuries and including nearly every major religion.
Any argument that religion is by default superior to other ways of being is laughable, given the evidence to the contrary.
Any argument that religion is by default superior to other ways of being is laughable, given the evidence to the contrary.
1
Surely Mr. Brooks can't be serious. How good is religion in leading to positive moral action? Studies have repeatedly found less than 0.5% of inmates n our prisons identify themselves as atheists or nonbelievers. A 2011 study by researchers at the University of Oregon and University of Kansas found the higher the percent of believers in a country the higher national crime rates. It seems that believing more strongly in the forgiveness of sins than in punishment in the after-life may help pave the way for further transgressions. Harpers had a cover article in 2005 comparing policies of countries with the words of Jesus and concluded "America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior" - we are he richest nation with the smallest percent devoted to helping the less fortunate. And, we are not just talking about foreign aid, we have the highest percent of our own children living in poverty, as well as being the most violent by far. Who is on top in Christian ideals - godless Sweden. In America today, who is fighting the hardest against health care for the poor? The religious right. And, David Brooks is worried about the morality of becoming a more secular nation???
This argument posits that a better secularist will evolve if he or she finds more ways to mimic the characteristics of a religious person.
For many contented secularists, the point is quite the contrary.
For many contented secularists, the point is quite the contrary.
2
Take a look one night at the stars, the majesty of the universe and man's place within it. Then think about how narcissistic and intellectually dishonest your thesis is.
3
I rather engage in the process of all that secular building than be made to wear magic underwear.
1
Wow, the angst of a secularist!
Except there is no angst. I have always (Well, at least since the age of 8 and probably before) been a "secularist" and I have never wrestled with my conscience the way that Mr. Brooks thinks we "secularists" do. I just determined from that early age that the concept of "God" was both illogical and, yes, ridiculous. And that was the end of it. No wrestling with my conscience, no angst, no "burden".
Speaking of "morality" what does one make of the avid support for George W. Bush, our most religious president, who is responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of innocents in Iraq? Or a poll that found that nearly 75% of Evangelical Christians supported the use of torture? With beliefs like those why would any decent person want to be a "believer"?
Except there is no angst. I have always (Well, at least since the age of 8 and probably before) been a "secularist" and I have never wrestled with my conscience the way that Mr. Brooks thinks we "secularists" do. I just determined from that early age that the concept of "God" was both illogical and, yes, ridiculous. And that was the end of it. No wrestling with my conscience, no angst, no "burden".
Speaking of "morality" what does one make of the avid support for George W. Bush, our most religious president, who is responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of innocents in Iraq? Or a poll that found that nearly 75% of Evangelical Christians supported the use of torture? With beliefs like those why would any decent person want to be a "believer"?
1
I'm not sure what David Brooks is searching for, but I hope he finds it soon. His fear and anxiety seem to be coloring his perception of all people different from him. Religion has caused at least as much (of not more) harm as any good it has done. Religious leaders cannot frighten people into being good anymore than spanking children will make them good.
1
Good heavens! What a lot of sanctimonious drivel disguised as disinterested analysis culminating in the patronizing last line "the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification." Still, you may be trying to transcend the boundaries of your Judeo Christian paradigm, so I forgive you.
6
Live the so-called Golden Rule and the rest will come easy, no Sabbath, moral philosophy or ritual building required.
2
David needs to reread the definition of secularist, because he seems to equate us with being non-believers. I, for one, am sick of beliefs based on nothing more than intuition and false interpretations. Secularism was put into our Constitution for a reason and I agree with that reason.
Three lines stood out for me while I scanned this. I find the second to be a lie we tell ourselves...the first and the third are what is wrong with the world. They describe the ways of zealots, much like those we our fighting in the Middle East.
"Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action."
"Religions don’t just ask believers to respect others; rather each soul is worthy of the highest dignity because it radiates divine light."
"I suspect that over the next years secularism will change its face and become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence, and more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification."
Three lines stood out for me while I scanned this. I find the second to be a lie we tell ourselves...the first and the third are what is wrong with the world. They describe the ways of zealots, much like those we our fighting in the Middle East.
"Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action."
"Religions don’t just ask believers to respect others; rather each soul is worthy of the highest dignity because it radiates divine light."
"I suspect that over the next years secularism will change its face and become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence, and more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification."
It strikes me that the very sureness with which secularists proclaim they live good lives as anyone else ... shows that there should be some questioning as to that.
Without belonging to a church that demands people uphold any values besides thinking for yourself or following 'self-help' guides, for example ... a person may tend to go astray unless they are supported by others (who hopefully aren't gangsters).
Otherwise, without either a family, or friends who help a person find a value system that keeps a person on an even keel in stormy waters, so to speak ... a person actually does need at least to have a religious outlook that makes up for that lack. And it is not clear that secularist kinds of religion, which today can yet coexist with the more dogmatic, and other-worldly kinds of religions ... can supply that kind of commitment in life.
We should fear for any nation where a religion can be suppressed, denigrated, and otherwise be reduced as a helping force for civilization to continue as such. Doesn't that mean us?
Could sociologists conduct a test finding out whether orphans do better in life with this or that kind of a supporting religion? That would tell how much the non-dogmatic, secular-thinking, belief systems can help compared with the more dogmatic kinds. But it's always in the long run we should consider things too.
Making 'progress' in the short term may be easier to do with more secularism, but not be good at all for the future of mankind.
Without belonging to a church that demands people uphold any values besides thinking for yourself or following 'self-help' guides, for example ... a person may tend to go astray unless they are supported by others (who hopefully aren't gangsters).
Otherwise, without either a family, or friends who help a person find a value system that keeps a person on an even keel in stormy waters, so to speak ... a person actually does need at least to have a religious outlook that makes up for that lack. And it is not clear that secularist kinds of religion, which today can yet coexist with the more dogmatic, and other-worldly kinds of religions ... can supply that kind of commitment in life.
We should fear for any nation where a religion can be suppressed, denigrated, and otherwise be reduced as a helping force for civilization to continue as such. Doesn't that mean us?
Could sociologists conduct a test finding out whether orphans do better in life with this or that kind of a supporting religion? That would tell how much the non-dogmatic, secular-thinking, belief systems can help compared with the more dogmatic kinds. But it's always in the long run we should consider things too.
Making 'progress' in the short term may be easier to do with more secularism, but not be good at all for the future of mankind.
Ridiculous and completely misguided. Brooks believes secularists need to check all the boxes on the religious form: they have to build their own moral philosophies, their own communities, their own rituals, their own Sabbaths...
How about they just have to be rational people who don't swallow nonsensical legends designed to explain the vagaries of day to day living.
Just because Brooks needs help with his own moral burdens doesn't mean everyone does.
How about they just have to be rational people who don't swallow nonsensical legends designed to explain the vagaries of day to day living.
Just because Brooks needs help with his own moral burdens doesn't mean everyone does.
5
"Religions don’t just ask believers to respect others; rather each soul is worthy of the highest dignity because it radiates divine light.
The only secularism that can really arouse moral motivation and impel action is an enchanted secularism, one that puts emotional relations first and autonomy second"
Hmmm. no. It's not about secularist, enchanted or not, more than it is about descending highest dignity, until other people recognize it. So, ultimately is about empathy to show each other, which includes honesty and fairness, and more than that it's about kindness, which incluide the virtues of humanity, doesn't exclude they can be inspired by something "spiritual" or "divine", and doesn't preclude one view against the other one, secularist, nor impose itself upon it. It's been more than a century that the Pope dismissed the use of the "tiara" an hat with 3 circles of crown, the temporal under the secular under the divine power. It's time for our views to catch up with.
The only secularism that can really arouse moral motivation and impel action is an enchanted secularism, one that puts emotional relations first and autonomy second"
Hmmm. no. It's not about secularist, enchanted or not, more than it is about descending highest dignity, until other people recognize it. So, ultimately is about empathy to show each other, which includes honesty and fairness, and more than that it's about kindness, which incluide the virtues of humanity, doesn't exclude they can be inspired by something "spiritual" or "divine", and doesn't preclude one view against the other one, secularist, nor impose itself upon it. It's been more than a century that the Pope dismissed the use of the "tiara" an hat with 3 circles of crown, the temporal under the secular under the divine power. It's time for our views to catch up with.
Yup, religions does arouse the higher emotions - usually hatred, intolerance and violence.
2
The secularism described here is very much like Existentialism.
Existentialists think for themselves. They decide what is good and bad, right and wrong and are completely responsible for their actions.
And yet, in the current field of Republican presidential hopefuls, there are those who will tell you the only way to lead a moral life is to be a born again Christian.
Just another huge divide in America.
Existentialists think for themselves. They decide what is good and bad, right and wrong and are completely responsible for their actions.
And yet, in the current field of Republican presidential hopefuls, there are those who will tell you the only way to lead a moral life is to be a born again Christian.
Just another huge divide in America.
Mr. Brooks attempts to highlight the difficulties facing secularists. In doing so, he ignores the vast treasury of traditions built over millennia available to secularists. Consider this godless version of the Serenity Prayer, from Epictetus: “What, then, is to be done? To make the best of what is in our power, and take the rest as it naturally happens.”
Secularists need to build a Sabbath? We already have a secular Sabbath; it is called Sunday, or the weekend. Secularists need to build a moral philosophy? Did he not comprehend his own words about the Golden Rule? Secularists need to build their own communities? I live and work and interact with good people of all faiths and secularists as well. The perceptive understand my spirituality as I understand theirs. I am a member of communities that encompass many faiths.
Brooks writes that "Secularism will change its face," and speak of its spokesmen. Those who live and let live are not especially concerned about "face" and do not have 'spokesmen' in any conventional sense of that word.
It is tempting to digress into the energy needed to rationalize one's religion with the Golden Rule in those many cases in which they seem to conflict...but that would not be living the Golden Rule. So peace, love, and understanding to you, Mr. Brooks.
Secularists need to build a Sabbath? We already have a secular Sabbath; it is called Sunday, or the weekend. Secularists need to build a moral philosophy? Did he not comprehend his own words about the Golden Rule? Secularists need to build their own communities? I live and work and interact with good people of all faiths and secularists as well. The perceptive understand my spirituality as I understand theirs. I am a member of communities that encompass many faiths.
Brooks writes that "Secularism will change its face," and speak of its spokesmen. Those who live and let live are not especially concerned about "face" and do not have 'spokesmen' in any conventional sense of that word.
It is tempting to digress into the energy needed to rationalize one's religion with the Golden Rule in those many cases in which they seem to conflict...but that would not be living the Golden Rule. So peace, love, and understanding to you, Mr. Brooks.
1
Isn't it peculiar that "believers" feel the need to bring atheists into their sphere of "belief". Do we make them feel threatened? Do they suspect that we are right all along and they are the deluded ones? And we will finally and for good take away the tax-free status from their places of worship?
I am often offended by David Brooks' smugness and narrow views, but this is the topper!
I am often offended by David Brooks' smugness and narrow views, but this is the topper!
Two points. First, Mr. Brooks ignores genetic influences on religiosity. People vary considerably in their propensity towards religious or spiritual beliefs. There is no universal need for them. Perhaps this is one reason it is so difficult to understand each other.
Second, there is a secular tradition that predates religions arising out of the Middle East: Buddhism. There is no dogma or deity, and, notably, no wars have been fought in its name. Buddhism offers a well- defined path for those seeking self knowledge and nurturing of compassion and no-harm.
Mr. Brooks, perhaps you should try it sometime.
Second, there is a secular tradition that predates religions arising out of the Middle East: Buddhism. There is no dogma or deity, and, notably, no wars have been fought in its name. Buddhism offers a well- defined path for those seeking self knowledge and nurturing of compassion and no-harm.
Mr. Brooks, perhaps you should try it sometime.
1
When my children were young, I explained to them that we were agnostic because no finite beings like ourselves could ever determine whether a being of infinite power and extent actually existed. God is unknowable. And so on from there...
Anyone who can write "either you believe in God or you don't" is writing from a prison. And as Goethe put it so nicely, there none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe that they are free.
Anyone who can write "either you believe in God or you don't" is writing from a prison. And as Goethe put it so nicely, there none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe that they are free.
1
The premise of the article, including its title, is demeaning. Mr. Brooks suggests that secularists lack a moral core with all of his numerous recommendations as to what they should be doing to gradually “become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence, and more responsive to the spiritual urge…”
Back up the sanctimonious truck, Mr. Brooks. Next, you will suggest that secularists are not patriots because they do not believe in our nation’s official motto, “In God We Trust” and that our “non-secular” currency, which by proclaiming said motto violates their beliefs and hence they are hypocrites to use it?
But seriously, one can be spiritual and secular at the same time – which might be a far better condition to be in than having a blind faith in any religion?
Back up the sanctimonious truck, Mr. Brooks. Next, you will suggest that secularists are not patriots because they do not believe in our nation’s official motto, “In God We Trust” and that our “non-secular” currency, which by proclaiming said motto violates their beliefs and hence they are hypocrites to use it?
But seriously, one can be spiritual and secular at the same time – which might be a far better condition to be in than having a blind faith in any religion?
5
I agree with Ted who refers to Unitarian Universalism. I also am a UU person.
Mr. Brooks, those ancient inherited creeds are at the heart of much that is wrong with many religions. We need to leave behind the creeds that separate us and find new ones that bind us all in one community of caring for each other regardless of which church we attend.
Mr. Brooks, those ancient inherited creeds are at the heart of much that is wrong with many religions. We need to leave behind the creeds that separate us and find new ones that bind us all in one community of caring for each other regardless of which church we attend.
1
"We are not really rational animals; emotions play a central role in decision-making, the vast majority of thought is unconscious, and our minds are riddled with biases."
Brooks has successfully described most hardcore Republicans and the 1% but he doesn't know beans about secular humanists. If any group is rational, it is the secularists among us.
Brooks has successfully described most hardcore Republicans and the 1% but he doesn't know beans about secular humanists. If any group is rational, it is the secularists among us.
2
Cheers to Mr. Brooks for pointing out the possibility of moral goodness without Godliness while defining the challenges of this path. I propose one solution to these challenges - Unitarian Universalism. Unitarians have all of the benefits of a more traditional religion without all the dogma. We have a moral philosophy which emphasizes the value in all people - of all faiths - and the need to promote practical goodness in the world. We have rituals and traditions to give comfort. We have community (probably more than most churches because it's so reliant on congregants to keep it running). We do all of this without the promise of eternal life or the threat of eternal damnation. We do it because it's what should be done, and we can't do it alone. Thank God for Unitarian-Universalism.
48
I would add to your comment that many Unitarian Universalists are secularists, atheists, and agnostic and that UUs are welcoming to LGBT individuals. So in fact there already exists a faith community where secularists can find a home.
3
So, are all these soapy moralizing columns an attempt by Brooks to shy away from the partisan vinegar he used to sling at the Weekly Standard and which probably got him the cushy job he has now?
3
Houston has a Church of Freethought, but I don't think it's the answer to anomie. I look to Japan, where my son lives, which has Shinto. This is the public religion. It has many rites and rituals (marriages, village festivals, 'hatsumode', infant welcoming, coming-of-age ceremonies, etc.). Then there's the more private secular religion of Buddhism with its ethic of renunciation and acceptance. The Japanese do quite well as secularists with two religions that posit no Creator and treat 'the gods' (plural) as tales and legends with the same significance as our Greek and Roman deities, i.e. myths. The Japanese are a very tightly bound and ethical society which finds no need for 'religions' beyond Buddhism and Shinto. (In fact, since Aum Shinrikyo most Japanese are very wary of non-traditional 'religions'.) Americans need to take their heads out of the monotheistic groove and look abroad more to see how people live without the monotheism. One can learn from them.
96
Excellent models in many ways. However, even generally benign secular ideologies are still forms of organized religion! As such, they have the potential to be politicized in malignant ways. During the 1930s, when a large part of the world was swept by totalitarian and fascistic ideologies of various kinds, Shinto embraced features of Bushido, the warrior’s code, and was complicit in Japan’s destructive imperial rampages all over the region. And today monastically-organized Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Miyanmar have formed gangs of religiously intolerant vigilantes in support of an oppressive government’s racist policies. Is nothing sacred? No: there are similar instances in Europe and America. The price of secularism is constant vigilance.
Will someone tell my why today's religions are superior to the myths about the Greek, Roman and Nordic gods we read about in grade school? Why aren't today's religions given the same treatment as earlier myths.
Last year I went to christian service and was shocked at the references to blood sacrifice. I guess I finally heard them. Didn't the pagans sacrifice animals and read their guts for signs of "the will of god".
If there is a god, please come and talk to us on TV.
Today's religions are organized. People believe in them. Why do they deserve respect? The history and up to the present of christianity, islam, buddhism, hinduism and the myriad other "faiths" is bloody. Why is "faith" treated as superior to not believing in fairy tails? Their treatment of women is abysmal.
St. Peter's in Rome was built on slave labor in the silver and gold mines of south america. Churches extorted labor.
And now these churches want us to believe they are moral? I look at the churches in my town and wonder why they don't pay taxes for fire and police protection and for schools like I do.
And then they are politically active.
And some of them do a small amount of charity work on the level of the rice christian churches in china.
I think people should practice their faith and if I saw one that was a compelling example of faith doing good I might respect it.
I haven't seen that church yet.
Last year I went to christian service and was shocked at the references to blood sacrifice. I guess I finally heard them. Didn't the pagans sacrifice animals and read their guts for signs of "the will of god".
If there is a god, please come and talk to us on TV.
Today's religions are organized. People believe in them. Why do they deserve respect? The history and up to the present of christianity, islam, buddhism, hinduism and the myriad other "faiths" is bloody. Why is "faith" treated as superior to not believing in fairy tails? Their treatment of women is abysmal.
St. Peter's in Rome was built on slave labor in the silver and gold mines of south america. Churches extorted labor.
And now these churches want us to believe they are moral? I look at the churches in my town and wonder why they don't pay taxes for fire and police protection and for schools like I do.
And then they are politically active.
And some of them do a small amount of charity work on the level of the rice christian churches in china.
I think people should practice their faith and if I saw one that was a compelling example of faith doing good I might respect it.
I haven't seen that church yet.
1
I must disagree with many of the statements in this column. The multiple things listed that a secular person must do is no different then a religious person. Everyone must decide how to live their lives the moral codes they will follow how they will apply them to their own circumstances. To say otherwise is to assume that the religious are no more then autonoms that must do as their religion says stall times. The idea that secularists face some struggle to find associations or groups is ludicrous as there are a plethora if not the majority of social organizations and events that are non religious.
The idea that no one is completely rational and hidden prejudices influence our decisions is hardly any reason to a indent the effort to use reason and to embrace more unreason
The only thing that seperate a secularist from those who follow a thoughtful religion is one has GOD one does not
The idea that no one is completely rational and hidden prejudices influence our decisions is hardly any reason to a indent the effort to use reason and to embrace more unreason
The only thing that seperate a secularist from those who follow a thoughtful religion is one has GOD one does not
But secularist do forge important rituals within their own communities that value emotional connection over autonomy, and that stoke moral conviction which promotes positive action for the greater good.
Our public schools are one great example. From sports teams, to chess clubs, to theater groups, to JSA debate teams, to science fairs, to art shows, to auto mechanic clubs, to lego clubs, to LGBT clubs, foreign language clubs--our public schools provide a great example of people forming bonds, creating community, working for a common good, upholding ritual...and, I would argue, in the best examples at some of the best public schools, a the level of "enchantment" is reached.
After forging these rituals in schools and universities adults may choose to gather in knitting clubs, cooking classes, yoga groups, community hikes, park clean-up, jogging clubs, tennis teams, community rec sports...
Secularist, believe it or not, also volunteer at homeless shelters, hospitals, old folks homes, prisons, and schools.
Our arts also provide a mecca for the "enchanted" secularist. Movie houses, ballet, opera, museums, even sporting events--these place provide a gathering spot for emotional connection, for bonding outside the confines of church.
Being human is enchanting without the strings of religion. "Spiritual" rituals do not have to have such a limited definition. Dig a little deeper and one will see "enchantment" everywhere.
Our public schools are one great example. From sports teams, to chess clubs, to theater groups, to JSA debate teams, to science fairs, to art shows, to auto mechanic clubs, to lego clubs, to LGBT clubs, foreign language clubs--our public schools provide a great example of people forming bonds, creating community, working for a common good, upholding ritual...and, I would argue, in the best examples at some of the best public schools, a the level of "enchantment" is reached.
After forging these rituals in schools and universities adults may choose to gather in knitting clubs, cooking classes, yoga groups, community hikes, park clean-up, jogging clubs, tennis teams, community rec sports...
Secularist, believe it or not, also volunteer at homeless shelters, hospitals, old folks homes, prisons, and schools.
Our arts also provide a mecca for the "enchanted" secularist. Movie houses, ballet, opera, museums, even sporting events--these place provide a gathering spot for emotional connection, for bonding outside the confines of church.
Being human is enchanting without the strings of religion. "Spiritual" rituals do not have to have such a limited definition. Dig a little deeper and one will see "enchantment" everywhere.
1
For all persuasions, a good start would help. Children brought up in a loving environment, taught right from wrong, to help others, be kind, have an excellent chance to be a good whatever.
It's true that a secularist has to figure out his own rules and make his own community, but he/she saves so much intellectual energy in not having to swallow the supernatural nonsense and rationalize the mind-numbing contradictions in all major religions that it's by far the easier of the two tasks. Oh, and secularists rarely feel the need to slaughter others for having a different belief system than they do.
1
Secularists are not born in a bottomless vacuum. They become members of a society with laws, of a culture with values, of a community with established practices. Brooks makes it sound as if they are adrift in a world without any of these things, and must grope for meaning. In fact, there are numerous sources and resources that shape secularists' lives without religion or spirituality. Somehow it seems he missed the elephant in the room.
A few men knew the danger of religion when they put the "separation of church and state" into the nation's founding. Mr. Brooks speaks of religion as if it has been a peaceful and unifying force for purity and love in mankind's history and ignores the slaughter in religion's name. There are a few that seek the "purity, self-transcendence and sanctification", Brooks sees as religion's ultimate goal, but they're generally trampled over and aren't the ones he's promoting.
Secularism is more an outgrowth of religion rather than a lack of religion. The agape at the center of Christianity is sadly missing and secularists moved on to find the best way they know how.
Secularism is more an outgrowth of religion rather than a lack of religion. The agape at the center of Christianity is sadly missing and secularists moved on to find the best way they know how.
2
The ratifiers of the Constitution did so only subject to the specific proviso that Congress has no power to enact faith based legislation.
1
Mr. Brooks makes it sound as if secularists are just beamed into existence on a deserted island somewhere, with no access to history, family, or place. He then wants to take every positive aspect of religious teaching and reserve it only for the faithful. Mr. Brooks what you don't realize is that we don't believe that religious constructs were handed down from God for the soul benefit of his followers, we believe they were constructed by men for the preservation of society, and as such belong equally to all people regardless of their piety or lack there of. So no you don't get to just take your ball and go home with it.
2
Mr. Brooks, you have missed the point. Secularists are not so different from the religious. Our lives have meaning; we love our families and communities. We contemplate spirituality, we do good things because it feels good. We are as good as humanly possible; we are also as selfish and mean. We just do it without believing in a supernatural deity.
You have made the mistake of dual thinking that is so common in our society – good/bad, religious/secular – as if those are the only options. Prisons are full of believers. What makes a life meaningful isn’t where you park your butt on Sunday. Religion is too consumes us with rules, and judgments, and rather than have us turn the other cheek, we are told it is proper to turn against each other instead. We are told that to be happy we must put ours needs aside and serve an invisible, harsh, cruel master and reap rewards in heaven. Secularists say no.
Secularism forms faith based on the realization that that we am part of something bigger, just by being here. It’s knowing the quest for more knowledge is greatly worth the effort when it improves the human condition. Science/reason, community, friendship, a life with heart. That’s secularism.
I find more comfort in reality and a solid realization that I am enough as I am. Transcendence isn’t always a matter of grace. It is a choice that I am enough. That this world more than enough, if I open to the possibilities of being truly human within that world.
You have made the mistake of dual thinking that is so common in our society – good/bad, religious/secular – as if those are the only options. Prisons are full of believers. What makes a life meaningful isn’t where you park your butt on Sunday. Religion is too consumes us with rules, and judgments, and rather than have us turn the other cheek, we are told it is proper to turn against each other instead. We are told that to be happy we must put ours needs aside and serve an invisible, harsh, cruel master and reap rewards in heaven. Secularists say no.
Secularism forms faith based on the realization that that we am part of something bigger, just by being here. It’s knowing the quest for more knowledge is greatly worth the effort when it improves the human condition. Science/reason, community, friendship, a life with heart. That’s secularism.
I find more comfort in reality and a solid realization that I am enough as I am. Transcendence isn’t always a matter of grace. It is a choice that I am enough. That this world more than enough, if I open to the possibilities of being truly human within that world.
2
That secularists are somehow 'burdened' is a novel if not laughable attempt to make the non-religious seem pathetic and in need of divine uplifting. Burdened?? Really???
It is the religious Mr. Brooks who is burdened, weighed down by an unquestioned 'faith' inherited unchanged through the centuries & with little examination from ignorant if not mendacious desert people which has so shaped and frozen his existence and thinking in centuries ago that -- like all good little jihadists -- he can't imagine life without it. Which of course is exactly as his 'betters' expect him to think.
I know of no secularist - self included - who feels 'burdened' in the least in finding friends, interests, a moral compass or motivations or building their own "moral philosophies" (as if that is a prerequisite for a good and productive life).
Indeed, so burdened is David by faith that he does not appreciate how burdened he is, which is of course one of the problems with religion -- suppression of thought.
His musings in fact make the case against religion, the most damning (to borrow a concept) aspect of which is groupthink imposed upon individuals, fully assembled right out of the box, by "authorities" (inevitably male) who have terrified the likes of Mr. Brooks into submission by asserting that their authority is inherited directly from "The Big Guy."
It is Mr. Brooks who, in spouting such nonsense, unwittingly manifests his own 'burden,' of moral primitivism.
It is the religious Mr. Brooks who is burdened, weighed down by an unquestioned 'faith' inherited unchanged through the centuries & with little examination from ignorant if not mendacious desert people which has so shaped and frozen his existence and thinking in centuries ago that -- like all good little jihadists -- he can't imagine life without it. Which of course is exactly as his 'betters' expect him to think.
I know of no secularist - self included - who feels 'burdened' in the least in finding friends, interests, a moral compass or motivations or building their own "moral philosophies" (as if that is a prerequisite for a good and productive life).
Indeed, so burdened is David by faith that he does not appreciate how burdened he is, which is of course one of the problems with religion -- suppression of thought.
His musings in fact make the case against religion, the most damning (to borrow a concept) aspect of which is groupthink imposed upon individuals, fully assembled right out of the box, by "authorities" (inevitably male) who have terrified the likes of Mr. Brooks into submission by asserting that their authority is inherited directly from "The Big Guy."
It is Mr. Brooks who, in spouting such nonsense, unwittingly manifests his own 'burden,' of moral primitivism.
2
The tone of the comments couldn't be clearer. There is a loud, pervasive disdain among the secular for the religious. If it doesn't rise to the level of bigotry it sure comes close. And like all bigotry, it arises out of ignorance - of why people go to church and of all the good that religiously-motivated people accomplish. People don't go to church to be holier-than-thou - they go because they need it - to pray, to be closer to the divine, to be part of that community - and many other reasons. And for all the bad things done in the name of religion, so much more good has been done. The Catholic Church has fed and clothed more people than any institution on the planet. Good luck with helping people on that scale, secularists. Secularism is essentially an inward-focused way of life creating an idol of the individual, whereas a religious way of life forces you to think outward, to think of God, community, neighbor first. I know that's going to be hard for some to swallow, but sometimes the truth hurts.
4
My disgust with religion is a product of dealing with people who hide behind a God made in their own image.
Absolutely logical but based on a false premise. Activist secularists are anomalies among those of us who are secular. Core secularism is not a positive creed. It is the result of rejection of all positive creeds. Most of us grew up in more or less religious homes. And all of us are aware of religious pro-life, anti-woman, anti-gay champions. We reject that whole package and guide our lives based on a personal morality not based on a black book engraved in gold but by what we view as common sense.
Would that the preponderant #s of clerics exalt "mere benevolence", rather than provide holy cover for the most barbarous of organized action, sect upon sect. Surely Jesus and Mohammed would be abhorred by the violence and corruption authorized in their name. The true spiritual path is and individual journey that is guided by compassion.
1
I grew up in a secular household in Catholic Poland. My desire of wanting to be decent person came from history lessons as well as from the required reading in high school. The lessons of the Second World War and the reading of Balzac, Maupassant, Dickens, Checkov, or Steinback were more powerful than teachings of any church.
135
To Dorota Holmdel,
Not to take away from your strong argument regarding classic literature although the Bible is also considered classic lit. from a purely academic point of view and offers many poignant and distinctive themes, characters and plot lines that can easily compete with the likes of the greater and lesser writers that you've listed in your excellent comment. In fact, if one were to digest the bible for metaphorical imagery he/she might come to realize that it distinguishes itself in a class removed from the rest.
Not to take away from your strong argument regarding classic literature although the Bible is also considered classic lit. from a purely academic point of view and offers many poignant and distinctive themes, characters and plot lines that can easily compete with the likes of the greater and lesser writers that you've listed in your excellent comment. In fact, if one were to digest the bible for metaphorical imagery he/she might come to realize that it distinguishes itself in a class removed from the rest.
1
Nonsense. Mr. Brooks makes it sound like secularists are without social or political support of any kind to guide their decisions and their moral compasses. I would submit that the resurgence of personal identification with left/right political identification in politics (certainly in Canada as one example) has little or nothing to do with religious affiliation, and everything to do with personal evolution from the religious communities of our parents to modern social activist networks buoyed by secular principles.
47
@patclemence
Will never happen, with all due respect. Social activism is too self-defined and fluid. It lacks the glue to really bind wide swaths of people, and that is why it is secondary to the secularists AND the religious.
David's points are irrefutable. You should read them as objective comments rather than a personal attack. By taking them personally, the readership here is showing that "liberal" is a term of art that really doesn't hold when they disagree with you.
Will never happen, with all due respect. Social activism is too self-defined and fluid. It lacks the glue to really bind wide swaths of people, and that is why it is secondary to the secularists AND the religious.
David's points are irrefutable. You should read them as objective comments rather than a personal attack. By taking them personally, the readership here is showing that "liberal" is a term of art that really doesn't hold when they disagree with you.
1
How many people and of what faith are they who strap on bombs and walk into buildings in the name of secularism? Secularists may be vegans or omnivores but do not believe that they will go hell because of some food stuff consumed. Some secularists actually believe in some version of God. It may vary from yours, so get used to it.
2
Mr Brooks is way out of his depth here. There is a lot - and I mean, a *lot* - of reading he needs to do on modern secular humanism. To be fair, most people who aren't actually themselves secular humanists have very little knowledge of the subject either - which of course doesn't stop them from pontificating. (Of course, that's a hallmark of the revealed-religion mindset - to pontificate authoritatively and hand down dicta on matters you have no actual firsthand knowledge of.)
Although the obvious names, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Susan Jacoby, the much missed Christopher Hitchens, etc. come immediately to mind for Mr Brooks' remedial course, possibly the best starter would be a subscription to the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry. There he will find a wide range of opinion - there really is no dogma - and discussions of all the questions he raises here, including the role of ritual and community.
I'm disappointed and hope you do better on Friday. Meanwhile, since we secular humanists are capable of borrowing a good line: tolle lege. ;}
Although the obvious names, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Susan Jacoby, the much missed Christopher Hitchens, etc. come immediately to mind for Mr Brooks' remedial course, possibly the best starter would be a subscription to the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry. There he will find a wide range of opinion - there really is no dogma - and discussions of all the questions he raises here, including the role of ritual and community.
I'm disappointed and hope you do better on Friday. Meanwhile, since we secular humanists are capable of borrowing a good line: tolle lege. ;}
1
Mr. Brooks's confident and assertive secularist is something of a straw man. Secularists are frequently just people who don't see and believe what religious people do, even if that would be comforting. As Mr. Brooks notes, this doesn't make them less moral, and why should it, since religion derives from human moral impulses rather than the other way around? As for a formulated moral code, the Declaration of Independence (which only mentions a rather non-specific Nature's God) and the UN Declaration of Human Rights do a pretty good job of setting forth the essentials minus statements like those in the Bible that believers can and do use to justify bigotry and intolerance.
1
Brooks: "Religious people are commanded to drop worldly concerns."
If so, the religions haven't been successful in having their commands obeyed -- not even among the clergy.
If so, the religions haven't been successful in having their commands obeyed -- not even among the clergy.
1
David Brooks uses the word "moral" so much. I wish he would write a column defining what he means by "moral". The right wing Christians now in Congress do not show concerns that I would define as "moral".
2
I'm generally a fan of David Brooks, but disagree with many of his assertions about secularism. And as a secularist, I do not recognize myself in any of his descriptions.
My religious friends did not learn their morals from centuries of people, but from their families and communities, later informed by their own experiences. As did I.
Yes, we have to build our own Sabbaths. In this highly connected world, everyone has to make that choice (except, perhaps, for the most devout and those who are deprived of current technology). As it happens, I choose Saturday - not a soul-wrenching decision.
As for whether it's enough to want to be a decent person, well, there are plenty of religious folk who would better the world by taking just such a vow.
With regard to the "other burden", being a secularist does not mean having blind faith in his definition of the creed of 18th century enlightenment. I do not feel burdened that people 300 years ago (or next door) have a different worldview than I.
On the other hand, I am grateful to David Brooks for starting the conversation. It is more important that we be able to have discussions about these topics than that we should agree upon them.
My religious friends did not learn their morals from centuries of people, but from their families and communities, later informed by their own experiences. As did I.
Yes, we have to build our own Sabbaths. In this highly connected world, everyone has to make that choice (except, perhaps, for the most devout and those who are deprived of current technology). As it happens, I choose Saturday - not a soul-wrenching decision.
As for whether it's enough to want to be a decent person, well, there are plenty of religious folk who would better the world by taking just such a vow.
With regard to the "other burden", being a secularist does not mean having blind faith in his definition of the creed of 18th century enlightenment. I do not feel burdened that people 300 years ago (or next door) have a different worldview than I.
On the other hand, I am grateful to David Brooks for starting the conversation. It is more important that we be able to have discussions about these topics than that we should agree upon them.
1
Aha, that mischievous god, filling the planet with atheist people.
Summary of Brooks's essay: "Religion is easy, secularism is hard." Since when has Brooks pulled back from doing something just because it's difficult?
If secularists want a religious community, there is one which welcomes them - Unitarian Universalism.
1
I think Brooks misses the mark on his call to action, but I think he hits it with his assessment of burden. I sometimes wish I could just fit in at a church. It would be so much simpler.
Being religious means being tethered to a code of behavior written many, many years ago. While I lived in Israel an electric pole fell on a Sabbath day and wires were torn. In order to perform the urgently necessary repairs the electric company workers had to wait for the one religious family's car to be moved. (One may not drive on the Sabbath.) My neighbor had to run to his rabbi (no phone calls allowed on Shabbat!) and get his ok for him to give the car key to the workers in order for them to release the hand brake and move the car. The rabbi found a reason to allow it and all was well. It was a clever reason and a complete - and dangerous - waste of time.
I love it when folks who generally only worship the 'free market' seek to lecture people who are on a path that doesn't include an official organized religion.
Religious morality far too often leads to absurd immoral stands such as a prohibition on the use of condoms and of course much worse. Religious morality cannot be trusted!
To say that "Morality is built aroun individual reason" is by now not very scientific. I am fortunate to know a few people who are civil saints, one of them is my friend Joan Gewurz, a school counselor, whose empathy for all change the lives of many kids over the years. Feeling has been demonstrated to come seconds before reason. I have a suspicion that empathy is close to love, and love is close to God..so I am wondering whether we seculars, are touching God without labels.
"I suspect that over the next years secularism will change its face and become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence, and more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us." Oh boy, just what we need, more arguments and fighting over religion.
I don't understand the many comments here that equate belief with the political right, the right with wealth, and wealth with selfishness, greed, and a lack of concern for their fellow man. Talk about conflation! I believe Brooks is correct that, because secularism lacks an "inherited" set of values, its adherents need to create their own. Some adopt a caring "outward" view, but, for a great many, their world is centered on self, doing whatever feels good, with a fluid conception of what is right and wrong, good and bad. I believe it's correct that the highest concentration of secularists is in the Northeast, and, as we all know, the sun belt, especially the south, has a much higher percentage of church goers. It is also true that total charitable giving as a percentage of income is considerably higher in the south than in the northeast. That includes people of high and very low incomes. That's hardly selfishness.
11
Perhaps the allegedly lower rate of charitable giving in the Northeast (is this true?) is due to there being more social services in Northeastern states, and not to there being more godless narcissists there. As a New Yorker who has been living in the Sun Belt since 2007, the most striking difference I can see is that there are far fewer social services here than up north. People are left adrift in the South with no choice but to turn to charities. Charities whose money (what little isn't funneled back into the organization as "overhead") many times comes with strings, ideological and otherwise, attached and). And furthermore, just because you donate to charity doesn't mean you aren't selfish. It's easy to give money, especially to silence guilty voices in your head.
1
That the South gives more to charities may be a misleading item here. There are more churchgoers in the South who give to their churches than in the secular North. And the churches in the South tend to devote their charitable giving to their own members. Worthy, but one can also see this as self-serving. Southern state offer fewer benefits and social services and depend on churches to provide much more than in the Northeast. I'm not sure I would define giving to one's own church as charitable giving, despite IRS definitions, particularly when tithing is expected in many churches in order to remain a member of the congregation.
1
Well you can equate religious "belief" (literalism, fundamentalism) with the right because it has been openly part of their message for years. You can equate the right with wealth because they relentlessly advocate for policies that promote the accumulation of more and more money by a thin slice of the population as if this were some natural reward for the greatness of the <1%. You can equate the right with greed for this same reason. Your assertion that those in the Sun Belt are objectively more selfless should seem forced even to you.
I believe that this is a true statement:
"one that puts emotional relations first and autonomy second"
I'm secular and am raising secular children, though I was raised in the Presbyterian Church. Like most people my family, children and friends are the most important things to me, more important than my career, hobbies or whatever. As a secularist you don't have to invent your own moral philosophy, that's ridiculous. Even religious people typically don't accept everything taught by their church (exhibit the 98% of catholic women who practice birth control). We borrow heavily from christian morality, which is pretty similar to the morality taught by most other religions.
What we don't have to deal with is the dissonance caused when your church just gets it obviously wrong on a moral issue, and boy they do that alot. Gay marriage is the most recent. Segregation, and before that slavery, were accepted as perfectly moral and in tune with christianity by all southern churches until they weren't. However, as a devout participant, you really are just supposed to accept it all as THE moral authority in your life, you know so you don't have to think about it for yourself. That's the idea. But how do you explain to your kids as you dress them for yet another incredibly boring church service, that actually the religion is morally wrong on something important, but that you should still go anyway?
I couldn't do it anymore.
"one that puts emotional relations first and autonomy second"
I'm secular and am raising secular children, though I was raised in the Presbyterian Church. Like most people my family, children and friends are the most important things to me, more important than my career, hobbies or whatever. As a secularist you don't have to invent your own moral philosophy, that's ridiculous. Even religious people typically don't accept everything taught by their church (exhibit the 98% of catholic women who practice birth control). We borrow heavily from christian morality, which is pretty similar to the morality taught by most other religions.
What we don't have to deal with is the dissonance caused when your church just gets it obviously wrong on a moral issue, and boy they do that alot. Gay marriage is the most recent. Segregation, and before that slavery, were accepted as perfectly moral and in tune with christianity by all southern churches until they weren't. However, as a devout participant, you really are just supposed to accept it all as THE moral authority in your life, you know so you don't have to think about it for yourself. That's the idea. But how do you explain to your kids as you dress them for yet another incredibly boring church service, that actually the religion is morally wrong on something important, but that you should still go anyway?
I couldn't do it anymore.
131
The quoted statement is incomplete. Great comment regardless!
If you can't find an answer to the religious question, you dig deeper. The answer is there, ultimately, if you look hard enough. Most religious drop-outs fit Chesterton's "Christianity hasn't been tried and failed; it hasn't been tried." The "religion" is only half the equation. The other part is the seeker making the pilgrimage, sans baggage.
Christian biblical morality is a hodge-podge based primarily on the preceeding Hebrew bible's morality. Much of this is derived from Leviticus. There are over 600 rules, requirements, and prohibitions in Leviticus. Today's Christians pick a handful to declare as "revealed truth," and quietly ignore or discount the vast bulk of biblical "morality." Fundamentalist Christians embrace the passage that says that man shall not lie down with man as with woman - it is an abomination and should be punished by death. However they quietly ignore the injunction a couple of pages earlier that calls on a father to stone his son to death if the son talks back disrespectfully. They ignore the laws that define acceptable polygamy (in both the Old and New Testaments), dictate the proper duties of a slave and master (reiterated by Jesus's chroniclers in the Christian bible), the complex food restrictions, the restriction against wearing clothes made from mixed materials (like cotton and wool), the definition of women as property (its why the Commandments against coveting include the wife along with the servant and animals - but make no mention of the husband!), the laws about sin and burnt offerings, the restrictions on sex during and for 7 days after a woman's menstrual period, and countless others notable only in their non-observance by modern Christians.
Even the most devout fundamentalist strict-constructionists pick and choose only the values they agree with and disregard the rest.
Even the most devout fundamentalist strict-constructionists pick and choose only the values they agree with and disregard the rest.
Organized religion is the biggest accomplishment of the "devil."
What Mr. Brooks describes about Christianity and Judaism is the ideology in paper. In reality, look at the evil among isolated hasidim or orthodox communities in Brooklyn or Rockland county, etc. They have incredible amount of sexual abuse, spousal abuse oppression of women and fraud. Most of which is not reported because of the so called "covenant of the community."
Stop living through this definition of "beautiful' religions. Organized religion has ruined the world time and again for thousands of years.
What Mr. Brooks describes about Christianity and Judaism is the ideology in paper. In reality, look at the evil among isolated hasidim or orthodox communities in Brooklyn or Rockland county, etc. They have incredible amount of sexual abuse, spousal abuse oppression of women and fraud. Most of which is not reported because of the so called "covenant of the community."
Stop living through this definition of "beautiful' religions. Organized religion has ruined the world time and again for thousands of years.
Most of us are quite satisfied with what we have chosen to believe in and what we have chosen not to believe in. This is an enormous flaw. It is made the more dangerous by most religions. It may spell the end of our species. As a species we are inherently pathologically, egoistically, narcissistically dangerous not just to ourselves, but to all other life around us.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
Balderdash, Mr. Brooks. Too many atrocities have been committed in the name of those "inherited creeds".
1
A SECULAR JEW COMMENTS
I am convinced that the Hebrew religion has lasted so many millennia due to the enormous discrimination having been visited upon them. This may sound strange -- but, being defined as a Jew created an unusual degree of cohesion through the centuries.
But, my father though a but a Zionist insisted that I was to go to Hebrew school to learn about our heritage. The small synagogue in the Bronx had a one hour history class six days a week Though II loved my public school I hated my Hebrew school instruction -- well especially after the teacher said, 'God has always been, created the world and will be forever.' This statement made little sense to me in understanding life and the world.
So, I politely asked, 'But, who created God'? His face tuned red and asked me to leave the classroom. Outside, thinking that I was a "smart aleck," he was furious and said that I should never be so rude ever again and then slapped my face. Well, that was it.
I began at age eight only to comply with my dad's mandate. But, at age 10. he died suddenly and my mom said. 'Look you went because your father wanted you to go. Now, it's up to you.' I was now free at last.
At 40, I was divorced and went through a serious illness. A friend suggested that I join a Universalist Church, sans dogma and a sense of ethics and morality than any other group I have ever encountered. I, a stranger in a strange land was comforted.
At 72, now I see no relationship between religion and morality.
I am convinced that the Hebrew religion has lasted so many millennia due to the enormous discrimination having been visited upon them. This may sound strange -- but, being defined as a Jew created an unusual degree of cohesion through the centuries.
But, my father though a but a Zionist insisted that I was to go to Hebrew school to learn about our heritage. The small synagogue in the Bronx had a one hour history class six days a week Though II loved my public school I hated my Hebrew school instruction -- well especially after the teacher said, 'God has always been, created the world and will be forever.' This statement made little sense to me in understanding life and the world.
So, I politely asked, 'But, who created God'? His face tuned red and asked me to leave the classroom. Outside, thinking that I was a "smart aleck," he was furious and said that I should never be so rude ever again and then slapped my face. Well, that was it.
I began at age eight only to comply with my dad's mandate. But, at age 10. he died suddenly and my mom said. 'Look you went because your father wanted you to go. Now, it's up to you.' I was now free at last.
At 40, I was divorced and went through a serious illness. A friend suggested that I join a Universalist Church, sans dogma and a sense of ethics and morality than any other group I have ever encountered. I, a stranger in a strange land was comforted.
At 72, now I see no relationship between religion and morality.
All those onerous tasks you mention, David, are the joy and challenge of secularism. Resolving them is part of what it is to be fully alive. Sure, there are lots of people who would rather not bother, and for them there are lots of off the rack answers.
Regarding rationalism, if you define it as the scientific method, of course it's an inadequate basis for a real humanism. Empirical reason pretty much stops at humanities door. We have no Shakespeare theorems, or Mozart programs. Now do we have a science of politics or Supreme Court doings. Perhaps it is better that way.
Regarding rationalism, if you define it as the scientific method, of course it's an inadequate basis for a real humanism. Empirical reason pretty much stops at humanities door. We have no Shakespeare theorems, or Mozart programs. Now do we have a science of politics or Supreme Court doings. Perhaps it is better that way.
"Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries. "
Love his use of the word "evolved." Is that meant to be ironic?
Love his use of the word "evolved." Is that meant to be ironic?
1
Guys with Jewish names like Zuckerman have been been looking for something better than Judaism for a very long time, but thus far seem to have come up empty.
1
Change in social structures is older than Gilgamesh and his city. We discriminate with words like "civilized" (city-dwellers) against "heathen" or "pagan" (village- or country-dwellers). In assessing the effects of secularization, Brooks misses the obvious old saw: post hos, sed non propter hoc. "It's the economy" is a more likely explanation for the fragmentation of extended families and loss of community. It is clear that communities are stronger where rural or suburban populations dominate, or where disadvantaged groups close ranks. Cities, forced on us by economic circumstances, are uncomfortable locations for tradition.
Getting that brushwood out of the way might let Brooks see the forest and not just some trees. Then he might be able to contemplate secularism in all its Jeffersonian quality.
Getting that brushwood out of the way might let Brooks see the forest and not just some trees. Then he might be able to contemplate secularism in all its Jeffersonian quality.
This article ignores secularism as a political or public commitment. I am a believer, but am equally committed to secularism in the public sphere. How did someone as smart as David Brooks miss this?
1
There is a lot of armchair talk about whether or not an atheist can cleave to a high moral standard, even one that is superior to that which religious people claim. The merits of the arguments cannot be weighed accurately by their internal logic. History has a way of testing a person's resolve to do the right thing because doing the right thing often comes at great cost. One claim in the argument is that anyone can do what Jesus said to do -- the Golden Rule and all that. But he taught that those who followed him would ultimately be risking their own lives if they lived as he recommended they live, so obviously there is more to life than just "being good". Violence, pain, and the threat of a violent death (for oneself of one's loved ones) are sometimes the tests of a person's moral stand. People have done great evil, not always because they 'wanted to,' but because they feared a painful, premature death. This is a lever that has been used throughout history to control and corrupt people. Vilify the Bible as much as you like, but the Bible is the only book that teaches men and women to be courageous in the face of death, to know what is truly worth dying for, and to aspire to become better people according to a higher standard rather than seek a path of self justification. Historically, few who call themselves Christian have been up for this. But how many secular humanists have?
Religion is a good book club. Secularism feels pretty exalted by art, travel and book clubs, too. Groups like AA, demonstrate the benefit of groups. But, secularist do that too. Maybe its more about the cost and level of commitment. The burden of reality is life is long, and you can be really blindsided if you don't understand how the rules are changing.
Religions are known to feed the flock poisoned Kool-Aid, racism, and teach mean-spirited, harmful, backward ignorance. Being secular doesn't stop the destructive behavior but, it does put the burden on an individual to feel responsible for that. Why are people jerks?
Religions are known to feed the flock poisoned Kool-Aid, racism, and teach mean-spirited, harmful, backward ignorance. Being secular doesn't stop the destructive behavior but, it does put the burden on an individual to feel responsible for that. Why are people jerks?
Mr. Brooks's confident and assertive secularist is something of a straw man. Secularists are frequently just people who don't see and believe what religious people do, even if that would be comforting. As Mr. Brooks notes, this doesn't make them less moral, and why should it, since religion derives from human moral impulses rather than the other way around? As for a formulated moral code, the Declaration of Independence (which only mentions a rather non-specific Nature's God) and the UN Declaration of Human Rights do a pretty good job of setting forth the essentials minus statements like those in the Bible that believers can and do use to justify bigotry and intolerance.
1
David let go of your imainary god and religion and you will see how easy it is to be rational and secular. Toss the training wheels from brain washing and start living and stop agonizing over it. Greater minds never struggled as you do to think freely, rationally. There is no god, so do not worry about it. You can take that to the bank. We are all born without imaginary beliefs.
1
It must be disconcerting to feel the need to rationalize ones religious position. I really can't imagine what sort of cognitive dissonance is involved.
Many who are secular draw on religious traditions, even if they do not "fear God" in the traditional way. Many Reform, Reconstructionist and even Conservative Jews do not believe in God as a personal deity who punishes and rewards; they go to synagogue now and then because they are secular, cultural Jews. They try to live Tikkun Olam because they want to be good people. Many secular people raised in the Christian faith admire the Sermon on the Mount and think of Christ as an admirable person -- just not a divine one. People do build their own families and communities and choose their own moments of downtime and reflection. We may not be completely rational and splendid, but there is power in goodness for its own sake, or so that one can meet one's own eye in the mirror, rather than being good out of fear of God's wrath. It's not as dull and arid as all that . . .
2
The Sacred and the Secular was a Martin Buber book title of years ago. And he certainly gave us plenty to think about regarding the interplay of those two crucial concepts that keeps our mind balanced.
Finding balance in life is important for a healthy mind -- a mind that is stable and yet adaptable to changing events. We seem to be in an era of re-discovery of who we really are as an individual, let alone as a nation.
How much the sacred do we allow in our secular view?
Finding balance in life is important for a healthy mind -- a mind that is stable and yet adaptable to changing events. We seem to be in an era of re-discovery of who we really are as an individual, let alone as a nation.
How much the sacred do we allow in our secular view?
Don't mean to pick on Christians, as they are no more or less guilty than any other religion, but I'm reminded of this from Ambrose Bierce:
CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.
I'm a pretty religious fellow myself, but whether you're secular or religious, I really don't care.
But regardless of what you believe, keep it to yourself, please. I've had quite enough of people telling me what to believe.
CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.
I'm a pretty religious fellow myself, but whether you're secular or religious, I really don't care.
But regardless of what you believe, keep it to yourself, please. I've had quite enough of people telling me what to believe.
2
Secularists HAVE developed their own Sabbath and rituals.
It is called "brunch" and involves reading the New York Times.
You see its observation all over the place.
It is called "brunch" and involves reading the New York Times.
You see its observation all over the place.
380
And, unlike our religious bretheren, we don't kill, shun, or excommunicate our neighbor for preferring the Daily News, the Washington Post, or no newspaper at all!
3
Don't forget the inimitable Sunday Crossword Puzzle.
1
Marvellous, I belong to the London temple.
1
David, a big flaw in your argument starts here: "It seems to me that if secularism is going to be a positive creed . . ."
The secularists I know are not looking for another creed, nor to create one. All that unites us is that we do not believe that there is a deity who has communicated his or her wishes to humans and has set down rules to live by. Some of us are atheists, some agnostics, and even some who are believers whose doubts are large enough that they are unwilling to commit to a religion. Some make their secularism the focal point of their lives, many do not. However good and interesting Zuckerman may be, he is hardly a spokesperson for secularists.
Secularists do not deny the existence of emotional life. True, without a creed, there may not be a rallying point, so many people do drift. So do people of supposed faith.
As to your points on autonomy: Yes, exactly, people are not autonomous. We are responsible for ourselves and for one another, and we are in turn taken care of by others. I hope you will share this insight with your political colleagues, who want us to function as autonomous beings, all entrepreneurs and rational self-seeking economic units, rather than to create a society that responds to human needs.
The secularists I know are not looking for another creed, nor to create one. All that unites us is that we do not believe that there is a deity who has communicated his or her wishes to humans and has set down rules to live by. Some of us are atheists, some agnostics, and even some who are believers whose doubts are large enough that they are unwilling to commit to a religion. Some make their secularism the focal point of their lives, many do not. However good and interesting Zuckerman may be, he is hardly a spokesperson for secularists.
Secularists do not deny the existence of emotional life. True, without a creed, there may not be a rallying point, so many people do drift. So do people of supposed faith.
As to your points on autonomy: Yes, exactly, people are not autonomous. We are responsible for ourselves and for one another, and we are in turn taken care of by others. I hope you will share this insight with your political colleagues, who want us to function as autonomous beings, all entrepreneurs and rational self-seeking economic units, rather than to create a society that responds to human needs.
1
Religion is a mental illness. I truly hope our evolution as a species diminishes and eliminates religion. Not that we really have the time to evolve as I believe our planet will not be able to continue to support us. We are making unsustainable choices and another century or two will see the end of us.
I'm sick to death of religion. It continues to cause such horror across our country and world. I feel that children who are born into extreme religious families are abused. When a person hits adulthood, they should have a choice. But as a child, being forced to be 'religious' is damaging in so many ways. I know more than one person who grew up with the horror of hell looming over them all their young lives. That is 100% wrong.
One can be secular and moral and happy without a 'god' who is, like Santa Claus, constantly 'watching' so you have to be good (or you'll go to hell).
I'm sick to death of religion. It continues to cause such horror across our country and world. I feel that children who are born into extreme religious families are abused. When a person hits adulthood, they should have a choice. But as a child, being forced to be 'religious' is damaging in so many ways. I know more than one person who grew up with the horror of hell looming over them all their young lives. That is 100% wrong.
One can be secular and moral and happy without a 'god' who is, like Santa Claus, constantly 'watching' so you have to be good (or you'll go to hell).
3
In the West, there was a reformation of religion and then in more recent times, a rejection. Europe, for example, seems to be in a post-Christian age. There was very much gained, but also as David states, something lost: an emotional engine, a spiritual vocabulary, and rituals that bound us together and connected us with our past.
We may be at the beginning of the next Axial Age; something may be shaping up that will take us to the next step, transforming our Abrahamic past, just as it did our pagan past.
We may be at the beginning of the next Axial Age; something may be shaping up that will take us to the next step, transforming our Abrahamic past, just as it did our pagan past.
1
Well, I think you are concerned the secular lack an anchor, and that in rough seas they will be tossed about. And, yes, I imagine, with no common code, it could be highly dangerous for all concerned.
But, I also believe, the peculiarities of organized religion can be detrimental to a man's mental health, especially, if he truly is not a rational animal and if he is guided by emotions. (I think, it is a little bit of both.) I always ponder words like "there'd been no sin, had it not been mentioned" --- like the wise parent who knows best not to make an issue out of it. And, how about, "a prophet is not known in their own country?"
Personally, I don't know where I am in all of this, lately I'm exploring Judaism, and so far, it seems right or at least it is the only common ground I can find between my husbands belief's and my own.
I figure if there is one Mightier than I, He/It (A Spirit) must have my hand, because I have asked a zillion times, and it's either this, or I'm secular and don't know it.
But, I also believe, the peculiarities of organized religion can be detrimental to a man's mental health, especially, if he truly is not a rational animal and if he is guided by emotions. (I think, it is a little bit of both.) I always ponder words like "there'd been no sin, had it not been mentioned" --- like the wise parent who knows best not to make an issue out of it. And, how about, "a prophet is not known in their own country?"
Personally, I don't know where I am in all of this, lately I'm exploring Judaism, and so far, it seems right or at least it is the only common ground I can find between my husbands belief's and my own.
I figure if there is one Mightier than I, He/It (A Spirit) must have my hand, because I have asked a zillion times, and it's either this, or I'm secular and don't know it.
Wow. Mr. Brooks has moved the discussion off the infantile attempt by secularists at comparing apples and oranges - i.e. the so called challenge of secularists to those of faith to prove that there is a G-d, and to reconcile religion with science. The functionalities, both individual and societal, that David lists are in fact the core of what has made Judaism endure for 3,500 years and see the birth of Christianity and Islam.
The only thing missing is the kangaroo court charge of secularists that so many have been killed in the name of religion. Unfortunately we learned in the enlightened 20th century how otherwise rational people stood, or cooperated while the anti-religious secularist movements of communism and nazism murdered 120 million human beings. And other commentators - please don't bore us with charges regarding radical Islam and its murderous creed. The quicker that secularists accept that the jihadist Islamists are truly acting from an irrational religious conviction, which makes negotiations from a secular mind set a comedy, the quicker the peaceful Moslem world and the rest of us will be able to deal with this menace.
The only thing missing is the kangaroo court charge of secularists that so many have been killed in the name of religion. Unfortunately we learned in the enlightened 20th century how otherwise rational people stood, or cooperated while the anti-religious secularist movements of communism and nazism murdered 120 million human beings. And other commentators - please don't bore us with charges regarding radical Islam and its murderous creed. The quicker that secularists accept that the jihadist Islamists are truly acting from an irrational religious conviction, which makes negotiations from a secular mind set a comedy, the quicker the peaceful Moslem world and the rest of us will be able to deal with this menace.
David Brooks's description of the secular life reads like a color-blind person's description if a rainbow. Or a tone-deaf person's description of birdsong.
9
Poor David, looking in from outside and seeing "the struggle required to live by it [secularism]." Some of us know the freedom of being able to build our own moral philosophies, determine our own sacred conventions and build like minded communities. Every sentence that David portrays as a burden is turned upside down if one has reached the point rejecting religious rituals and formula prayers to a mystical being. Our days are filled with the small wonders of life -- the overwhelming love we experience watching a tossle-haired child eating his cereal, sunshine sparkling on freshly fallen snow. Life in this moment, in every situation is an opportunity to be lived to its fullest, for ourselves and for all of those around us.
1
We might find an enchanted secularism based on science. This is what Carl Sagan tried to do so beautifully in the original Cosmos series, which I and many found so inspiring.