Does secularism make people more ethical?

[Sammi79]

Ah, Ok I think I understand your point now. You are saying that science (specifically genetics) may provide insights into why people want/need belief structures, and that it may be dangerous to the psyche to not provide it with these

hmmm. It is an interesting question, but one I feel has not been thoroughly researched yet, and certainly no conclusions have been drawn. I would also add that even if there is a genetic predisposition to desire a (quite obviously false) belief structure that it does not mean that this is healthy. And yes I use the word "Truth" for decribing reality as we can never quite define it. Philip. K. Dick. said 'Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away' - lol in that case religions are certainly reality.

Anyway this is getting off-topic although I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, Skybird.
back to the OP - I think anything divisive is harmful and discourages ethical behaviour, and as a flip side, anything inclusive helps and encourages ethical behaviour.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

..........one could argue that a secular society seems to be an inevitable precondtion for functioning multi-cultural societies, at least is better suited to maybe deliver on that promise than any society embracing institutionalised or dogmatic religious conceptions.

That i agree with.
Which means separation of religion from government and basic rights protected by constitution more or less like USA.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by MH

Yes it is as there are no secular people who thing that they got it right.
Exploitation is as old as humans and has nothing to do with religion but religion or any other system is used for it.
Secular think that have the recipe for well being of whole human race.
Where fighting religion by all means is part of solution.
I have religious friends with whom i disagree on many issues...but on basic fundamental level they are as ethical as any one else.
In many cases they are much less self centered and selfish than secular people.

Religion taken to extreme mixed with politics is a problem.
Secular extremism is intolerant as well.
Just in Judaism you have extreme rabbis liberal rabbis ....so so rabbis.
Just on this forum you can find nazi christians,christians and secular nazis...go figure.
Again maybe living in Jerusalem made me relatively tolerant....to multiculturalism with all it problems....but i prefer that to some uniform zombie society.

I never said that secular groups necessarily have it better, any group can form dogmatic views, and do the exact same stuff.

Personally I believe in skepticism, as it is something that keeps one humble. As a skeptic you do not have any answers, and do not believe to firmly in anything. You can also be religious or spiritual, and also a skeptic too.

P.S. as for the Nazi's, they were working on their own organized religious system within the SS to replace Christianity, based on the older Germanic traditions. They were not secular by any means. Many Neo-Nazi groups are following in those footsteps (or have converted Naziism into a religion itself).


As for ethics, frankly I think it depends on the individual themselves, and not the religion or lack their of that they were raised under. The only argument I see is that perhaps secularism attracts more of that type of person. Assuming the initial study was valid of course (I haven't bothered reading it as honestly I could care less).

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Ah, Ok I think I understand your point now. You are saying that science (specifically genetics) may provide insights into why people want/need belief structures, and that it may be dangerous to the psyche to not provide it with these

I said that there are neurological indices for an inbuilt desire to believe or secular, and the trinagle experiment: an obvious difference in people to antromporphise or not do so when observing a culture-free, value-neutral-neutral stimulus.

Diffent, but complementary to that I pointed out that psycholgical health in many people suffers if they are stripped of the conviction that their life is not safely embedded in any theoretical conception that gives them the illusion to control the security of their living conditions. This can be their idea of the meaning of life, andf the role theis existence plays in the chaoptiuc chaos around them - which you can see as either a blessed divine garden of manifestations in which each and everything has its place and legitimiation and meaning that just is too high for our ouzr minds to be understood - or as a brooding chaos that simply pays no inettrest at all at our individual existence and survival or death at all.

I described that before in other threads that we know from the Nazi'S death camps that people still being able to put their suffering their into the context of a higher meaning they believed in, showed greater survival chances due to greater psychologicaly health and robustness, not giving themselves up. As Victor Frankl, a camp survivor himself, put it: "He who has a Why to live for, can bear almost every How."

hmmm. It is an interesting question, but one I feel has not been thoroughly researched yet, and certainly no conclusions have been drawn. I would also add that even if there is a genetic predisposition to desire a (quite obviously false) belief structure that it does not mean that this is healthy. And yes I use the word "Truth" for decribing reality as we can never quite define it. Philip. K. Dick. said 'Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away' - lol in that case religions are certainly reality.

Feel...? Feeling has nothing to do with it, according research prohjects are goping on since years, as I pointed out, and have been published in their results since several years. And the genetic desire for belief does not, like you imply, decide on the belief'S content, but describes a vulnerability, or a need in the individual to believe in a meaning of existence in general. Thnjat the studies deiffer between members of a relgious community and secularisdts, is for methdologioc reasoins only, you need to foirm the two experimentation groups by any kind of solid criterion. But the results do not show a genetic marker for theism or church-dogma-attractiuon, but show a correlation between brain activity patterns and more or less belief-oriented worldview orientation (in this case: theistic beloievers and secularists/atheists), and show different strengths of trends in people to antropomorphise the objects of their percpetions.
[/quote]

- I think anything divisive is harmful and discourages ethical behaviour, and as a flip side, anything inclusive helps and encourages ethical behaviour.

That is too generalistic. Being divisive regarding the difference of humanism and Nazism hardly discourages ethical behavior when you defenbd the psoition of humanism, and beinbg inclusive regarding totalitarian ideoloigies when it comes to your willingness to be tolerant will not do you any good, but will destroy first your ideal of tolerance and next yourself.

What you mean, is probably this, which I find best expressed in the Kalamas Sutra from the Buddhist canon:

Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

That i agree with.
Which means separation of religion from government and basic rights protected by constitution more or less like USA.

Not really, because in reality there are plenty of laws and rules on federal state levbel that discmrinate non-bveolievers, there is a strong evangelical trend in the armed forces, and in local places communities are extremely hostile and supressive againmst non-theists/atheists/secularists.

There seems to be a big difference between the intentions expressed in the nation's founding papers, and the practical reality in place. In some states for example you are even banned from candidacy for pulbic offices if you do not believe in theistic deities, and campaigns by orthodox religious groups have led to the change of the formerly "neutral" writings on coins and notes ("in God wer trust" is relatively new a formula), and the chnage in formulation of the pledge of allegiance (one nation "under God" also is new").

However. Just to put the US example on secularism a bit back into relation. In Europe, most people and media associate it stronger with religious dogmatic rule than any other Wetsern nation, even before Poland, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. The European mean value of secularists in the population also is far ahead of that in the US (article linked in first post in this thread).

[Growler]

I can't speak for others, because I know only myself, but I would say that, as my indoctrination into the Catholic faith waned, my own introspection and even open-mindedness increased greatly.

As I became more aware that what I was observing wasn't reconcilable with what I had been taught, my curiosity increased, and with it, my ability to actually learn from others who believe differently than I do. I don't need a deity to believe in to recognize that this world, for all the hype given its troubles, is still a beautiful and amazing place to live right now, and that I'm remarkably lucky not only to be of sufficeint health and welfare to see that, but also to be able to share that wth others.

I'm also increasngly aware that, of all the species on the planet, we humans seem to be the only ones plagued with an interminable existential debate that influences and in some cases, prescribes our actions in how we treat not only each other, but other species on the planet as well.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I said that there are neurological indices for an inbuilt desire to believe or secular, and the triangle experiment: an obvious difference in people to anthropomorphise or not do so when observing a culture-free, value-neutral-neutral stimulus.

Right, hold on. I must confess I have not got a shred of a whisker of a clue as to exactly what you are on about here. what is a value-neutral-neutral stimulus? it reads sort of : there are levels of brain (activity?) to either think 0 or 1 , the triangle experiment - (you mean an experiment to see if a few random numbers add up to either an acute or obtuse triangle or not? or do you mean the technological triangle experiment, which is a collaboration and staff exchange of scientific establishments in europe? or maybe even http://thechurch.co.nz/inspiration/2010/12/triangle-experiment-1/?) an obvious difference in people to project human thoughts and actions or not when looking at culture-free... ? I'm sorry but that just sounds like gibberish. maybe is a language thing?

"He who has a Why to live for, can bear almost every How." I can understand him feeling that. typically people who go through intense mental/physical pressure or trauma are more open to these ideas, especially at their weakest point. You could also say "He who has a why to die for, can bear almost any life"

enough off topic.

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is too generalistic. Being divise regarding the difference of humanism and Nazism hardly discourages ethical behavior when you defenbd the psoition of humanism, and beinbg inclusive regarding totalitarian ideoloigies when it comes to your willingness to be tolerant will not do you any good, but will destroy first your ideal of tolerance and next yourself.

I mean being inclusive on a human level. To not exclude people. Ethics must be at least in part learned via human interaction within a social group, and the broader the group the greater the sensitivity to broader ethical concerns.

Originally Posted by Skybird

What you mean, is probably this, which I find best expressed in the Kalamas Sutra from the Buddhist canon:

Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others.

Yeah thats a lovely quote. I would still say, about the probability thing that if the odds are so staggeringly loaded in one direction, you can pretty much rely on it. I'm willing to take the risk anyway.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Not really, because in reality there are plenty of laws and rules on federal state levbel that discmrinate non-bveolievers, there is a strong evangelical trend in the armed forces, and in local places communities are extremely hostile and supressive againmst non-theists/atheists/secularists.

There seems to be a big difference between the intentions expressed in the nation's founding papers, and the practical reality in place. In some states for example you are even banned from candidacy for pulbic offices if you do not believe in theistic deities, and campaigns by orthodox religious groups have led to the change of the formerly "neutral" writings on coins and notes ("in God wer trust" is relatively new a formula), and the chnage in formulation of the pledge of allegiance (one nation "under God" also is new").

However. Just to put the US example on secularism a bit back into relation. In Europe, most people and media associate it stronger with religious dogmatic rule than any other Wetsern nation, even before Poland, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. The European mean value of secularists in the population also is far ahead of that in the US (article linked in first post in this thread).

Well...that's true but that's because of overall flavor of USA is of faith oriented values while the constitution defends basic rights for all.
If President of USA has to put on show that he is man of faith to get elected ,its a power of democracy...probably majority think its the right thing at the moment.
Its something unavoidable.
You want Germany your way Americans want it their way...Israelis aren't sure yet lol.
Still as country which is build mostly on emigration and many different views and religions it RELATIVLY successfully copes with its issues and diversity.
Its not perfect but best i can see.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Right, hold on. I must confess I have not got a shred of a whisker of a clue as to exactly what you are on about here. what is a value-neutral-neutral stimulus?

My fast-typing. Value-neutral stimulus, culture-free stimulus, by which I meant not based on pre-education, not resulting a ciulture-depending reaction

it reads sort of : there are levels of brain (activity?) to either think 0 or 1 , the triangle experiment - (you mean an experiment to see if a few random numbers add up to either an acute or obtuse triangle or not? or do you mean the technological triangle experiment, which is a collaboration and staff exchange of scientific establishments in europe? or maybe even http://thechurch.co.nz/inspiration/2010/12/triangle-experiment-1/?) an obvious difference in people to project human thoughts and actions or not when looking at culture-free... ? I'm sorry but that just sounds like gibberish. maybe is a language thing?

I meant the triangle experiment that was described in the article I linked in the very first post that started this thread.:
quote: Test subjects watch a film in which triangles move about. One group experiences the film as a humanized drama, in which the larger triangles are attacking the smaller ones. The other group describes the scene mechanically, simply stating the manner in which the geometric shapes are moving. /quote

them as a group o ftriangles being "attacked"

"He who has a Why to live for, can bear almost every How." I can understand him feeling that. typically people who go through intense mental/physical pressure or trauma are more open to these ideas, especially at their weakest point. You could also say "He who has a why to die for, can bear almost any life"

No, it would be: "he who has a why to die for, is easier willing not to cling to life, if according situation arises." Frankl is founder of the socalled Logotherapy, a therapy firm that tries healment of psychological suffering by helping people finding a mneaning in what makes them suffer, a meaning in the loss they suffer(ed), or whatever. In pure form it is almost irrelevant today - but basic conceptions and considerations of it have found entrance and use in practically all major therapy forms that dominate the market and enjoy wide acceptance and support by socialcare. Maybe with the exception of behavoioruistzic shcools - and even these have oepned their doors for some of the socalled humansiotic therapy concepts. Puristic therapists are rare today. Maybe only psychoanalytics work in that puristic way anymore. And even pychoanalysis has diversified.

Anyhow, the point is the individual pecpetion of own suffering, whether it be due to being locked in a camp, or suzffering a loss of meaning and self-assrunace in and over once' own existence. The mildest form of that, is boredom. The heaviest form is exiostential despair, a symptomatology of majhor depression, suicide. Having a mesaning to live mfor, strengthens your psychologic immune system, so to speak, against aversive, threatening, doubting stimuli.

It also can help to keep the doubt away. That is comfrotable, and thus very tempting. But the price is that it makes you stop asking questions and reflecting your ways.

I mean being inclusive on a human level. To not exclude people. Ethics must be at least in part learned via human interaction within a social group, and the broader the group the greater the sensitivity to broader ethical concerns.

I reserve the right to decide that on an individual levbeöl as well as a level of where I also include the goals, desaires and ideological convictions somebody clings to. Thus I reserve the right to include some - and exclude others. I also reserve the right to say that not all and everything is of equal value, is just vartiations of just one and the same unerlaying quality, or must be accepted just becasue "it is".

As a consequence of thios, I am tolerant on some things, and intolerant on others. Tolerance needs limits.

Yeah thats a lovely quote. I would still say, about the probability thing that if the odds are so staggeringly loaded in one direction, you can pretty much rely on it. I'm willing to take the risk anyway.

That's what we do all the time, every day. But our problems, mentally as well as materially, arise when we think that just because we have never seen a black swan, there indeed are no black swans. Link. Probabilities are just this: probabilities. And as every student of classic test theory knows, there is one mahjor probloem with test theory and theories on the relevance of probabilities for realty: probabilities win in relevance by total number of events being taken into account for calculating them. Total relevance and trustworthiness they only gain in case of an infinite ammount of such events - and that practically is impossible to imagine. That throwing a six with a dice has a probability of 1/6, does not exlcude the possibility that for the rest of all your life you will only throw sixers whenever you use a dice. That that is "unlikely", does not really hold any factual information. Becasue when it happens nevertheless, the imporbbale suddenly reaches a likelihood of 100.000% and the highly improbable plummtes down to 0.000%.

Granted, that is academic fun only. But in classicv test theory, which is repsonsible fpor major tools of data analysis and scientific test design, this has fundamental consequences and raises problems that so far nobody could solve. And so - they get simply ignored.

It is good habit imo to operate by probabilities, yes - but also to be in the knowedfge of certain unsolved problems and implications. Like flying a modern aircraft with glass cockpit - but being able to operate old analogue backups for navigation nevertheless. Just in case. Some people just pick a GPS, and nothing else. I am the type who also picks up a compass and a map, and in case of doubt - skip the GPS, but not the latter two.

P.S.
Imagine to live in a uniform, supressive society, under a totalitarian regime. Youhave been grown there, you do not know it any different. What then with probabilites to decide which decisions to make? These probabilities would be defioned and formed - by said totalitarianism around you. So basing on socially constructed and induced probabilities would lead you on what right now you would probbaly agree to call a wrong way. It would make sure you stay "inside", and don't break "out".

In an anarchic regime, your probabilities wopuld lead you totally different, away from conformism, and towards individualism and jungle law.

Obviously, probability alone does not do the trick.

So what do these increasing numbers of non-believers believe in,

Belief is the key word, what is belief, what do you believe in if anything. Love, Faith, the human Spirit to overcome all things (I think of Lance Armstrong here). My theory is, even athiests believe, it's just we have lost the understanding of what belief really is.

The British pastor, Smith Wigglesworth said, " if you have to pray about something more than once, that is unbelief " . So what is the point, the point is this, even life long Church going folk struggle with belief the same as everyone else in the secular. Jesus said, "if you believe in me, greater things will you do"

I don't know if anyone will follow this link and watch, but I will say this before you click on it. This man did this a documented 29 times and his life long ministry was "only believe"

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by sidslotm

This man did this a documented 29 times and his life long ministry was "only believe"

Documented? By whom? Can you show this documentation?

I notice you have an Amazon.com link Steve, thats where I buy my books from the USA. The documented testimonies can be found there, plus first hand accounts on youtube.

The documented testimonies can be found there, plus first hand accounts on youtube.

You mean strange medical claims that are not verified

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by sidslotm

Belief is the key word, what is belief, what do you believe in if anything. Love, Faith, the human Spirit to overcome all things (I think of Lance Armstrong here). My theory is, even athiests believe, it's just we have lost the understanding of what belief really is.

The British pastor, Smith Wigglesworth said, " if you have to pray about something more than once, that is unbelief " . So what is the point, the point is this, even life long Church going folk struggle with belief the same as everyone else in the secular. Jesus said, "if you believe in me, greater things will you do"

I don't know if anyone will follow this link and watch, but I will say this before you click on it. This man did this a documented 29 times and his life long ministry was "only believe"

Garbage...no proof, just stories to still emotions to get people to open their wallets, thinking they can buy God. Just like Hinn who claims he can medically prove his healings, tells news people he will show them and not once has. Sure, they can get people stirred emotionally with lights, music and preaching and convince them to overcome pain for a few minutes, all it is.

Faith and doubt go hand in hand.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by sidslotm

I notice you have an Amazon.com link Steve, thats where I buy my books from the USA. The documented testimonies can be found there, plus first hand accounts on youtube.

Documentation is something recorded, facts that can be shown. All the books in the world don't show facts, just talk. If someone was actually raised from the dead it would be world news, not hidden in books.

Documented testimonies are not documentation of the fact itself. A thousand people can claim God talked to them directly in their meeting. If there is no film of God doing the talking, then it's not documentation. Or, to loosely paraphrase Thomas Paine, "If God talks to me, it's revelation. If I tell you about it, it's hearsay."

As for YouTube, put up the links. But I will say this: Someone saying it, even on film, does not make it true, and is not documentation. I could say I've actually contacted the saucer people. This doesn't make it so.

All your is, is hearsay.