David Brooks seems to think that secularists need to find some excuse for jihads and crusades.

[rogerashton]

Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action.

snip

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, ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/opinion/david-brooks-building-better-secularists.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

I had thought that what we secularists share, heterogenous as we are, is precisely the rejection of "enchantment." And that is good.

[haikugal]

1. Ha! Is it a full moon by chance...

This is as crazy as the antivax stuff I've been reading. Too funny!

[DetlefK]

2. Translation: "Only raging fanatics can compel moral behaviour in others."

That's why we need more raging fanatics. For a better world.

[rogerashton]

3. It brings to mind Sorel's ideas.

Not much read now, and that probably is a good thing. Sorel thought that violence per se would create a morally superior society, at least by his moral standards. He said that "socialism" would become a religion, in effect, and replace the traditional religions. He is regarded as a forerunner of fascism. That's my memory, anyway -- it has been years since I read it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_Violence

[Nitram]

4. It seeems to be a meme among conservatives...

...that people who are non-religious, secular or atheists are somehow more likely to go on crusades and jihads than believers. I think it is just part of the conservative strategy to always accuse your critics of the same behavior you are being accused of. Like the way they claim African-Americans are more likely to be racist than whites. Or Democrats are less empathetic to the poor than they are.

[edhopper]

5. It hurt to read that

One could rebut and point out the stupidity in every sentence.

This paragraph alone is an ocean of inanity;

The point is not that secular people should become religious. You either believe in God or you don’t. Neither is the point that religious people are better than secular people. That defies social science evidence and common observation. 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.

And no, I won't explain why, it should be self obvious.

[cbayer]

6. Trying to pigeonhole "secularists" is like trying to pigeonhole christians is like

trying to pigeonhole muslims, etc.

But I do think some of his observations are valid.

I don't think the non-religious have rejected enchantment at all, though some may have.

[rogerashton]

7. Examples?

Utopia can motivate people in ways that recall religious fervor, and militant utopianism has a bad record -- though certainly no worse than, for example, the Crusade against the Albigensians). That war was the first use (I think) of "Kill them all, God will know His own." That's a justification for murder no secular person could use. And many utopians channelled their fervor into the founding of their own communities. (And still do.)

Apart from utopianism, can you give any instances of secular "enchantment?" If not, are you honest enough to withdraw your comment?

[cbayer]

8. This is what I said, "I don't think the non-religious have rejected enchantment at all,

though some may have."

I was, of course, responding to the statement made by you:

I had thought that what we secularists share, heterogenous as we are, is precisely the rejection of "enchantment." And that is good.

If we are using "secularists" to mean non-believers, then I reject your premise that what ties non-believers together is the rejection of "enchantment". Many non-believers experience enchantment, sometimes spiritual, sometimes not.

Do you never feel it? Have you actively rejected it? Perhaps your answers are no and yes, but you only speak for yourself.

I happen to be pretty honest and don't take well to your implying that I am not and need to withdraw my comment simply because I disagree with you.

[rogerashton]

9. Evidently we use the word "enchantment" differently.

I have had at least one mystical experience. I agree with Sam Harris that mysticism, that is, attention to one's subjective life, is a rational activity. Nor am I an atheist. The difference is that mystical experience in this sense is private, has nothing to do with politics, community, or conflict. Some use the word simply for a "sense of wonder." Yes, I have experienced that.

However: Brooks uses the word "enchantment" in a different sense, explicitly to mean a fervor that leads people to enforce conformity to a deontological moral code. It is enchantment in that sense that I (and, so far as I know, secularists generally) reject.

Arguing from ambiguity, if deliberate as it seems to have been, is not honest by my moral standards. However, I certainly would not use violence to force my moral standards on you. Contempt, however, is nonviolent.

[cbayer]

10. Perhaps the problem is exactly that - we are using the word differently.

What I reject about this article is the broad brush descriptions of what "secularists" are and should be. Your comment seemed to be just continuing that and I reject it.

Enchantment can be entirely private as well. My sense was that Brooks used it to promote the idea that autonomy should give way to emotional relationships. That is how he defined "emotional secularism". I see nothing there about a fervor used to enforce conformity.

Honestly, I don't think you or he can speak for secularists generally. In fact, I think many people are both religious and secular and don't even find the terms exclusive, though it is popular to use them in this way.

You are now judging me by your moral standards and feel contempt for me because you think I am arguing from ambiguity? Perhaps you do have some of the secular fervor being promoted by Mr. Brook, or maybe you are just enchanted by an image of secularism that we don't share.

[rogerashton]

15. Another instance of argument from ambiguity.

Clearly, Brooks was using the term "secular" more narrowly.

Over the past few years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of people who are atheist, agnostic or without religious affiliation.

This delineates the term "secular" as Brooks is using it. In that present sense, secularism and religion do seem to be mutually exclusive.

His last paragraph, by contrast, is quite unclear as to what it demands of secularists.

I suspect that over the next years secularism will change its face and become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence,....

That certainly sounds like a description of crusaders and jihadists, certainly "less content with mere benevolence." Now, it may describe other things as well, such as saints determined in their faith even to the pyre. But those things are all associated in the history of religious faiths.

No, what I object to is the idea that secularism is yet another religious faith, a view you too have expressed. Secular people have done some evil things -- I spoke to that in an earlier post about utopians -- but secularism is not a "creed," to use Brooks' wrongful term. Faith has nothing to do with secularism. In that, secularism is different from religion, and when Brooks or anybody else looks down over his nose to tell us that it is not different from religion, contempt is the appropriate response.

[cbayer]

18. I realize that he is using the term more narrowly and I noted that it has become

common to use it in this way. I think that is unfortunate because it does make religion and secularism mutually exclusive.

I don't hear anything about crusaders and jihadists, though I do think he is predicting an increase in activism. Is that such I bad thing?

I have never expressed that secularism is just another religious faith. That is apparently a belief you have developed based on faith, because it's not based on fact. The only "creed" of secularism is the stand about the separation of church and state.

If you want to hold Mr. Brooks in contempt, I will stand by you. However, if you base your contempt on beliefs not based on fact, that is faith.

[rug]

11. Here's one.

[rogerashton]

12. Sensawunder.

Tyson's quote certainly has nothing to do with "enchantment" as Brooks was using the term, so not an example at all.

[cbayer]

14. I disagree. Here is the definition he uses:

an enchanted secularism, one that puts emotional relations first and autonomy second.

I think the image illustrates that beautifully.

[rogerashton]

16. But what is the source of the image?

The quote is from Tyson. As for the picture, who knows? And why does the picture "put autonomy second?" Because it shows a family? Are you saying that secularism is a religious faith because secular and religious people share the same reproductive biology? That's about how ridiculous Brooks' position is.

[cbayer]

19. I do not think and have never thought that secularism is a religious faith.

And I don't in any way agree with Brooks' conclusions.

It is your position about "enchantment" that I take issue with.

[rug]

20. I'll rely on Brooks' words rather than your belief as to what he means.

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.

Even though that is an emotionless, arid picture.

[edhopper]

13. I could not find

one valid observation in the entire piece.

[cbayer]

17. Well, edhopper, that doesn't entirely surprise me.

While I am not a big fan of Brooks and I am not a fan of the overall point of this piece, I did find some of it valid, starting with the very first paragraph.

Here are a few others:

Zuckerman argues that secular morality is built around individual reason, individual choice and individual responsibility.

Secular people, he argues, value autonomy over groupthink. They deepen their attachment to this world instead of focusing on a next one.

Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies. Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries.

These and other statements he makes are things that are often said by people around here. While I don't agree with the conclusions that he draws later in the piece, I think these are valid observations.

[edhopper]

21. None of those are valid

secularist can consider morality based on the good of the many and the responsibility of society over the individual.

Don't born again Christians talk about a personal relation with God. Didn't Martin Luther value autonomy?
Secular people don't think there is a next world, so the statement is just silly. And many religious people have a deep attachment to this world.

Many secular people build their philosophies on the great philosophers of the past, not just their individual ideas.
And you have stated many times religious people can be just as rational and critical with their beliefs as secular ones. Not just following some creed.

Nothing valid in the whole essay. Brook is about as deep as the slush puddle in my driveway.

[cbayer]

22. Ok, but I think you are nit picking and being argumentative..

If you don't find those very general statements valid, I hope that you will challenge them when they are made by those that consider themselves secularists. I'll be glad to point that out when it happens, and it will.

Most of the quotes I put up were Brooks describing what this other author was saying.

How about the very first paragraph? Not valid?

[edhopper]

23. There is a big difference between secularism

especially secular humanism and atheism and agnosticism.
I don't know enough about Zuckerman to know if Brooks understands what he is saying.
Brooks track record would be he doesn't.

The piece is largely hogwash.

I'll leave it at that because I just don't need to spend anymore time on this tripe.

[cbayer]

24. I agree that there is a big difference, and that is why I generally

object to the term "secular" being used to describe non-believers in general. There is meaning to the word secular that has nothing to do with whether one has religious beliefs or not.

Hope your day is going well.

[edhopper]

25. Cold

lot's of ice. Otherwise fine.

BTW My terseness was aimed at Bobo Brooks, not you.

[cbayer]

26. Bobo Brooks, lol. That's a good one.

He identifies as Jewish, but I wonder if it is a religious identification or just a cultural one.

Sorry about the cold and ice. I won't tell you about the weather here.

[edhopper]

27. He's what passes for an intellectual

among conservatives. It's sad.

[Fumesucker]

30. From the title of his book, Bobos in Paradise...

[cbayer]

31. I figured that but had not heard it before. Love the cover, haven't

read the book

[Humanist_Activist]

28. I find his first premise flawed, and so everything that follows is also flawed...

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action.

No it doesn't, indeed, by itself, secularism is nothing but a particular subject being without religion, and even that is somewhat fuzzy. To be secular is to not involve religion, it doesn't have to arouse anything. Not to mention that you don't have to be non-religious to be secular, indeed, I would say there is a strong argument to state that most people in the more developed nations follow morality and ethics that is far more grounded in secular philosophies of the enlightenment than any of there religious traditions, regardless of what those are.

Democracy, Egalitarianism, Feminism, Free Thought, Free Speech, Freedom of and from Religion, Human Rights, Civil Rights, LGBT rights etc. are all grounded in philosophies that date largely back to the late to middle renaissance(with rediscoveries from much older philosophers) and then the later enlightenment period and then further developed into the progressive era, all the way to the modern era. Our modern society was mostly shaped by these ideas, and these ideas are NOT grounded in any particular religion, being neither birthed by them nor their holy books. Much of the modern societies of what we call the "Western World" are secular in nature, which causes a collapse in his future arguments about the "struggle" of secularists.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"] 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.

Uhm, my argument from above? Non-religious people don't live in a vacuum, and neither do religious people. If you were the examine the life of a typical non-religious individual in the United States, and the typical Christian in the same country, as far as day to day behavior, I doubt you could find a difference. They may do something different on the weekend, but other than that, they will mostly act as largely rational actors behaving properly in society. Following the rules laid out, following their own moral codes, and not thinking about it much. I doubt a Christian is thinking about his reward in heaven when he holds the door open for a stranger to be let through at the restaurant any more than the non-religious person doing the same just because.

The only difference is after the fact, when people try to justify there behaviors . That's where religion is usually inserted, WWJD and all that.

Also, side note: I don't think of anything as sacred.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Secular individuals have to build their own communities. Religions come equipped with covenantal rituals that bind people together, sacred practices that are beyond individual choice. Secular people have to choose their own communities and come up with their own practices to make them meaningful.

On this one, why? Why would non-religious people have to form communities at all? Isn't that something that is different for every individual, and in addition, not limited to the non-religious? Ask Wiccans how hard it is not NOT be a solitary practitioner, or those of practically any minority religion in the United States. This brings up another point, there already are, at least in larger cities and metro areas, quite a few options in secular and non-secular organizations and groups to join that can fill both the ritual and community side, if you feel you need either. I'll use a couple of examples in my metro area alone:

Greater St. Louis Coalition of Reason

http://unitedcor.org/greater_st_louis/page/home

The Ethical Society of St. Louis

http://ethicalstl.org/

If you live more in the western Ex-Urbs there's also:

Ethical Society of Midrivers

http://www.ethicalsocietymr.org/

There's also the classic UUA congregations:

http://www.firstuustlouis.org/

http://www.eliotchapel.org/

http://www.emersonuuchapel.org/

Some of these are quite old, the Ethical Society of St. Louis dates back to 1886, while the First Unitarian Church of St. Louis was the first Unitarian church west of the Mississippi, founded in 1835.

And this isn't including other secular activities people participate in from sports to politics and activism. You don't need a "church" to have a community, after all. So unless said non-religious/religious minority person lived on an island isolated from the rest of society, his claim is untrue.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Secular individuals have to build their own Sabbaths. Religious people are commanded to drop worldly concerns. Secular people have to create their own set times for when to pull back and reflect on spiritual matters.

This makes no sense, sorry, this is not only not true, but shows gross ignorance of non-religious people. Religious people may be commanded to do what he's talking about, non-religious people are under no such obligations.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"] 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.

Uhm, again, untrue, and I bolded part of it, and want to ask the author, why not? I can only speak for myself, but I already have a drive, he mentioned then dismissed it, but I would also add in empathy and love for my friends, family and humanity at large, if he doesn't consider those good motivations, then I guess he doesn't understand humanity, does he?

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]The point is not that secular people should become religious. You either believe in God or you don’t. Neither is the point that religious people are better than secular people. That defies social science evidence and common observation. 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.

Actually I would argue that he was arguing exactly the opposite of what he is claiming. Also, and I'll put this bluntly, but people can handle the burden, and do, every day, even religious people. You want to know why? Because its not hard to be a decent person. I swear, every time I talk to a really religious Christian, I honestly think that they think everyone is a sociopath with how they talk about human behavior. Its disturbing, I don't require conscious thought to NOT go on a murder spree, or to not snatch a purse while walking down the street, and I doubt most people have to think about it either. Also, if we have an unconscious boredom, then we aren't aware of it, so no great loss.

This opinion piece has to be one of the most convoluted and dishonest attempt at a deconstruction of non-religious people's morality/ethics/spirituality?/religion? whatever the fuck he's talking about, I have ever read. At this point, I don't even know who he's talking about, certainly no one who currently exists.

[rogerashton]

29. Very well put. Thanks. eom