Secular and Non Secular Thought are Compatible

[ThazzarBaal]

After a few mellinias complete with warring religious people's and cultures, and with the newer enlightened secular think tanks focused on science and innovation, a schism between the two (secular/Non secular) has become a dividing factor between most everyone of a different system of belief or confidence. With that stated, secular thought and non secular thought are compatible and inclusively necessary for our societies to function with greater interdependence.

Our cultural and religious differences and the hostilities associated with them, amount to personal and subjective mentalities formed from the communities to which we belong. .And, although the hostilities are often blamed on those differences, the religious and secular differences, in and of themselves, aren't even a remotely valid reason to make efforts to weaken the religious hierarchies of the world.

They are compatible. Both secular thought and non secular thought are compatible, although the house rules may differ one from the others.

 

[C C]

[...] They are compatible. Both secular thought and non secular thought are compatible, although the house rules may differ one from the others.

The scientists who are religious can at least be kept in line by decompartmentalizing -- making their personal life distinct from their employment practices (methodological naturalism). Which is to say, that's what would make a proposed "compatibility" possible, in theory; everybody adhering to the standards of whichever side they are standing on at _X_ time (whether for work reasons, or other reasons).

But the secular crusaders driven by do-gooder and group oppression ideology don't sport the "supernatural" insignia on their shoulders. They still have the "noble righteousness" as a sword to swing at their varying conceptions of an unjust establishment, but no belief in gods and angels as a ball and chain to drag them down (marketing-wise, and in terms of criticism).

Their worldview might be laden with socioeconomic conspiracy laden stuff that is its own brand of crackpottery, but their "ethical devotion" gets them a free pass in the influence department. Due, again, to the "righting wrongs" image, those constructed moral theses of the humanities as symbols of scholarship, and no occult emblems and waving banners. And in the long run, their decoloniality ambitions open a back door that ironically allows religious beliefs and perhaps even backward cultural barbarities to return to the epistemological throne (especially if those are non-Western).

Although the Christian brands of pseudoscience don't seem to align themselves with the [applicable] postmodern and critical theory incursions on educational institutions and government (and can even be outright hostile to them), they still potentially benefit from the latter's future conquests. And -- in a sense -- have been running their own version of that general racket for some time. It's just that -- once more, they can't make as much easy headway due to that lack of a secular face that the other category of fashionable nonsense enjoys the advantages of.
_

 

[ThazzarBaal]

In a world that has been in process of leaving religious ideologies behind, the wake created by the adoption of greater critical thinking skills and practical application of principle has made religion a somewhat taboo subject, all while its cultural significance has been placed in jeopardy of losing merit. Now living in the shadow of a more fact oriented application of manifest truths, advances in science, and modern scholarship, there is a need for some type of reconciliation if history matters at all to our new pool of world leaders.

Both secular and non secular institutions are championed for their obligation to honest and truthful education and leadership. The differences, as stated previously, are in the house rules and how they are applied and to who. Diversity adds to the dynamic and the taboo nature of foreign thought. The compatible nature is, or at least should be, "obvious'. Honest discourse is needed, and of course the all too common (for some) concept of repentance, which by definition is simply "change".

Morality and ethics is a vast sea of subjective opinion, except when morality is simply viewed as correct, true, and right as opposed to incorrect, wrong, and faulty. Facts matter, whether they are objective or subjective. People matter and given the world's secular population represents only 16% globally, the religious population if at all interested in "reconciliation", should at least consider those chosen few.

 

[James R]

Please read the rules for the Formal Debates subforum before posting in it again. This thread does not follow the rules, so it has been moved to a different subforum.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

With a 4 post limit, each with one post after the initial proposal, we have a few posts left in this debate before a decision is made on a winner.

Question: Does the initial proposal count as one of the four allowable?

If this is to remain a moved thread, I'd like to keep these rules of engagement intact on the other board.

Does the initial proposal count as one of my allowed posts?

 

[exchemist]

With a 4 post limit, each with one post after the initial proposal, we have a few posts left in this debate before a decision is made on a winner.

Question: Does the initial proposal count as one of the four allowable?

If this is to remain a moved thread, I'd like to keep these rules of engagement intact on the other board.

Does the initial proposal count as one of my allowed posts?

Suggest you read post 4. This is not a formal debate.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Suggest you read post 4. This is not a formal debate.

It was my intention for this to be a formal debate. Otherwise, I would not have placed it in "formal debates" regardless of the move to a different forum. But, if we can't accommodate that simple request, I suppose there's not much I can do about it here.

Your suggestion ....

I'm grabbing some coffee.

Geesh!

 

[exchemist]

It was my intention for this to be a formal debate. Otherwise, I would not have placed it in "formal debates" regardless of the move to a different forum. But, if we can't accommodate that simple request, I suppose there's not much I can do about it here.

Your suggestion ....

I'm grabbing some coffee.

Geesh!

Up to you. But there's no post limit.

 

[James R]

It was my intention for this to be a formal debate.

Okay.

Who do you want to debate?
What will the topic be? Will you be arguing the affirmative or the negative side?
Do you want to use the Standard Rules published in the Formal Debates forum, or do you want to use a different set of agreed rules?

According to the rules of the Formal Debates subforum, the first thread is a Proposal thread, to settle the terms of the debate. Once there are agreed participants and agreed terms for the conduct of the debate, then the debate itself can start in a Debate thread. A related Discussion thread can also then be opened.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

I presumed the standard rules applied. Not so Socratic of me, it appears. In any case, I've nearly lost interest, already.

Lady Gaga with Metallica

Yip yip yip

Yaeeeee yaeeee

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Yaeeeeeee

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Up to you. But there's no post limit.

No, exchemist, it isn't up to me. But, house rules apply, so I'll play along with standard operations.

No post limits is fair at this point.

 

[exchemist]

In a world that has been in process of leaving religious ideologies behind, the wake created by the adoption of greater critical thinking skills and practical application of principle has made religion a somewhat taboo subject, all while its cultural significance has been placed in jeopardy of losing merit. Now living in the shadow of a more fact oriented application of manifest truths, advances in science, and modern scholarship, there is a need for some type of reconciliation if history matters at all to our new pool of world leaders.

Both secular and non secular institutions are championed for their obligation to honest and truthful education and leadership. The differences, as stated previously, are in the house rules and how they are applied and to who. Diversity adds to the dynamic and the taboo nature of foreign thought. The compatible nature is, or at least should be, "obvious'. Honest discourse is needed, and of course the all too common (for some) concept of repentance, which by definition is simply "change".

Morality and ethics is a vast sea of subjective opinion, except when morality is simply viewed as correct, true, and right as opposed to incorrect, wrong, and faulty. Facts matter, whether they are objective or subjective. People matter and given the world's secular population represents only 16% globally, the religious population if at all interested in "reconciliation", should at least consider those chosen few.

I'm not really quite sure what all this is about. The historical inheritance from religion in modern societies is undeniably vast. A large proportion of society has some religious affiliation, which is important to them as part of their sense of identity, tradition and customs. So socially it creates sensitivities that have to be borne in mind, in a pluralistic society.

But are you arguing for returning religious principles to politics, or government, here? Or is this about something else?

 

[ThazzarBaal]

I'm not really quite sure what all this is about. The historical inheritance from religion in modern societies is undeniably vast. A large proportion of society has some religious affiliation, which is important to them as part of their sense of identity, tradition and customs. So socially it creates sensitivities that have to be borne in mind, in a pluralistic society.

But are you arguing for returning religious principles to politics, or government, here? Or is this about something else?

World politics and society: A 16% global minority being secular, the remaining multifaceted in religious dogma, and of course, societal group prospects of governance inevitably comes with some concern per demographic represented In any given location, so I will suggest that credence is due to the larger pool as well as to the lesser minority, if only to validate human value across the board.

If no value determination is acknowledged, it would only lend itself to the daft pool of those who prefer ignorance over understanding, choosing instead to stand on the pebbles of cultural upbrnging and tradition.

 

[exchemist]

World politics and society: A 16% global minority being secular, the remaining multifaceted in religious dogma, and of course, societal group prospects of governance inevitably comes with some concern per demographic represented In any given location, so I will suggest that credence is due to the larger pool as well as to the lesser minority, if only to validate human value across the board.

If no value determination is acknowledged, it would only lend itself to the daft pool of those who prefer ignorance over understanding, choosing instead to stand on the pebbles of cultural upbrnging and tradition.

What do you mean by value determination?

 

[ThazzarBaal]

What do you mean by value determination?

Having and possessing value. In this particular case, to have inherent value in the world we live in.

It's a request to consider the inherent value of the many varied cultural and social positions held by the world's population as opposed to neglecting and/or discarding people belonging to that vast diversity and deeming them insignificant and unneeded, as if our stand is the only valid one up for consideration.

Why do you ask?

 

[exchemist]

Having and possessing value. In this particular case, to have inherent value in the world we live in. It's a request to consider the inherent value of the many varied cultural and social positions held by the world's population as opposed to neglecting and/or discarding people belonging to that vast diversity deeming them insignificant and unneeded, as if our stand is the only valid one up for consideration.

Er, but who does such a thing?

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Er, but who does such a thing?

Who does what?

 

[exchemist]

Who does what?

“….neglecting and/or discarding people belonging to that vast diversity deeming them insignificant and unneeded……”

 

[C C]

It was my intention for this to be a formal debate. [...]

If you really want a "debate" to fall out of this (a formal or strictly umpired one seems moot now that the topic has been moved), then the focus probably needs to narrow to areas like science and philosophical naturalism (on the secular side). Because the rest of the "secular world" is pretty much hell-bent to journey down the yellow brick road to reality impairment.

Which is to say, "secular" in a general sense would include humanities scholarship. And since the latter has had a rocky road itself with the physical sciences in the past (The Two Cultures), then certainly there are schools of thought in those literary intellectual circles that would incorporate almost anything from the traditional cultural world. Due to whatever radical egalitarianism they might be sporting (not just with respect to human rights, but the equality of cultures and beliefs -- the elimination of hegemony). An exception would be when one of them is still orbiting so tightly around classic Marxism that the latter's inflexible atheism and materialism becomes a roadblock. As well as in accepting something like Christianity, that contributed to or abetted Western oppression of the globe.

IOW, you probably need to be espousing something extreme in regard to compatibility, for it to become a significantly contentious issue. More than just "can't we all just get along" in cooperative social alliances to solve community problems. Like biology textbooks accommodating creationist myths of the Māori, or whatever kind of integrity invasion of standards. IOW, contending that there is outright commensurability or that science is compelled to drop its systematic epistemological bigotry and be inclusive of the "diverse sciences" of other cultures.

We already know that some social science disciplines like anthropology are willing to patronize indigenous beliefs and practices out of Western guilt. And even science journals from a general POV allow themselves to be platforms for the de-Westernization of science: The journal NATURE calls for decolonization of modern science.

So it's not like there's an invincible wall there. If you want to jump on that bandwagon, then you could trigger a modest donnybrook. Otherwise, it's more or less an observable fact that the "secular and non-secular" can exist in harmony if each stays reliably on its own turf. And the accelerating rise of non-religious fashionable nonsense and pseudoscience potentially enables the [general] secular realm to be more receptive to violations of that boundary in the future.
_