RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
I think either we're talking at cross-purposes, or I'm committing a logical fallacy somewhere, so I'd very much like this cleared up. Secularism is:
I can see - more clearly than I did before, I have to say - how secularism in this sense works very much like NOMA, but with government in place of science. It fits with the idea that religion is a "private matter", which, as far as actual cosmological belief or church attendance goes, it is. If this was all there was to secularism, I'd treat it the same way I treat NOMA - without enthusiasm.
I was, however, thinking of secularism as simply refusing to make policy on the basis of any one religion's teaching. In other words, it largely ignores religion in the decision-making process. The counter I've got in my mind is a theocracy or a government system that puts any religious representative in the speaker's box as though consulting an expert.
As far as actual beliefs go, it is very much like NOMA and like the agnostic reconciliation tactic of simply saying "let's all agree to disagree". But when it comes to organised religion, it comes across more as a refusal to give an institution a direct line to policy making, which is right because it's essentially turning round to the aristocrats and saying "you earn your way just like everyone else". In other words:
After all, it at least lets people like us voice our views in debates and things. There's nothing here that suggests religion can't be debated in the media.
Can you at least see where I'm coming from?
Permalink Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:03:50 UTC | #920008