Debating the Brights and Secularism

Over on the Philosophy Dog website there has recently been an article by Meg Lee Chin about The Brights.

The gist of the article is that The Brights rejection of religion is as bad, in practice, as the conduct of those who do believe. Indeed they are portrayed as a secular cult. Below is my response:

Having looked at the Brights website, I may have to review my original opinion that they are not a cult.
They certainly seem to have worked hard to create a website that reminds me of religion at its very worst, right down to the dreadful fixed smiles, trimmed beards and Californian address. Dear oh dear!

Onward Christian Soldiers?
I think it is wrong to say secularists are always going round saying religion is to blame for war. Indeed in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, it is religious people (mostly Muslims) who wrongly claim the Americans are involved in a war against Islam. They are actually involved in a war for oil and geo-political power, little different to 1999 when the US was defending Muslims in Kosovo against the Christian Serbs.

The major wars of the twentieth century were not caused by religion, but they did show how facile religion is. In 1914 the soldiers of every European nation were waved off to war by their religious leaders, and all prayed to the same God to help them. Didn't do much good did it?

Time To Raise The Banner
If the Brights are a part of a growing interest in secularism, they will have contributed to a trend that is long overdue. Since roughly 1970 the world has seen a huge Islamist resurgence, with devestating effects on the status of women, trades unions, socialists and non-Muslims in countless countries. In the UK we have been fortunate to live in a society that has been relatively untouched by this. We may not be so lucky in the future.

Whilst Europe has largely avoided the sort of hideous Christian revivalism rampant in the US, Africa has not. The spread of AIDS has been facilitated by the reactionary views of the Catholic church, as well as quack idigenous beliefs. The very future of some countries is imperilled as a result. Returning to the US, I don't see how anyone can oppose George W Bush without noting the dubious religious elements that surround him, or for that matter avoid concerns that Obama will ultimately be de-railed by his religious affiliations.

If the Brights raise the flag to attack religion, they will have done our society a considerable service. The fact is religious belief IS irrational - as it cannot be proved any of it is valid, how can it be anything else? We should say so rather than pandering to competing religious interest groups. Whilst it is probably too late now for the UK to take a leaf of France and Turkey in establishing a clearly secular state, there is much to be said for declaring that religion is a private matter only.

But What Can We Do
One of the difficulties governments have when looking to legislate in this field (as you will have to, if opposing religions prosper) is that it is extremely hard to do, especially as most major religions deliver voting lobbies to politicians.
The big religions - like any corporation - try to keep the smaller fish out of the market place. But how do you, in legalistic terms, create laws that apply control to Scientologists and Jehovahs Witnesses, but don't interfere with the Church of England or the Methodists (to take two examples)?
All mainstream religions are simply successful cults - who can doubt the possibility that in 50 years Scientology will be bigger than some isolated Christian splinter groups? That at least will be poetic justice - a religion whose founder was actually CONVICTED of fraud makes a nice change.

No matter how irritating the Brights may get, they are unlikely to be as dictatorial as most religions have been. Up until very recently your religion was usually foisted upon you - as KRS One once put it to black America - if your slave master was not a Christian, you would not be a Christian.

According to you Meg "The question of whether or not there is a God is inherently an unfair question".

The question instead should be "What have we done to deserve God's followers, and how do we ensure they cause as little disruption to everyone's pursuit of life and happiness".......

Comments

[Daniel Owen]

They just seem extremely elitist and snobby to me. I personally think scientism is as bad as religion. I don't care what your metaphysics are as long as you put the human individual slap bang in the middle of 'em.