What Religion Are You?

[Marcus Caelius]

What about simply "Secular"?

 

I like it.

[Divi Filius]

I think secular expresses my views. 90% of the western world is secular today, yet very few of those people would say that they did not believe in god.

[Marcus Caelius]

90% of the western world is secular today...

 

You don't live in the U.S., I take it?

[Divi Filius]

I do live in the US; even here those who say they are "religious" are heavily influenced by secularism and/or lead very secular lifestyles. However, they are generally not aware of it and cannot differentiate.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Marcus Caelius]

I do live in the US; even here those who say they are "religious" are heavily influenced by secularism and/or lead very secular lifestyles. However, they are generally not aware of it and cannot differentiate.

 

Saying someone is secular because they are "heavily influenced" by secularism is setting up a sucker's bet; there's no way anyone can argue against it. "Heavily influenced" can mean anything at all that you want it to. The Dalhi LLama (one "L" or two?) and the Pope are "heavily influenced" by secularism, simply because they have to take the secular world into account. Indeed, the secular world is why they have jobs. I dare you to stand in St Peter's Square and call the Pope a secular leader.

 

You might as well say I'm religious because much of what I do is"heavily influenced" by religion (I live in a heavily Catholic town).

[Ursus]

Is there a rigid dichotomy between "religious" and "secular" or is it a gradual continuum?

 

I know many people that would officially claim allegiance to some religion or another because it is part of their familial heritage, and yet the only time they are manifestly religious is during important holidays. My own mother was raised Lutheran and had me baptised in the faith, yet she only attends church at Easter & Christmas at most. My college roomate was Jewish but he seemed to be Jewish only during High Holy Days. Etc.

[Divi Filius]

Is there a rigid dichotomy between "religious" and "secular" or is it a gradual continuum?

 

Well... the religious have set dogma's and scriptures which they have to follow. I know a couple of secular Muslims who do not follow the Hadiths, something which conservative Muslims would be terrified to hear. I once heard a Jew say "I follow parts of the religion that I like, but reject those I dont", when I asked him how he could do that, he responded by asking: "whats going to stop me?". The case you brought with Christians is a common one. Italians in my neighborhood are a great example. Many of them outright hate the church or shun it; often times it values with it. Most are keen to drinking and gambling and casual sex, yet they describe themselves as Christians(well, Catholic, actually).

 

I think that once you have no concern for the rules of your religions, or follow them at will, you cease to be a faithful of that religion. I would say that you are developing the characteristics of a "nonbeliever". When the fear of divine retribution --so typical of conservative adherents -- is no longer in you, then you cease to be religious. If you do not fear a god, then certainly you must have come to question his existence, consciously or subconsciously.

[Ursus]

Yep. I live and grew up in the Bible Belt (the rural, Appalachian areas of Pennsylvania). Most of my classmates went to church twice a week and looked for the Second Coming around every corner. They were High and Holy about their religion. And yet most of these same kids were not above drugs, drinking, very casual sex, petty theft, vandalism, gossip, cheating on tests, and generally acting like jerks to everyone else.

 

Amazing how so-called religious people can be very selective of the dogmas they follow! They seem to be especially selective when they are young and libidinous, and then perhaps take their religion a bit more seriously when they become too old for the swinging party scene. They get the best of both worlds: live it up when they are young, then repent when they are old and still manage to get in heaven (or so they want to believe).

 

But my whole point is that in the modern West, I do believe there is a gradual slide between "religious" and "secular." Someone may declare a certain religious affiliation on an official form, but who knows to what degree they really internalize it.

[Marcus Caelius]

Is there a rigid dichotomy between "religious" and "secular" or is it a gradual continuum?

 

Yes and no. Yes, because there are two ends to the spectrum; there's Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" church at one end, and the likes of Richard Dawkins and Stephan Jay Gould at the other. No, because it is a spectrum, and it's quite possible, as you mentioned, to fall somewhere in between. Whether you are considered, by yourself or by others, as "secular" or "religious" will depend on which side of the fulcrum the balance of your beliefs fall on.

 

When the fear of divine retribution --so typical of conservative adherents -- is no longer in you, then you cease to be religious.

 

It goes further than that. "Religion," as I understand us to be using the term, here, means essentially a belief in some sort of Higher Power that purposefully influences our lives. It's when you cease to believe in this power regardless of its ability or desire to punish, when you operate more by rational thought than by blind faith or superstition, that you become secular.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Marcus Caelius

[caldrail]

Amazing how so-called religious people can be very selective of the dogmas they follow! They seem to be especially selective when they are young and libidinous, and then perhaps take their religion a bit more seriously when they become too old for the swinging party scene. They get the best of both worlds: live it up when they are young, then repent when they are old and still manage to get in heaven (or so they want to believe).

 

This sort of debate has raged since the dark ages. St Augustine took the view that people are only human and will sin anyway - as long as they obey the priests and turn up to services all will be forgiven. Pelagius took the view that to be chrisitian you needed to be a christian - it was no good simply calling yourself one. Needless to say Pelagius was declared a heretic and disappeared suspiciously.

 

My sensibilities are firmly pelagiastic - which is one reason why I reject christianity as hopeless hypocrisy. But then I have my own beliefs as I previously mentioned and those are based on my own experience, not someone elses demands.

 

Luckily, we live in an age were religious differences are tolerated in many places in this world. Its a shame there are some cultures that are so offended by alien beliefs simply because they do not fit in with their closed society.

Edited April 29, 2007 by caldrail

[Viggen]

On 3.2.2006 at 11:12 PM, Viggen said:

I am roman catholic and pretty comfortable with it, I am happy to believe in what i believe but on the other hand leave those that believe in other things alone, because I am not a missionary, well ok i am on a mission, but to get me to elysium in the end

 

cheers

viggen

...so, 11 years on. I left the catholic church about 3 years ago. Didnt see eventually any point in being in a club you never attend, dont care and still have to pay membership fees!