Secular Knowledge Will Make You Immoral!

[Underseer]

I’m pretty sure we’ve all encountered variations on this argument from Christians and Muslims. One should avoid gaining secular knowledge because that will result in you becoming an immoral person. I am going to guess that this is related to their claim that their religion is the only possible explanation for morality, therefore the fact that “secular knowledge” leads people to question creationism, question Muhammad's flying horse from the Koran, or the zombie horde that appeared in one (and only one) of the resurrection accounts in the Bible will lead people away from your particular version of your particular religion, and will therefore cause people to become less moral.

Or who knows. Maybe it’s because they think it will cause people to point out that snakes don’t have the necessary parts to speak, and therefore immorality.

Whatever the reason, I find this line of thinking incredibly dangerous. Let me try and illustrate what is wrong with this using a hypothetical story. I am aware that hypothetical stories do not in and of themselves prove anything, but I just want to illustrate a point for further discussion.

The Janitor Story
The district/regional supervisor is coming to inspect your facility. The manager who is responsible for your facility is apoplectic. He has been barking orders at everyone for days trying to make the entire facility perfect before the district/regional supervisor arrives.

His desperation has infected everyone else, and so now all of your coworkers are running around like headless chickens.

You pass the janitor who is sprinting down the hall and ask (half jokingly) what the big hurry is. He tells you that he is going to mix a whole bunch of different cleaning agents into a mop bucket in the mop closet to make a super-duper soap that will get everything really really clean!

If You Have A Little Secular Knowledge
You took a single class of high school chemistry. Because of this, you know that some cleaning agents clean because they are a mild acid. You also know that some cleaning agents clean because they are a mild base. You also know from your one year of high school chemistry that combining an acid and a base will make the acid less acidic and the base less basic.

Because you took that year of high school chemistry, you know enough to know that there is a good chance the janitor is about to do something counterproductive. His “super duper soap” is likely to be worse at cleaning stuff instead of better.

So you warn the janitor that his efforts are likely to be counterproductive and that mixing those different detergents will make his job harder instead of easier. The janitor thanks you for your advice and continues to use those cleaning products the same way he usually does, and does not make his "super duper soap."

If You Have More Secular Knowledge
If you have taken high school chemistry, and several more classes on chemistry in college, and read the backs of the labels in the mop closet, you know that mixing certain chemical cleaning agents will produce a toxic gas.

If the janitor does this in the mop closet, which has a very small volume of air, the toxic gas will have a higher concentration and do more damage to the janitor.

So you warn the janitor that making his “super duper soap” could result in a trip to the hospital for him. The janitor thanks you for your advice and continues to use those cleaning products teh same way he usually does, and does not make his "super duper soap."

If You Have No Secular Knowledge
You did not take high school chemistry. Instead, you took the bare minimum science classes required by your high school to get your high school degree, then you studiously forgot everything they told you in Earth Studies class because you know that secular knowledge will lead you away from god and turn you into a bad person.

You are not an immoral person. You are a good person. And so you rejected all of that secular knowledge so that you could be the best person imaginable. You are far more moral than those other people who took classes in all that terrible secular knowledge!

When you encounter the running janitor in the hall and he announces his intent to create a “super duper soap,” you are not even aware that there is a moral concern because you have no knowledge of possible negative consequences of mixing cleaning agents that are not designed to be mixed.

You thank the janitor for being so diligent in his efforts to make the facility extra super clean in preparation for the inspection by the district/regional supervisor, because that is what a nice person would say and you are a nice person.

Later, there is a big hullabaloo at work. An ambulance shows up to take someone to the hospital. You later find out that it was the same janitor you talked to earlier, but you have no idea that you could have prevented serious injury to the janitor. You pray to God for the janitor’s swift recovery because you are a good and moral person, and that is what good and moral people do. Amen.

Conclusion
Something like this actually happened to me, only it wasn’t the janitor, it was the manager at a fast food restaurant I worked at as a freshmen in college. I’ll be honest here: I honestly don’t remember if she announced to me her intent to mix different cleaning agents in the mop closet, but I’ve spent many years beating myself up about that incident because I could have, should have warned her and prevented her trip to the hospital. To my knowledge, she did not suffer any permanent damage because of the incident, but I still feel terrible about it even these decades later.

I grant that this particular set of circumstances are unlikely to happen to you, but I think it illustrates an important point.

In this particular case, the more secular knowledge someone has, the better they are able to anticipate the outcomes of decisions, and thus the better their moral decisions. Someone with zero relevant secular knowledge is unaware that a given decision has a moral component at all, because they have no idea that there are potential negative consequences.

Every piece of secular knowledge has the potential to improve your ability to anticipate outcomes. This means that every piece of secular knowledge carries with it the potential to improve the quality of your decisions, including your moral decisions. A person who is really ignorant of secular matters is likely to fail to recognize the moral dimension of a decision at all, which could have a negative effect on the lives of people around him.

So when certain Christians and Muslims argue that secular knowledge leads to immorality, they are saying something that is wildly irresponsible. One could even argue that their argument is immoral, but they clearly don’t know enough to know that their argument is immoral.

And that’s what I find sad about the whole thing.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This has happened to me. Many years ago, in one of my first jobs in a restaurant, one of my co-workers decided to mix Clorox and an acid based stainless steel descaler to clean his class ring. Instant chlorine gas. Cleaned out the restaurant. When we could finally go back in, he retrieved his ring. Did you know chlorine can dissolve gold? It stripped his ring's gold plating to the base metal.

He had been warned that this would create chlorine gas and do a lot of bad things, but he simply would not listen.

 

[Underseer]

You can't be faulted for that.

You did try to warn him.

My point is that you knew to warn him because you knew of potential negative consequences of a decision. The knowledge that allowed you to anticipate a negative outcome is exactly the kind of knowledge some theists discourage each other from learning.

 

[WAB]

A person ignorantly mixing chemicals when they don't know what might happen has zero to do with religion. Ignorance and/or sheer stupidity is not exclusive to religious people, Underseer, no matter how much or how often you make the claim.

I think your entire OP is deeply flawed, as there is no such divide or separation between religious or secular knowledge (and I don't care about how many misguided people, theists and atheists, claim there is: they are mistaken). Knowledge is knowledge, and it's neither secular nor religious, theist nor atheist. Theism is driven by faith, which is belief without knowledge. Sure, there are theists who want to prove the existence of God, like Craig and Plantinga, et al, and hence claim that their faith has been magically transmuted into knowledge, via some half-assed philo-theological alchemy; but these kind of people are not representative of the average, church-going believer.

You seem to not recognize that religion, like anything else, has evolved. We are no longer in medieval times when the majority of people were illiterate and regarded rainbows as magical. A pretty large contingent of religious people are even coming on board with evolution: the ID movement being a classic case of that. While atheists are in the main hostile toward IDers (since many of them are just plain hostile, period, not that a great many theists aren't hostile), they should recognize that it's a giant leap forward from traditional religious indoctrination.

With respect to the word secular: many theists are secularists, a clear case in point being the thread you posted in about the two baptists tearing Calvin a new ass.

Have you ever wondered why a deeply religious person can also be a scientist? I mean, in light of your theory that theists are ignorant? And of course I don't need to point out that there are more religious scientists than atheist - though this means nothing, since knowledge is knowledge, and faith is faith. IOW: One can have faith in God, and this need not have any affect on, or anything whatsoever to do with, that person's intelligence and use of what so many people are calling secular knowledge, which to me is a nonsense term.

I know I am being an irritant and that it seems like I am defending theism; but the reality is I am simply being objective.

In conclusion: Of course there are a great many religious people who are complete morons and who do think that science is dangerous, and that knowledge will make one immoral. The ONLY thing I object to, Underseer, is that you sweep all theists into the same category, with apparently no attempt to recognize obvious differences between them. To my mind, this is akin to racism. While religious belief is NOT an immutable characteristic like one's race, it could certainly be argued that many religious people are the way they are due to no fault of their own, but through indoctrination and long-term brainwashing beginning from the earliest stages of life: for example an infant staring at a mobile that has angels on it.

More and more people are breaking this cycle. To me this is obvious, due to the continual rise of atheism around the world.

Another related quibble: I've been here for a long, long while (14 years), and I've noticed a relative paucity of criticism against the dangerous behavior of fundy Islam, where people are getting stoned, burned alive, and live under terrible theocratic oppression, and extremely disproportionate attacks on Christianity. If one were from another planet, and tuned into this BB without any reference to outside sources, they would have to conclude that the most oppressive and backwards religion in the world is Christianity. We might say that all religion is essentially backwards, but it requires a massive black-out and intentional blindness to reality to think that Christianity is more dangerous to actual human lives than Islam.

 

[Underseer]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

A lot of theists will say that studying things like chemistry is bad because it is a secular topic and studying chemistry will make you immoral by moving you away from God.

The point of my argument is to try and explain why this argument is bad.

If you want to claim that no one makes that argument, you're welcome to your opinion. I hope that the next time someone tells me that, you will look them in the eye and tell them that they did not say what they just said. Maybe you can convince them.

 

[WAB]

This has happened to me. Many years ago, in one of my first jobs in a restaurant, one of my co-workers decided to mix Clorox and an acid based stainless steel descaler to clean his class ring. Instant chlorine gas. Cleaned out the restaurant. When we could finally go back in, he retrieved his ring. Did you know chlorine can dissolve gold? It stripped his ring's gold plating to the base metal.

He had been warned that this would create chlorine gas and do a lot of bad things, but he simply would not listen.

So, was this person a theist or an atheist? I reckon the answer doesn't matter.

 

[WAB]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

A lot of theists will say that studying things like chemistry is bad because it is a secular topic and studying chemistry will make you immoral by moving you away from God.

The point of my argument is to try and explain why this argument is bad.

If you want to claim that no one makes that argument, you're welcome to your opinion. I hope that the next time someone tells me that, you will look them in the eye and tell them that they did not say what they just said. Maybe you can convince them.

See, that's all I wanted: you said "A lot of theists". See how easy that was, rather than just saying theists, as if all theists are the same? Problem is, what does "a lot" mean? What is the percentage of theists who think having knowledge of chemistry will make them immoral, in comparison to those who think such knowledge is not only useful, but indispensable? I would be willing to bet my left lung that the former number is FAR less than the latter. I'd even suggest that the former number is virtually negligible.

UNDERSEER: If you want to claim that no one makes that argument...

Hold on there, dang it. This kind of crap happens all the time and it's beyond infuriating. I went out of my way to type this in my first post:

WAB: In conclusion: Of course there are a great many religious people who are complete morons and who do think that science is dangerous, and that knowledge will make one immoral. The ONLY thing I object to, Underseer, is that you sweep all theists into the same category, with apparently no attempt to recognize obvious differences between them.

Only two things possible: You didn't read my post all the way through, or missed this part, or did read it and are hoping that others who read this thread will believe your claim that I bolded above.

To any and all reading this: I am simply trying to do the objective, fair thing and bring attention to the undeniable fact that not all theists are the same (just as all atheists are not the same, as any fool can see just glancing at the political threads), which Underseer has conceded by using the far better "A lot of theists" rather than just "theists".

 

[Underseer]

Yes.

There are a great many theists who believe that science is dangerous. Those are the theists I was talking about.

Not only do they think science is dangerous, but they think all secular knowledge (which they pretty much define as any knowledge that doesn't come from their holy book of choice) is similarly going to lead to immoral behavior.

Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

If I say that a particular argument is bad and here's why, we can assume that my criticism of the argument does not apply to anyone not making the argument. In fact it doesn't apply to the people making the argument either. The problem is not the person making the argument, but the logic of the argument itself. I may sometimes fail, but I always try to address the argument and not the person making the argument.

 

[WAB]

Yes.

There are a great many theists who believe that science is dangerous. Those are the theists I was talking about.

Not only do they think science is dangerous, but they think all secular knowledge (which they pretty much define as any knowledge that doesn't come from their holy book of choice) is similarly going to lead to immoral behavior.

Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

If I say that a particular argument is bad and here's why, we can assume that my criticism of the argument does not apply to anyone not making the argument. In fact it doesn't apply to the people making the argument either. The problem is not the person making the argument, but the logic of the argument itself. I may sometimes fail, but I always try to address the argument and not the person making the argument.

You DID say "Certain Muslims and Christians" at the end of your OP, and I missed it. So I went off half-cocked, so to speak. Or fully-cocked when I ought to have been uncocked, or at least less-cocked.

And I certainly agree that any claim that scientific knowledge will make one immoral is irresponsible, and immoral itself.

I am reminded of those believers who will let their children die rather than allow them to be medically treated, choosing to rely on "faith". One wonders how such behavior can be repeated over and over, in light of how many victims of that kind of thinking there have been. I suppose what they are thinking in each new case is, "Well, there must have been a weakness in the faith of all those other people. This time we're gonna give it our all and our child will be fine."

 

[Jobar]

I think your entire OP is deeply flawed, as there is no such divide or separation between religious or secular knowledge (and I don't care about how many misguided people, theists and atheists, claim there is: they are mistaken). Knowledge is knowledge, and it's neither secular nor religious, theist nor atheist. Theism is driven by faith, which is belief without knowledge.

I agree with you that underseer ought to use a somewhat finer brush; there are plenty of believers who see nature as the handiwork of God, and thus knowledge of it is a way to better understand Him.


From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline. . .
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground.
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night,
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light.
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still.
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars,
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars.
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky.

By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur,
How the living things that are descend from things that were.
The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies,
These tiny, humble, wordless things---how shall they tell us lies?
We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring.
The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing.
Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life.

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

-Lyrics and melody © 1994 by Catherine Faber

However, I think you're mistaken that "there is no such divide or separation between religious or secular knowledge". Secular knowledge is demonstrable; it can be shown to anyone who takes the time and effort to study it. Religious knowledge, OTOH, cannot.

I'm not talking about being able to quote large sections of the Koran, or the Bible, or any other holy book. Certainly you can say you 'know the Bible by heart', and such feats of memorization are undoubtedly impressive. But if you say you 'know' what God wants of us, or even whether he exists, you cannot demonstrate that wordlessly. Just quoting chapter and verse is not a demonstration, it is an assertion. Your abstractions can't be tied to something concrete.

 

[WAB]

However, I think you're mistaken that "there is no such divide or separation between religious or secular knowledge". Secular knowledge is demonstrable; it can be shown to anyone who takes the time and effort to study it. Religious knowledge, OTOH, cannot.

I'm not talking about being able to quote large sections of the Koran, or the Bible, or any other holy book. Certainly you can say you 'know the Bible by heart', and such feats of memorization are undoubtedly impressive. But if you say you 'know' what God wants of us, or even whether he exists, you cannot demonstrate that wordlessly. Just quoting chapter and verse is not a demonstration, it is an assertion. Your abstractions can't be tied to something concrete.

I was unclear: especially in the use of the terms 'religious knowledge' and 'secular knowledge' as if I thought such things actually existed in a meaningful way.

What I was trying to call attention to is the simple fact that there is a definite difference between knowledge and a faith claim. I don't recognize the term 'secular knowledge', and I think the term is meaningless. This does not mean I wish to eradicate the term. Hell, if people like it or need it, more power to 'em.

If a religious person quotes from religious text, that isn't a faith claim, but is an item of knowledge, and it isn't 'religious knowledge', since most anyone who is literate, religious or not, can read and memorize text. And it isn't 'secular' knowledge, even though written text is objective and verifiable: knowledge is knowledge.

On the other hand, if a person claims, Yes, the earth is only 6,000 years old, that is a faith claim, and since it's demonstrably and objectively false, does not count as knowledge at all. One can call it "religious knowledge" if one wants, but it remains a faith claim, at least until and unless it can actually be proven, at which point it will become an item of knowledge, and will no longer be a faith claim.

IOW: Inasmuch as I regard "secular knowledge" as being meaningless, so do I regard the term "religious knowledge" as meaningless. i.e. If so-called "religious knowledge" (I should NOT have used the term in my prior post) is 'knowledge' that cannot be verifiable, then it's not knowledge. And, if what we are calling "secular knowledge" is knowledge that can be and IS verifiable, then the word "secular" adds absolutely nothing.

Religious people mainly object to evolution because it conflicts with their beliefs; insofar as science as it created cellphones, cars, airplanes, and other tech, naturally they have no problem with that (at least not most of them: there are the Amish and other sects that reject technology). In time we will see more and more theists coming on board with evolution, and revising their beliefs, as is already happening worldwide, except for the most orthodox sects and the most orthodox believers, who would rather be ignorant than enlightened—the people I believe Underseer is referring to in his OP.

The thing about knowledge that atheists need to remind themselves of—as you pointed out—is that an awful lot of knowledge was acquired by theists desiring to understand the world. Roger Bacon was just one great man in whom religious faith and the desire for knowledge worked in tandem. There are so many others that it's pointless to try and name even a small portion of them.

But this is also meaningless, if one looks at the whole picture instead of taking sides and attempting to malign others: Knowledge is knowledge, and faith is faith. "Secular knowledge" is a nonsense term, at least for me, as is "religious knowledge".

In the Wikipedia article on Secularism, there is only a brief use of the term "secular knowledge" mentioned, and that by the one who apparently coined the term 'secularism', George Jacob Holyoake.


***Great lyrics, by the way!

 

[WAB]

Underseer,

I neglected to add something in my prior post:

In your OP you mention that people ignoring science in preference of superstition (not your word but effectually what you mean, I think), is irresponsible and immoral, and I would agree.

But is this concern not an ethical one rather than epistemological? Naturally, the discussion of knowledge is an epistemological one, but the discussion of immorality and irresponsibility clearly falls into the category of ethics. The Wikipedia article has a subsection on secular ethics, and when it comes to ethics, my tune is markedly different than the one I've been singing above:

There is most certainly a great distinction between religious and secular ethics. Ethics based on rules written nearly 3000 years ago is obviously problematic, and when put into practice, as in hardcore Islam, we have a most horrible and reprehensible situation. Before I continue, I am certain that if many Christians had their way - particularly the fascist types, and the thoroughly virulent "God hates Fags" variety - those ancient Mosaic laws would be in place and enacted, but luckily they do not have their way and thus far can only bemoan that fact impotently - so far.

But religious ethics are not always evil, in fact some of them are good; but if a person claims to love their neighbor because God told them so, obviously this is not a genuine moral sentiment, and may even be a lie; if a person refrains from murder because it's in the Decalogue, then this is no better than the obedience of a dog, and not an instance of ethical behavior. Just as doing good, such as giving charity, if done solely out of a sense of religious duty, is not an act of true sympathy or generosity, but ingraciating obedience.

Secular ethics would be those which apply to the world of living things, all through the spectrum, with zero reference to religion, no concern whatsoever for religion, and even in defiance of religion.

To my mind, secular ethics would be a more fruitful topic than secular knowledge. And I think (though I could be dead wrong) ethics appears to be your main concern.

Of course, philosophy has a kind of hierarchy: one cannot arrive at ethics without epistemology.

 

[bilby]

From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline. . .
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground.
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night,
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light.
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still.
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars,
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars.
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky.

By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur,
How the living things that are descend from things that were.
The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies,
These tiny, humble, wordless things---how shall they tell us lies?
We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring.
The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing.
Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life.

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

-Lyrics and melody © 1994 by Catherine Faber

Christianity is so touching. Four or five hundred years earlier, she would have been burned alive for publicly expressing such heresy. And god would have done fuck all to prevent it.

 

[Juma]

However, I think you're mistaken that "there is no such divide or separation between religious or secular knowledge". Secular knowledge is demonstrable; it can be shown to anyone who takes the time and effort to study it. Religious knowledge, OTOH, cannot.

I'm not talking about being able to quote large sections of the Koran, or the Bible, or any other holy book. Certainly you can say you 'know the Bible by heart', and such feats of memorization are undoubtedly impressive. But if you say you 'know' what God wants of us, or even whether he exists, you cannot demonstrate that wordlessly. Just quoting chapter and verse is not a demonstration, it is an assertion. Your abstractions can't be tied to something concrete.

I was unclear: especially in the use of the terms 'religious knowledge' and 'secular knowledge' as if I thought such things actually existed in a meaningful way.

What I was trying to call attention to is the simple fact that there is a definite difference between knowledge and a faith claim. I don't recognize the term 'secular knowledge', and I think the term is meaningless. This does not mean I wish to eradicate the term. Hell, if people like it or need it, more power to 'em.

If a religious person quotes from religious text, that isn't a faith claim, but is an item of knowledge, and it isn't 'religious knowledge', since most anyone who is literate, religious or not, can read and memorize text. And it isn't 'secular' knowledge, even though written text is objective and verifiable: knowledge is knowledge.

On the other hand, if a person claims, Yes, the earth is only 6,000 years old, that is a faith claim, and since it's demonstrably and objectively false, does not count as knowledge at all. One can call it "religious knowledge" if one wants, but it remains a faith claim, at least until and unless it can actually be proven, at which point it will become an item of knowledge, and will no longer be a faith claim.

IOW: Inasmuch as I regard "secular knowledge" as being meaningless, so do I regard the term "religious knowledge" as meaningless. i.e. If so-called "religious knowledge" (I should NOT have used the term in my prior post) is 'knowledge' that cannot be verifiable, then it's not knowledge. And, if what we are calling "secular knowledge" is knowledge that can be and IS verifiable, then the word "secular" adds absolutely nothing.

Religious people mainly object to evolution because it conflicts with their beliefs; insofar as science as it created cellphones, cars, airplanes, and other tech, naturally they have no problem with that (at least not most of them: there are the Amish and other sects that reject technology). In time we will see more and more theists coming on board with evolution, and revising their beliefs, as is already happening worldwide, except for the most orthodox sects and the most orthodox believers, who would rather be ignorant than enlightened—the people I believe Underseer is referring to in his OP.

The thing about knowledge that atheists need to remind themselves of—as you pointed out—is that an awful lot of knowledge was acquired by theists desiring to understand the world. Roger Bacon was just one great man in whom religious faith and the desire for knowledge worked in tandem. There are so many others that it's pointless to try and name even a small portion of them.

But this is also meaningless, if one looks at the whole picture instead of taking sides and attempting to malign others: Knowledge is knowledge, and faith is faith. "Secular knowledge" is a nonsense term, at least for me, as is "religious knowledge".

In the Wikipedia article on Secularism, there is only a brief use of the term "secular knowledge" mentioned, and that by the one who apparently coined the term 'secularism', George Jacob Holyoake.


***Great lyrics, by the way!

The want for more knowledge lies in our genes, it is not a gift of religion. Roger Bacon was a scientist in spite of being indoctrinated to be religious, not because of it. Religion is a parasital meme that thrives on other need to socialise.

 

[WAB]

However, I think you're mistaken that "there is no such divide or separation between religious or secular knowledge". Secular knowledge is demonstrable; it can be shown to anyone who takes the time and effort to study it. Religious knowledge, OTOH, cannot.

I'm not talking about being able to quote large sections of the Koran, or the Bible, or any other holy book. Certainly you can say you 'know the Bible by heart', and such feats of memorization are undoubtedly impressive. But if you say you 'know' what God wants of us, or even whether he exists, you cannot demonstrate that wordlessly. Just quoting chapter and verse is not a demonstration, it is an assertion. Your abstractions can't be tied to something concrete.

I was unclear: especially in the use of the terms 'religious knowledge' and 'secular knowledge' as if I thought such things actually existed in a meaningful way.

What I was trying to call attention to is the simple fact that there is a definite difference between knowledge and a faith claim. I don't recognize the term 'secular knowledge', and I think the term is meaningless. This does not mean I wish to eradicate the term. Hell, if people like it or need it, more power to 'em.

If a religious person quotes from religious text, that isn't a faith claim, but is an item of knowledge, and it isn't 'religious knowledge', since most anyone who is literate, religious or not, can read and memorize text. And it isn't 'secular' knowledge, even though written text is objective and verifiable: knowledge is knowledge.

On the other hand, if a person claims, Yes, the earth is only 6,000 years old, that is a faith claim, and since it's demonstrably and objectively false, does not count as knowledge at all. One can call it "religious knowledge" if one wants, but it remains a faith claim, at least until and unless it can actually be proven, at which point it will become an item of knowledge, and will no longer be a faith claim.

IOW: Inasmuch as I regard "secular knowledge" as being meaningless, so do I regard the term "religious knowledge" as meaningless. i.e. If so-called "religious knowledge" (I should NOT have used the term in my prior post) is 'knowledge' that cannot be verifiable, then it's not knowledge. And, if what we are calling "secular knowledge" is knowledge that can be and IS verifiable, then the word "secular" adds absolutely nothing.

Religious people mainly object to evolution because it conflicts with their beliefs; insofar as science as it created cellphones, cars, airplanes, and other tech, naturally they have no problem with that (at least not most of them: there are the Amish and other sects that reject technology). In time we will see more and more theists coming on board with evolution, and revising their beliefs, as is already happening worldwide, except for the most orthodox sects and the most orthodox believers, who would rather be ignorant than enlightened—the people I believe Underseer is referring to in his OP.

The thing about knowledge that atheists need to remind themselves of—as you pointed out—is that an awful lot of knowledge was acquired by theists desiring to understand the world. Roger Bacon was just one great man in whom religious faith and the desire for knowledge worked in tandem. There are so many others that it's pointless to try and name even a small portion of them.

But this is also meaningless, if one looks at the whole picture instead of taking sides and attempting to malign others: Knowledge is knowledge, and faith is faith. "Secular knowledge" is a nonsense term, at least for me, as is "religious knowledge".

In the Wikipedia article on Secularism, there is only a brief use of the term "secular knowledge" mentioned, and that by the one who apparently coined the term 'secularism', George Jacob Holyoake.


***Great lyrics, by the way!

The want for more knowledge lies in our genes, it is not a gift of religion. Roger Bacon was a scientist in spite of being indoctrinated to be religious, not because of it. Religion is a parasital meme that thrives on other need to socialise.

Now if you could only show (by citing something in my post specifically) where I said knowledge was 'a gift of religion.'

I did not.

In fact, I said pretty much the opposite.

Wow, this is either major miscomprehension or deliberate misinterpretation.

I am inclined to think the latter, since there is so much of that kind of thing afoot.

 

[WAB]

From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline. . .
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground.
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night,
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light.
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still.
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars,
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars.
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky.

By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur,
How the living things that are descend from things that were.
The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies,
These tiny, humble, wordless things---how shall they tell us lies?
We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring.
The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing.
Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life.

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

-Lyrics and melody © 1994 by Catherine Faber

Christianity is so touching. Four or five hundred years earlier, she would have been burned alive for publicly expressing such heresy. And god would have done fuck all to prevent it.

Why should God prevent it? If one believes in the traditional hell taught by most denoms, God has no problem with people burning. Not only burning, but burning forever.

The upside is that Christianity has moved out of the dark ages, away from witch-burning, and John Calvin's madness in Geneva.

The downside is that there is another major religion that hasn't yet pulled on its Big Girl Panties and stopped viciously murdering people for minor infractions, or burning people alive in cages as a form of national entertainment.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Damn, I thought you wrote "Immortal". I got all excited. What a letdown.

 

[braces_for_impact]

A person ignorantly mixing chemicals when they don't know what might happen has zero to do with religion. Ignorance and/or sheer stupidity is not exclusive to religious people, Underseer, no matter how much or how often you make the claim.

I think your entire OP is deeply flawed, as there is no such divide or separation between religious or secular knowledge (and I don't care about how many misguided people, theists and atheists, claim there is: they are mistaken). Knowledge is knowledge, and it's neither secular nor religious, theist nor atheist. Theism is driven by faith, which is belief without knowledge. Sure, there are theists who want to prove the existence of God, like Craig and Plantinga, et al, and hence claim that their faith has been magically transmuted into knowledge, via some half-assed philo-theological alchemy; but these kind of people are not representative of the average, church-going believer.

You seem to not recognize that religion, like anything else, has evolved. We are no longer in medieval times when the majority of people were illiterate and regarded rainbows as magical. A pretty large contingent of religious people are even coming on board with evolution: the ID movement being a classic case of that. While atheists are in the main hostile toward IDers (since many of them are just plain hostile, period, not that a great many theists aren't hostile), they should recognize that it's a giant leap forward from traditional religious indoctrination.

With respect to the word secular: many theists are secularists, a clear case in point being the thread you posted in about the two baptists tearing Calvin a new ass.

Have you ever wondered why a deeply religious person can also be a scientist? I mean, in light of your theory that theists are ignorant? And of course I don't need to point out that there are more religious scientists than atheist - though this means nothing, since knowledge is knowledge, and faith is faith. IOW: One can have faith in God, and this need not have any affect on, or anything whatsoever to do with, that person's intelligence and use of what so many people are calling secular knowledge, which to me is a nonsense term.

I know I am being an irritant and that it seems like I am defending theism; but the reality is I am simply being objective.

In conclusion: Of course there are a great many religious people who are complete morons and who do think that science is dangerous, and that knowledge will make one immoral. The ONLY thing I object to, Underseer, is that you sweep all theists into the same category, with apparently no attempt to recognize obvious differences between them. To my mind, this is akin to racism. While religious belief is NOT an immutable characteristic like one's race, it could certainly be argued that many religious people are the way they are due to no fault of their own, but through indoctrination and long-term brainwashing beginning from the earliest stages of life: for example an infant staring at a mobile that has angels on it.

More and more people are breaking this cycle. To me this is obvious, due to the continual rise of atheism around the world.

Another related quibble: I've been here for a long, long while (14 years), and I've noticed a relative paucity of criticism against the dangerous behavior of fundy Islam, where people are getting stoned, burned alive, and live under terrible theocratic oppression, and extremely disproportionate attacks on Christianity. If one were from another planet, and tuned into this BB without any reference to outside sources, they would have to conclude that the most oppressive and backwards religion in the world is Christianity. We might say that all religion is essentially backwards, but it requires a massive black-out and intentional blindness to reality to think that Christianity is more dangerous to actual human lives than Islam.

What about a Jehova's witness that could save their child via a blood transfusion (secular knowledge) that refuses to do so because of "faith"? Is there a more stark contrast between secular and religious knowledge here?

 

[WAB]

A person ignorantly mixing chemicals when they don't know what might happen has zero to do with religion. Ignorance and/or sheer stupidity is not exclusive to religious people, Underseer, no matter how much or how often you make the claim.

I think your entire OP is deeply flawed, as there is no such divide or separation between religious or secular knowledge (and I don't care about how many misguided people, theists and atheists, claim there is: they are mistaken). Knowledge is knowledge, and it's neither secular nor religious, theist nor atheist. Theism is driven by faith, which is belief without knowledge. Sure, there are theists who want to prove the existence of God, like Craig and Plantinga, et al, and hence claim that their faith has been magically transmuted into knowledge, via some half-assed philo-theological alchemy; but these kind of people are not representative of the average, church-going believer.

You seem to not recognize that religion, like anything else, has evolved. We are no longer in medieval times when the majority of people were illiterate and regarded rainbows as magical. A pretty large contingent of religious people are even coming on board with evolution: the ID movement being a classic case of that. While atheists are in the main hostile toward IDers (since many of them are just plain hostile, period, not that a great many theists aren't hostile), they should recognize that it's a giant leap forward from traditional religious indoctrination.

With respect to the word secular: many theists are secularists, a clear case in point being the thread you posted in about the two baptists tearing Calvin a new ass.

Have you ever wondered why a deeply religious person can also be a scientist? I mean, in light of your theory that theists are ignorant? And of course I don't need to point out that there are more religious scientists than atheist - though this means nothing, since knowledge is knowledge, and faith is faith. IOW: One can have faith in God, and this need not have any affect on, or anything whatsoever to do with, that person's intelligence and use of what so many people are calling secular knowledge, which to me is a nonsense term.

I know I am being an irritant and that it seems like I am defending theism; but the reality is I am simply being objective.

In conclusion: Of course there are a great many religious people who are complete morons and who do think that science is dangerous, and that knowledge will make one immoral. The ONLY thing I object to, Underseer, is that you sweep all theists into the same category, with apparently no attempt to recognize obvious differences between them. To my mind, this is akin to racism. While religious belief is NOT an immutable characteristic like one's race, it could certainly be argued that many religious people are the way they are due to no fault of their own, but through indoctrination and long-term brainwashing beginning from the earliest stages of life: for example an infant staring at a mobile that has angels on it.

More and more people are breaking this cycle. To me this is obvious, due to the continual rise of atheism around the world.

Another related quibble: I've been here for a long, long while (14 years), and I've noticed a relative paucity of criticism against the dangerous behavior of fundy Islam, where people are getting stoned, burned alive, and live under terrible theocratic oppression, and extremely disproportionate attacks on Christianity. If one were from another planet, and tuned into this BB without any reference to outside sources, they would have to conclude that the most oppressive and backwards religion in the world is Christianity. We might say that all religion is essentially backwards, but it requires a massive black-out and intentional blindness to reality to think that Christianity is more dangerous to actual human lives than Islam.

What about a Jehova's witness that could save their child via a blood transfusion (secular knowledge) that refuses to do so because of "faith"? Is there a more stark contrast between secular and religious knowledge here?

I mentioned this in post #9:

And I certainly agree that any claim that scientific knowledge will make one immoral is irresponsible, and immoral itself.

I am reminded of those believers who will let their children die rather than allow them to be medically treated, choosing to rely on "faith". One wonders how such behavior can be repeated over and over, in light of how many victims of that kind of thinking there have been. I suppose what they are thinking in each new case is, "Well, there must have been a weakness in the faith of all those other people. This time we're gonna give it our all and our child will be fine."

How to do a blood transfusion is knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge. Adding "secular" to it adds nothing. Secular knowledge and religious knowledge are both nonsense terms. If something is knowledge, it's knowledge.

Atheists and theists have the same access to knowledge. If a person rejects a blood transfusion on the basis that faith will cure them, they are not resorting to "religious knowledge" but to faith, and this is not a use of "religious knowledge' (which doesn't exist), but an act of ignorance - or, they are not rejecting that a transfusion can work, but decide to rely on faith instead.

IOW: Your example is not of someone preferring one kind of knowledge over another, it's a simple case of preferring faith to knowledge.

ETA: While it sounds like I am not keen on the word secular: lemme 'splain.

I am a secularist, and even when I was feeling religion I was a secularist. There are many religious secularists.

Also, since I claim religious knowledge is non-existent (I would love to hear an example of religious knowledge), ergo, my claim is that all knowledge is secular; hence the reason we don't need to add "secular" to knowledge.

ETA again: Since there is so much risk for being misunderstood here: When I say that a lot of knowledge was and is acquired by theists, this DOES NOT mean that such knowledge constitutes "religious knowledge" !!

 

[Jobar]

For many years I've thought about how best to distinguish belief/opinion from knowledge.

One of the standard definitions of 'knowledge' is 'justified, true belief'. I would say that knowledge is demonstrably true belief.

And even then, I think that proper skepticism, and humility, requires us to always admit to at least a small degree of uncertainty in even our most seemingly certain knowledge. In fact, that's exactly what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is about.

WAB, we all too often see religious believers who think their beliefs constitute knowledge- absolute certainty, even- despite the fact they cannot demonstrate it. They have Faith that their dogmas and delusions are Unquestionable Truth. You have to be careful to differentiate between their 'religious knowledge' and the sort that can be questioned and tested.