Atheism is not a negation of god belief. It is the negation of specific person possessing god beliefs. I am an atheist. That doesn't negate god beliefs or even god's existence.

Secular, likewise, has been described as "apart from religion"...sure...but it had particular religions in mind when it defined itself as much. Religious humanism, like a religion of nature...were not among those religions in mind. If you are a humanist, you can't actually be secular with respect to religious humanists. They believe the same things that you do...exactly...and you definitely don't wish to separate your government or societal norms from humanism - as a humanist.

I think we all miss our friends when we lose them, and we focus so much on that loss that we might not notice that we have (or have the opportunity) to pick up new ones. A religious humanist believes exactly the same things you do. Can you imagine any reason why you would not want to see their religion, which you don't consider to be religious - influence government or society?

(I'm definitely your guy for that llc though, lol. I am a straight up religious humanist with a complimentary religion of nature - if we're using anthropological definitions. A vicious one, even.)

(April 1, 2020 at 8:51 am)Mr Greene Wrote: Not really done any research into the origins of religion have you?

No, I'm certainly not an expert in this. That's why I said "it would be interesting to know," rather than pretending that I do know.

Years ago I had an anthropology class where we spent a lot of time reading older anthropological studies, and analyzed how the interpretations had been made according to ethnocentric assumptions of the researchers. For example, if an unknown object was found in the grave of a woman, they would assume that it was used for weaving or some other activity which they took to be suitable for a woman. Sometimes these assumptions are shown to be wrong.

As I understand it, the field advances in part by new people critiquing the assumptions of the older people. We want to avoid certainty where it's not warranted. That's why I pointed to the work of recent experts who question the categories by which "religion" has been analyzed.

If you look at articles about those "Venus" figurines, you'll see there is a lot of "is thought to be," "has been interpreted as," or "may be" type of language. I've learned to be skeptical and reserve judgment in such matters. 

But again, I am no expert. It's a fascinating topic, and could make for a good discussion if we wanted to do something other than "win" an Internet fight.

I doubt that "years ago" you were taught the specific misapprehension you've posted. Religion has been defined in the way that I'm using it since 1897.

How old are you?

It would make an interesting topic, but you are not a person interested in any thing other than winning an internet fight. You're catholic apologist, lol.

Archaeologically we have the ochre in the Neanderthal graves and rock art of Homo sapiens all of which has been interpreted by some as religious in nature, there are others who have a narrower definition but  often there seems to be a link to Shamanism which is common to pretty much all tribal cultures I know of on every inhabited continent and clearly predating civilization.

(April 1, 2020 at 6:57 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: ...has been interpreted by some

...there seems to be

...pretty much

...I know of

These are good words to use. 

I'm not doubting that there are elements of culture very early on which seem to us religion-like.

The existence of venus tells us that there was once a notion which asserteted that all who could make the figurines...should. A moral claim uniting all who adhere as a whole.

-and so they did.

You're awfully anti-intellectual for a frustrated intellectual.

(April 1, 2020 at 7:12 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(April 1, 2020 at 6:57 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: ...has been interpreted by some

...there seems to be

...pretty much

...I know of

These are good words to use. 

I'm not doubting that there are elements of culture very early on which seem to us religion-like.

Again; tribal cultures show almost universal Shamanism. You get the odd outlier with some form of ancestor worship but nothing which could be described as 'Secular'. Indeed I'm not aware of any evidence of secular belief systems prior to the Greeks.

(April 2, 2020 at 7:56 am)Mr Greene Wrote:

(April 1, 2020 at 7:12 pm)Belacqua Wrote: These are good words to use. 

I'm not doubting that there are elements of culture very early on which seem to us religion-like.

Again; tribal cultures show almost universal Shamanism. You get the odd outlier with some form of ancestor worship but nothing which could be described as 'Secular'. Indeed I'm not aware of any evidence of secular belief systems prior to the Greeks.

Yes, I agree with this. 

But that doesn't mean that the same categories existed then.

This started because I suggested using the word "secular" in its stricter sense, with a more specific meaning than just "non-religious." (The suggestion was rejected, but anyway.) I think that since we have the word "non-religious" we don't need another one with exactly the same meaning. "Secular" is useful to mean a policy or attitude taken in regard to religion. So obviously, you can't have something that's in regard to religion if religion doesn't exist. 

I used the fuzzy term "cavemen" because I thought that would be sufficiently clear. But now I see I should have said something even clearer -- maybe plants. Since plants can't have religion, it doesn't make sense to talk about religious plants and secular plants. 

To talk about things being secular, we need clear boundaries about what is religious and what isn't. I think that pre-modern people (e.g. cavemen, or the people who made the Venus figurines, probably) lacked these boundaries. Their categories were different. It wouldn't make sense to ask a caveman "what is your religion?" He doesn't have a sect or a set of spiritual beliefs -- he has a set of things he holds to be true and things that he practices. Some of these are things that we, as modern people, categorize as religious, but to him they were just -- what's true and what he does. (At some point things get categorized in our modern way; I'm just saying that it doesn't start out that way.) 

In a society where, say, the need to perform certain rituals is absolutely accepted as real, this necessity is not separate in their minds from the need to eat or sleep or anything else which we would categorize as non-religious. 

Later on, when it becomes possible to conceive of education or government as separate arenas, detachable from theology or ritual, then secularity becomes possible. 

The case that prompted me to think this way was what happened in China. Apparently what we currently called Taoism was for a very long time not considered to be a religion. It was just "how things are" and "what we should do." At that early point it was not detached from all other explanations and practices. This changed when Buddhism was imported, and an alternative became available. Then the old practices needed a separate label. But if the anthropologists I pointed to earlier are correct, modern people conceive of Taoism and Buddhism largely in ways that derive from European concepts of religion in the wake of Christianity. Chinese people before the introduction of these Western categories drew the boundaries differently. 

This has a number of parallels with a subject I know more about: aesthetic categories in China and Japan. The concept of "fine art" was imported fairly recently, and before that people had different ways of categorizing crafts, decorations, aesthetic judgements, etc. It's just a case of how categories that seem obvious and universal to us may in fact be contingent.

You would describe the Chinese use of copper impregnated cards ('Joss paper') as 'secular'?

By your definition the Catholic church would be a "secular" organisation, (and all catholics are faithless heathen) which just underlines the deceit intended.

Religious humanists believe the same ethical philosophy secular humanists do. And religious humanists also believe they should have congregational rituals and community activities as religious humanists (notwithstanding isolation). The key difference between religious and secular humanists is that religious humanists regard their humanist philosophy and communal practice (when possible) as their religion.