Is there a New Secular Quasi-Religion, If So Does It Support We Are Innately "Religious" or Ideologically Tribal?

[Free Ranger]

If you read everything I wrote in this thread and other threads I started in the Celestial Forum, and see my thoughts in their full context and not just take one snippet of something I said, you will see that of course I could be overgeneralizing from my personal experience, I have said repeadedly said that I am just exploring a different option and perspective. I have said in other threads I was a happy secular atheist for nearly twenty years! It worked for me until it didn't, as I said in another post. I would not attack my own self for petes' sake.

I responded to your statement that began “The point of all this is….” I don’t think there is anything unfair about responding to what Would said was “the point.”

Look, if you take everything I said in context, the statement you quoted above while I admit it could have been worded better, was clearly not meant to offend or be insulting in any way; in context of everything I have been writing from my own perspective while repeatedly admitting it's only my perspective and I could be wrong, that quote was given for rhetorical affect.

I wasn’t offended or insulted. You made a point. I disagree with it.

I don't think everyone is going to benefit from my position or perspective, I have clarified that repeadly. Given all the repeated disclaimers and respect I have shown to secular atheists, again saying I was a secular atheist for 20 years, then a more generous and welcoming and respectful interpretation would have been to see my words as rhetoric and directed at no one personally. The same way one might more graciously interpret a liberal Democrat saying to a Republican something like, "If you think you're going to get a decrease in abortions without increasing an emphasis on safe sex education and birth control, then you're being naïve." I do not think most Republicans being told that would immediately feel insulted.

I can only read what you wrote. And please note that I did not just refer to myself, but to other atheists as well. Some of your arguments appear to be grounded assumptions about atheists in general that I believe are incorrect. You are welcome to express your thoughts and ideas, and others are come to react to them, including criticizing them.

Res Ipsa, I see you are joining Marcus and Gadianton to rally against me, 3 on 1. So I will ask you Res Ipsa, do you genuinely feel insulted? Is that really what you think, that my project is to convert you personally (as a member of the forum) to religious humanism over secular atheism even if secularism is working for you? Do you really think I don't believe that there is such a thing as people who are secular atheists and that my arguments and rhetoric defending those who choose to be religious humanists, is a direct attack on you and I am proselyting to you to get you to convert to religious humanism even if it was not a good fit for you?

No. I’m not joining up with Marcus and Gadianton to rally against you. If you object to having more than one person at a time offer criticisms of your posts, I’ll happily bow out fire now and resume engaging with you later.

I was not insulted. I never indicated I was insulted. If I feel that you have insulted me, I’ll let you know.

I have no idea what your motivations are. I’m just reacting to what you post. As I told you at the beginning of our conversation, I’m interested to hear about what you have come to believe has made your life better. But so far, most of your posting has consisted of arguments supporting a conclusion that goes beyond “here’s what works for me.” You make a number of broad claims that I don’t think are supported by evidence or sound reasoning. I’ve summarized my general objections, and I’ll provide more specific examples when I have time.

I don’t understand why you need to defend religious humanists. I certainly haven’t attacked them. If they have found quasi-religious beliefs or practices that help them in their lives and don’t hurt anyone else, that’s great.

I'm not sure I can communicate much better than how I have Res Ipsa, the only thing I could think of is to offer several more disclaimers than I already have. So if the way I am communicating feels insulting to you Res Ipsa like it does Gadianton, would you agree that I should just not post on here anymore so I don't upset you three?

Whether you continue to post is your decision, not mine. Again, I haven’t felt insulted. If I had felt insulted, I would either let you know or simply bow out of the conversation.

It's all good Res Ipsa, you're acting in good faith I can tell. I take your criticisms to heart.

You said:

If they [religious humanists] have found quasi-religious beliefs or practices that help them in their lives and don’t hurt anyone else, that’s great.

That is all I'm really saying yet it ruffled feathers. I gave some strong arguments from scientists arguing the practical utility of religious or even quasi-religious beliefs or practices increasing well-being; and expressed my opinion that we all might have some quasi-religious beliefs in regards to our political beliefs, like believing we have inalienable Rights, etc., and thus religious humanists with quasi-religious beliefs may not be as stupid, silly or poisonous as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchen argued. I think it's fair to make those arguments in response to Hitchens and Dawkin's, no? I was simply opening a friendly discussion on the topic of politics and quasi religious beliefs. But re-read through all of the posts in this threads and you will see that nobody ever not once (that I can recall) addressed whether or not the current political climate in any way manifests the ingredients or symptoms of quasi religiousness and if that might point to humans being innately prone to at least quasi-religiousness in some way?

So that was the topic of this thread, but nobody was dwelling on the actual topic of the thread which was, "Is their a New Secular Religion, If So Does It Support We Are Innately Religious?" Nobody was addressing that and instead in my opinion knit picking the use of words. But you in good faith, know exactly what I was getting at in your summation of me by using the phrase quasi-religious.

Whenever I come to a conclusion or opinion, I'd like to have my ideas challenged by good faith actors to make my position better or even change my mind.

In other words, I'm here for (as the rules say) respectful communication about ideas, not sparring with people on who can one-up the other, which seems to be the tone from others (not talking about you Res Ipsa). Some people seem to carry over from the terrestrial forum that sparring disrespectful tone, which Dr. Shades himself said, to paraphrase him in my own words, was sadly an unfortunate bad habit of failing to switch gears to a more mature civilty. I'm here to think not endlessly spar disrespectfully.

You make me feel welcome and you communicate respectfully without hostilty. Question, Marcus says it is inappropriate for me to ask him if he welcomes me to post here or if he'd rather I not. But that is exactly what Dr. Shades did was make sure that I felt welcomed, and said I was welcome here, see: viewtopic.php?t=157731#p2837573

I think that's a fair question to ask. If I go on a Mormon apologetic website and ask if I am welcome they will say in one way or another that this is not the place for me. They will likely say it needs to be faith promoting only.

The bottom line is I was asking that question to Marcus because multiple people were being unwelcoming in their tone and acting like they don't want to me to share my ideas and see me as the enemy. I'm not interested that kind of energy. I'm here to agree to disagree respectfully and accept constructive criticism, but not have enemies and recieve contemptuousness. I actually would like to make some friends even if we disagree. So am I inappropriate to ask Marcus if he is interested in welcoming me and allowing me to express different views? After all, he is a frequent poster and so it is reasonable of me to expect him to frequently respond to my comments. And so if it's going to be constantly vitriolic and contemptuous and he sees me as an enemy right out of the gate and has it in for me. Then is it not reasonable for me to request of him what I can I expect moving forward in the celestial forum?

[Res Ipsa]

I responded to your statement that began “The point of all this is….” I don’t think there is anything unfair about responding to what Would said was “the point.”



I wasn’t offended or insulted. You made a point. I disagree with it.



I can only read what you wrote. And please note that I did not just refer to myself, but to other atheists as well. Some of your arguments appear to be grounded assumptions about atheists in general that I believe are incorrect. You are welcome to express your thoughts and ideas, and others are come to react to them, including criticizing them.



No. I’m not joining up with Marcus and Gadianton to rally against you. If you object to having more than one person at a time offer criticisms of your posts, I’ll happily bow out fire now and resume engaging with you later.

I was not insulted. I never indicated I was insulted. If I feel that you have insulted me, I’ll let you know.

I have no idea what your motivations are. I’m just reacting to what you post. As I told you at the beginning of our conversation, I’m interested to hear about what you have come to believe has made your life better. But so far, most of your posting has consisted of arguments supporting a conclusion that goes beyond “here’s what works for me.” You make a number of broad claims that I don’t think are supported by evidence or sound reasoning. I’ve summarized my general objections, and I’ll provide more specific examples when I have time.

I don’t understand why you need to defend religious humanists. I certainly haven’t attacked them. If they have found quasi-religious beliefs or practices that help them in their lives and don’t hurt anyone else, that’s great.



Whether you continue to post is your decision, not mine. Again, I haven’t felt insulted. If I had felt insulted, I would either let you know or simply bow out of the conversation.

It's all good Res Ipsa, you're acting in good faith I can tell. I take your criticisms to heart.

Thanks. I have a bit of advice for posting here in Celestial: don’t post about whether another poster is posting in good faith or bad faith. Presume good faith, and respond to what other posters are saying.

You said:

If they [religious humanists] have found quasi-religious beliefs or practices that help them in their lives and don’t hurt anyone else, that’s great.

That is all I'm really saying yet it ruffled feathers. I gave some strong arguments from scientists arguing the practical utility of religious or even quasi-religious beliefs or practices increasing well-being; and expressed my opinion that we all might have some quasi-religious beliefs in regards to our political beliefs, like believing we have inalienable Rights, etc., and thus religious humanists with quasi-religious beliefs may not be as stupid, silly or poisonous as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchen argued. I think it's fair to make those arguments in response to Hitchens and Dawkin's, no? I was simply opening a friendly discussion on the topic of politics and quasi religious beliefs. But re-read through all of the posts in this threads and you will see that nobody ever not once (that I can recall) addressed whether or not the current political climate in any way manifests the ingredients or symptoms of quasi religiousness and if that might point to humans being innately prone to at least quasi-religiousness in some way?

From my perspective, there is a disconnect between how you describe what you are saying and many of the arguments you make in your posts. Let me make a guess to why that is. You’ve obviously constructed a pretty elaborate chain of reasoning that validates your approach to Joseph Smith. And you have spent a great deal of time thinking through the whole chain, which is part of what persuaded you that you’ve discovered a new way of thinking about Smith.

It’s very common for folks who have had some type of epiphany or discovered a new insight to want to share that with others. Why wouldn’t you want to?

I’m guessing that you have done so in other venues — maybe other online venues — and were criticized for “proselytizing.” In response to that, you’ve softened up your ultimate conclusions and added some disclaimers. But the way you talk about why you are persuaded by your chain of reasoning goes beyond just talking about yourself and expresses much broader conclusions about people in general.

If you’re anything like me, once you think you have figured something out, the solution seems natural. But it is then very hard to picture how an outsider will react to your thought process. I’m convinced that your intentions are as you describe them. But I think it’s harder for you to see the disconnect that others are seeing.

I’m happy to take you at your word that you have found a worldview that works better for you today than your previous atheism. You don’t need to convince me that your worldview is supported by any evidence or authority figure. That’s part of the disconnect for me — all I’ve told you is that I’m interested in your current worldview and why you think it works for you. When you start making arguments using evidence to support the reasonableness of your worldview, I don’t understand why you are doing that rather than telling me how you think your emergent Mormonism makes your life better.

Dawkins and Hitchens aren’t here, and unless some expresses their views, I don’t understand why you feel a need to refute them. Their views are not my views, and they don’t represent me in anyway. But when you talk about atheists as if Dawkins and Harris are typical atheists, I am likely to push back on that because they certainly don’t represent my views.[/quote]

So that was the topic of this thread, but nobody was dwelling on the actual topic of the thread which was, "Is their a New Secular Religion, If So Does It Support We Are Innately Religious?" Nobody was addressing that and instead in my opinion knit picking the use of words. But you in good faith, know exactly what I was getting at in your summation of me by using the phrase quasi-religious.

I disagree with your assertion that no one addressed the topic. The substance of your OP is an extended argument that the answers to questions in the title are “yes.” And I think those that have posted have raised criticisms of your chain of reasoning. If you present an argument, it’s perfectly fine if people zero in on specific premises or logical steps in your argument to critique it.

I addressed a few overall problems that I see. Others focused on more specific problems. But part of the disconnect I see is between the strong conclusions your arguments would appear to support, and the weaker conclusions you actually express. Put another way, the conclusions you express are so non-controversial that no argument is needed. Yet, you support your argument with a chain of reasoning. I find that disconnect quite confusing.[/quote]

Whenever I come to a conclusion or opinion, I'd like to have my ideas challenged by good faith actors to make my position better or even change my mind.

Having interacted with both Gadianton and Marcus for many years, I think they have acted in good faith in criticizing your arguments.

In other words, I'm here for (as the rules say) respectful communication about ideas, not sparring with people on who can one-up the other, which seems to be the tone from others (not talking about you Res Ipsa). Some people seem to carry over from the terrestrial forum that sparring disrespectful tone, which Dr. Shades himself said, to paraphrase him in my own words, was sadly an unfortunate bad habit of failing to switch gears to a more mature civilty. I'm here to think not endlessly spar disrespectfully.

What you are doing here is what is labeled “tone policing.” By addressing Marcus’s and Gadianton’s tone, you are distracting from the substance of their posts and your. It is also inherently disrespectful, as it focuses on personality instead of substance.

You make me feel welcome and you communicate respectfully without hostilty. Question, Marcus says it is inappropriate for me to ask him if he welcomes me to post here or if he'd rather I not. But that is exactly what Dr. Shades did was make sure that I felt welcomed, and said I was welcome here, see: viewtopic.php?t=157731#p2837573

I think I raised the same point with you, although, as anyone here will attest, I am always wordier than Marcus. What you did with Marcus was try to make him responsible for the decision on whether you continue to post. It’s not Marcus’s burden to make that decision — it’s yours. You may not have intended it, but it appears manipulative. If I’m wrong, Marcus will set me straight.

I think that's a fair question to ask. If I go on a Mormon apologetic website and ask if I am welcome they will say in one way or another that this is not the place for me. They will likely say it needs to be faith promoting only.

The bottom line is I was asking that question to Marcus because multiple people were being unwelcoming in their tone and acting like they don't want to me to share my ideas and see me as the enemy. I'm not interested that kind of energy. I'm here to agree to disagree respectfully and accept constructive criticism, but not have enemies and recieve contemptuousness. I actually would like to make some friends even if we disagree. So am I inappropriate to ask Marcus if he is interested in welcoming me and allowing me to express different views? After all, he is a frequent poster and so it is reasonable of me to expect him to frequently respond to my comments. And so if it's going to be constantly vitriolic and contemptuous and he sees me as an enemy right out of the gate and has it in for me. Then is it not reasonable for me to request of him what I can I expect moving forward in the celestial forum?

I don’t think the question you asked Marcus was a fair one. If you think someone has posted in a manner that is inconsistent with the Celestial rules, I strongly suggest that you report the post and let the mod team take a look. I’ve requested that someone else take a look at this thread to make sure that the posts are in compliance with the Celestial rules. I don’t want to do that myself beyond the couple of reminders I’ve posted. It’s hard to enforce the rules and participate in the discussion at the same time — especially in Celestial.

I think if you stop focusing on others’ tone and instead focus on the substance of their posts, you’ll have a much more productive discussion. Let the moderators address the issue of civility rather than try to police other posters’ tone.

It also helps to keep in mind that, while you are welcome to express your thoughts here, others may not welcome the things you say. There is nothing wrong with that. People can criticize the substance of your posts harshly, as long as they treat you respectfully. Although I understand that it is hard to separate one’s identity from the ideas that are central to identity, I’ve found that making an effort to view the two as separate makes for more productive communication.

At this point, if you would find it valuable, I’d be happy to make specific comments that apply my general criticism to the OP. You’ve thoroughly answered my questions from the other thread about Atheism +. Otherwise, I’d be happy to move on to why you feel your emergent Mormonism works better for you that your purpose atheistic worldview.

[Free Ranger]

It's all good Res Ipsa, you're acting in good faith I can tell. I take your criticisms to heart.

Thanks. I have a bit of advice for posting here in Celestial: don’t post about whether another poster is posting in good faith or bad faith. Presume good faith, and respond to what other posters are saying.

You said:



That is all I'm really saying yet it ruffled feathers. I gave some strong arguments from scientists arguing the practical utility of religious or even quasi-religious beliefs or practices increasing well-being; and expressed my opinion that we all might have some quasi-religious beliefs in regards to our political beliefs, like believing we have inalienable Rights, etc., and thus religious humanists with quasi-religious beliefs may not be as stupid, silly or poisonous as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchen argued. I think it's fair to make those arguments in response to Hitchens and Dawkin's, no? I was simply opening a friendly discussion on the topic of politics and quasi religious beliefs. But re-read through all of the posts in this threads and you will see that nobody ever not once (that I can recall) addressed whether or not the current political climate in any way manifests the ingredients or symptoms of quasi religiousness and if that might point to humans being innately prone to at least quasi-religiousness in some way?

From my perspective, there is a disconnect between how you describe what you are saying and many of the arguments you make in your posts. Let me make a guess to why that is. You’ve obviously constructed a pretty elaborate chain of reasoning that validates your approach to Joseph Smith. And you have spent a great deal of time thinking through the whole chain, which is part of what persuaded you that you’ve discovered a new way of thinking about Smith.

It’s very common for folks who have had some type of epiphany or discovered a new insight to want to share that with others. Why wouldn’t you want to?

I’m guessing that you have done so in other venues — maybe other online venues — and were criticized for “proselytizing.” In response to that, you’ve softened up your ultimate conclusions and added some disclaimers. But the way you talk about why you are persuaded by your chain of reasoning goes beyond just talking about yourself and expresses much broader conclusions about people in general.

If you’re anything like me, once you think you have figured something out, the solution seems natural. But it is then very hard to picture how an outsider will react to your thought process. I’m convinced that your intentions are as you describe them. But I think it’s harder for you to see the disconnect that others are seeing.

I’m happy to take you at your word that you have found a worldview that works better for you today than your previous atheism. You don’t need to convince me that your worldview is supported by any evidence or authority figure. That’s part of the disconnect for me — all I’ve told you is that I’m interested in your current worldview and why you think it works for you. When you start making arguments using evidence to support the reasonableness of your worldview, I don’t understand why you are doing that rather than telling me how you think your emergent Mormonism makes your life better.

Dawkins and Hitchens aren’t here, and unless some expresses their views, I don’t understand why you feel a need to refute them. Their views are not my views, and they don’t represent me in anyway. But when you talk about atheists as if Dawkins and Harris are typical atheists, I am likely to push back on that because they certainly don’t represent my views.

So that was the ...

At this point, if you would find it valuable, I’d be happy to make specific comments that apply my general criticism to the OP. You’ve thoroughly answered my questions from the other thread about Atheism +. Otherwise, I’d be happy to move on to why you feel your emergent Mormonism works better for you that your purpose atheistic worldview.

Your psychoanalysis is largely correct I think. I'm not too proud to look at myself objectively. You're correct that I did proselyte briefly when I was thinking of trying to be an active Mormon again, so I was testing my heterodox position but that honestly literally only lasted about 1-3 months because I immediately stopped going on message boards and just tried the experiment of being an active Mormon for about a month and realized it did not work for me. Although I was surprised to see quite a few people not wearing the traditional white shirt and tie which I refused to do. LOL. Yet I still have this philosophical chain of reasoning, as you put it, that makes Mormon Scripture itself work for me in the same way that the Bible as mythos worked for John Shelby Spong, author of Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. It checks all the boxes for me philosophically and as a life philosophy so far. But of course my philosophical version of the Restoration does not fit into any particular mold as its uniquely my own. It does not fit the restoration branches in Missouri for example who argue Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and follow the Smith-Rigdon Movement up to 1835 while I incororate more of the philosophy in the Smith-Pratt Movement post 1835 (but I reject polygamy). My view doesn't fit the Brighamite sect either, which most people on this board are familiar with cuz I do not acknowledge Brigham Young and any of the leaders after him as inspired or true Prophets. I've been transparent about how I am really doing something very similar to what Marcus Borg did with Christianity, only I am using a little more of Nietzsche to get there, in particular his emphasis on affirming the body which I discuss throughout my blog.

I can see how my rhetoric can ruffle feathers for sure. But I don't think my rhetoric and arguments in and of themselves are problematic but it's the audience that is the issue. Let me explain. I think that if people were more open to changing their mind and just dealing with ideas there would be less of an issue but because we are dealing with psychological loss and existential trauma and people are very angry with the Brighamite institution (and rightly so), then my words come off as irritating as I am interpreted as a "wolf in sheep's clothing." If I come on here and only say things that are anti-Mormonism or express liberal political views it will be easy for those on here to be respectful and not attack the person rather than deal with the ideas, but if I say anything that even could be remotely interpreted as defending "Mormonism" even indirectly, by making a case for innate "quasi religiousness" for example, then as Dr. Shades himself put it, it becomes difficult for some posters to switch gears. Can you see that? So just as I am welcome to being psychcoanalyzed Res Ipsa, to be fair I think some psychoanalysis can be done on those on the opposite end as well, no?

And this is me being further transparent, I really am just having a conversation with myself; in other words, I try to create an argument or position and then I argue really hard against it and right now I have a position that I have been unable to argue against so I have come on here in good faith presenting the best argument for why I think and believe as I do currently; expecting a good faith exchange of equally sound arguments and evidence pointing out to me where I might be mistaken in something. However, in the process of making as persuasive argument as I can, I could see how people have saw me is making as you put it "broader conclusions about people in general." That is a fair constructive criticism and I take it to heart. The problem in movimg forward is that I still think that there are "spiritual levers" (I'll use the word spiritual because religion gets everyone upset), that I do think that are innately "spiritual levers" that evolved in our brain that are being pulled either by traditional religions or cults or other quasi-religious mechanisms. It was several books by atheists who convinced me of this, I could list them if you would like because I wrote them down somewhere in my notes. Thus I argued these atheist's position forcefully because you're right I myself find it convincing, and I was looking for someone to give me counter arguments and evidence to the contrary; this is why I linked to so many very intelligent and well-respected atheist scientists in another thread saying the same thing I am. Yet those exact same atheists said that they are an anomaly, that they are uniquely different and that they do not feel the need to pull these spiritual levers. So if if people looked at everything in context I would not be accused of making a broad brush because for example, the atheist sapolosky basically says the same thing here https://youtu.be/oldj11NEsc0 that I am while he himself is a hardcore naturalistic atheist or metaphysical naturalist, and does not feel the need to pull the spiritual levers; but he also makes broad statements about how our brains are likely evolved to benefit from these spiritual levers in most people. Does that make sense Res?

The reason why I was focusing on the reasonableness of quasi-religiousness rather than why it works for me, as you asked, is because I'm never 100% confident of any philosophical position and so the minute I hold it I immediately start dissecting it and deconstructing it and looking for good arguments and evidence against it, as any good philosopher does, and the more I do this the more confident I become in my position and so in making these arguments and providing the evidences I do, it is me seeing if I've missed something, that if anyone else can provide counter arguments and evidence and then as I assess them I will either change my mind or I will become more confident in my position; while those I'm sharing these ideas with are simply being offered alternative points of view and ways of looking at things and different perspectives even, if they themselves don't find it convincing. As I see it, if the person is secure in their position and I am acting in good faith then I really don't see the problem; especially if I am pointing out that there are anomalies like the atheist scientist just linked above, and thus there are people who are not going to ever need or want to pull these spiritual levers, which I readily admit and acknowledge. For example, I have an engineer brother who I don't think he has the same "spiritual levers" and him and I discuss religion and philosophy and we agreed to disagree respectfully, and he does not feel insulted when I make these arguments. I have another brother who is in a different line of work and he fully embraces the arguments and evidence although he himself is not an active Mormon but an ex-Mormon but he listens to me and says you know what I'm going to do something similar to you and benefit from all these spiritual practices on in my own way.

So could it be that part of why people are taking offense is because they might be one of these anomalies, and maybe they are good at math or engineering, etc., and less likely to be subject to these spiritual levers? For example, there was a huge difference between the atheist Frederick Nietszche who talked about the importance of basically implementing "quasi religiousness" to avoid the unyielding despair of nihilism while Bertrand Russell had a more mathematic brain and acknowledged that atheism is embracing unyielding despair (see: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/654503 ... ich-had-no ) and was able to feel content in that worldview. Two atheists, yet two different temperaments and personalities.
And so it's no surprise that Bertrand Russell strongly criticized Nietszchie's ideas and Ayn Rand who was influenced by Nietszchie's ideas was more like someone with an engineer's brain, so she tries to remove all of the poetic quasi-religiousness from Nietzcheanism, what she considered mysticism, and discarded other of his ideas and invented her own. I would say that she might have been immune to these spiritual levers. And so she instead focused on constantly mentioning rationality over mysticism. So can you see that a lot of the problem here might have to do with psychology and personality and perhaps I am being treated unfairly because of a personality conflict?

You are right to say that not all atheists are like Dawkins and Hitchens. You're right for me to be careful that just because they are in the back of my head when I write that I'm not meaning all atheists. But to be clear, and this is the problem in the limitation of words on a screen, is the fact that I do not think that all atheists and agnostics are like hitchens and dawkins. After all I have been repeatedly mentioning Marcus Borg who technically is an atheist or what he prefered to be called a non-theist. There is also Carl Sagan who liked to be called an agnostic but was really an atheist and yet very similar to Borg and me (hey that sounds like Mork and Mindy, lol), he longed for some higher meaning and he even in his book demon haunted world he even makes a case for a science-based spirituality, saying science is a great source of spirituality. So again, at least in him there are worthy spiritual levers which he described as a longing for awe and wonder and using science itself to construct a spiritual or quasi-religious world view. I actually think Joseph Smith was doing something similar philosophically after being educated in the sciences of his day and those like Thomas Dick.

As to the title and topic of this thread, I guess what I was saying is I have not been convinced by anyone that a form of secular political quasi-religiousness has not taken the place of traditional religions in our culture for many people. I'm speaking subjectively and of my personal opinion if you prefer. I think you would say it's not none of anyone's business to convince me otherwise. But I'd like to be convinced otherwise if it's possible. But I don't think that's going to happen here and I'm not demanding that it does.

We could agree to disagree that I was "tone policing." Dr Shades himself said that people have a hard time switching gears. I was perceiving people not being able to switch gears. But I will take your comments into consideration moving forward. But remember, respectfully, the psychoanalysis works both ways, it is easy to be part of a group, the In-crowd where everyone mostly thinks the same in their worldview, and so if other people on here disrespectfully aggressive against one person (like me) and you agree with the aggressors it can be easy psychologically to not percieve the disrespect because you agree with them; and so their tone might be overlooked and disrespect downplayed. Is that not possible? You don't need to answer that, just food for thought.

In all due respect, I don't see me asking Marcus if he wants me to post here as being manipulative. Asking an honest question in a group of people who all seem to have a certain point of view and position and asking if they're interested in somebody with a different point of view and having a dialogue without disrespect is a legitimate question. Basically, I would not want to join a club when the people didn't want me there. Why would I unless I was a glutton for punishment? Again we have to be consistent Res Ipsa, this board's banner says "creating communities" and "all are welcome." If I'm not welcome and not considered part of the community then what are we doing Ress?

I attended an atheist Meetup years ago and this one person was presenting alternative ideas and everyone was ganging up on them and I sat down and tried to hear the guy out and at the end of the day it was clear that he was not going to be welcomed in the group, they did not want to hear him out; so I think a lot of time would have been saved if people were just honest about that. It's easy to be part of the in- group. I mean this is not rocket science here, basic psychology of group dynamics right? Which is why Dr. Shades is a genius for even having the celestial board. I'm just here to exchange ideas and change my mind if able but if people are not going to be civil and welcoming as the site says and they intend to be consistently disrespectful then I'm going to leave. I'm only human, it's easy to be one of the in-group and say "oh just have a thicker skin and all that, but we're human beings and I've seen after lurking that many people just come on here get mistreated and just leave; and so that just feeds an echo chamber; so if nobody is holding others accountable then it's going to continue down the same way and be an echo chamber; basically the same thing occurs on the devout Mormon boards, that's why I can't post there. I thought that this was going to be an exception given all the rules of the celestial forum but I guess that human beings are flawed and fallible and subject to bias, including myself, so maybe there is no win-win here.

At this point I feel like I have a philosophical position and nowhere to explore it. Nowhere I can have a respectful and open-minded dialogue without 3 to 5 posters all getting irritated and ganging up on me and taking it personally and engaging in personal attacks against me rather than just dealing with the ideas. I thought the celestial forum would be different than the terrestrial form but it seems like I was wrong.

As to your point that people are allowed to criticize as long as they are respectful, I have been saying that all along, and I think the reason again while what I consider being disrespected and you consider fair game has a lot to do with personal psychology, in-group psychology, and so if you agree strongly with the criticizers and disrespectors it may be hard for you to see their words as disrespectful. Again, if they only focused on the ideas and made arguments against the ideas I would not have a problem. But they started to make it personal all because they became irritated as you said, of thinking I was making broad claims, but I find this troubling because the atheists in the links I provided were making broad claims about human psychology being subject to the levers of spirituality, so all I'm doing is echoing all of these atheistic scientists. But that led to them feeling justified in personally attacking me.

I guess I'm writing and spending as much time and emotion on this because this I may stop posting all together like I said. I don't think it will be a loss to anyone here, except you Res Ipsa and a few others. No one has expressed any desire for me to stay. I think if we're all honest this does come down to whether you agree with the same worldview and political ideas Or even that you perhaps have more of the personality and type of brain similar to that of Bertrand Russell or Ayn Rand, rather than Carl Sagan or Marucus Borg, etc. For the nontheists Borg, Sagan, and Nietszche, had no problem saying we are innately "spiritual" and prone to quasi-religiousness. So if I don't align and conform with the worldview, temperament and personalities of the frequent posters with the loudest voices it's going to feel like sticking your hand into a bee's nest. Now as much as I enjoy honey, I'm not a badger Res, I'm only human.

I expect mistreatment in the terrestrial forum but this was supposed to be the celestial forum. But as Dr Shades said it is just simply sad that people can't switch gears. But it is what it is. I'll just have to explore elsewhere and find a place to explore my ideas.

[honorentheos]

Hi free ranger, are you familiar with the sociological concept of metanarratives?

[Free Ranger]

Hi free ranger, are you familiar with the sociological concept of metanarratives?

I have not directly studied that topic in depth but I think I know what you mean, go on ...

[honorentheos]

Metanarrative would be a less loaded term that captures what you are arguing for, in my opinion. Well, less loaded on a board where religion is it's raison d'etre. It is equally loaded philosophically but there is history around that argument between modernism and postmodernism you might find interesting.

[Physics Guy]

I'd have more interest in this thread if its posts weren't quite so long. I'm probably on the low end of the patience spectrum, but I think there's a lot to be said for picking a top priority topic to discuss, and then just posting one's best shot on that priority topic.

[Dr. Kingsfield]

This is my response to another poster on this thread: viewtopic.php?t=157779&start=30#p2838792

I thought it deserved its own topic for discussion, for as I answered the question it led to me realizing the topic further supports my contention that we may just be homoreligious or prone to metaphysical thinking and benefit from non-toxic beliefs, which was the point of the thread linked above that began with videos by atheists and scientists supporting non-toxic beliefs. So here is my response and I welcome all to respond and give their opinion:

To answer your curiosity as to these “supernatural” beliefs among some on the secular far-left. I would say that these atheists' reasons for rejecting what they see as supernaturalism on the far-left, is not because they reject the “Social Justice” movement, as you put it. Most atheists tend to lean politically Liberal or Left, and so I don't think the liberal atheists who are opposing what they see as supernaturalism on the far-left, are doing so because they reject social justice, when I see them actually supporting most social justice issues. And these same liberal atheists mentioned below, just 5 or 10 years ago, would be considered by people on the Right to be proponents of Social Justice. These atheists and liberals I will mention below, are simply critical of the new methodology being used to enforce social justice, which they see as a religious methodology.

To begin, the agnostic scientist Neil Degrass Tyson criticized non-scientific thinking (i.e. supernatural thinking) on the far-Left about seven years ago, see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kEJqMTjYtU
https://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tyson ... 1780648740

I do not like to use the term woke or wokeism because it triggers people on the political left and right, but unfortunately I have to use it for ease of communication. It's a complicated term as well and it's my understanding that woke's original meaning is that of being awakened to social injustices, to be woke to social injustice, in particular racial inequalities. I don't see any liberals or atheists rejecting this origional meaning of being woke. They are instead critical of what they see as an ideology and religious ideas that they see has been added onto this simpler definition.

One could argue that even focusing on social injustice, may involve a degree of supernatural/metaphysical thinking, a belief in Right and Wrong and Good and Evil. This is the argument of the atheist Nietzche who would have opposed wokeism, as he opposed the atheistic social justice warriors of his day, basically calling them pale atheists unable to embrace raw reality for instead supernatural thinking, and pity and piety inherited from Christianity. Nietzche would have said something like an ant colony enslaving another ant colony is not evil, it's part of amoral life, the strong overpowering the weak.

Since I am not ashamed to admit I am prone to metaphysical beliefs like an actual Right and Wrong or Good and Evil, I have no problem supporting the woke cause when it opposes racism and injustice.

From this perspective, that of the emphasis on social justice and equity, then Jesus himself, as depicted in the gospels, could be to a certain degree thought of as a kind of "woke" social justice warrior, beginning with his ministry by quoting from Isaiah, see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=EXB

The Book of Mormon could be considered woke to some degree because after re-reading it recently I was actually surprised how many times it mentions equity and criticizes social injustice, class disparities and divisions, etc., and as I argued in this post, I believe the Book of Mormon is actually anti-racist. viewtopic.php?t=157731&start=10#p2837646

My talking to the missionaries recently could be interpreted as a woke activity, which I shared in this post: viewtopic.php?t=157731

So I'm personally not passing judgment on all forms of wokeism. I am merely reporting what I see as a divide in the atheist community and division among the politically Liberal, and I actually consider myself mostly a Liberal. But many atheists and liberals have recently begun to criticize wokeism because in their view, it is beginning to manifest the hallmarks of supernatural thinking and religiosity. If their criticisms have any validity, or even if five to ten percent of their criticisms has any accuracy, then this would support my view that we are innately homoreligious, see:
https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 0religious.

So, in my view, if we remove traditional religions and spirituality the vast majority of people will go seeking for an alternative, whether it's my Swedish ancestors and their elf beliefs or emperor worship in China, or the sects of wokeism.
Here are some examples of atheist and liberals who see extreme versions of wokeism (or some woke sects) as supernatural thinking and toxic forms of religiosity:

John Mcwhorter on The New Religion: https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/th ... rogressive

Who is John Mcwhorter? See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McWhorter

How Social Justice Became a New Religion: Our society is becoming less religious. Or is it? By Helen Lewis: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... on/671172/

The Cult Dynamics of Wokeness by James Lindsey: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/cult- ... -wokeness/

The atheist exmormon at https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/ went from only criticizing Brighamite Mormonism to recently spending a lot of time criticizing what he considers something more harmful at this point than Mormonism, which is the secular far-left's "new religion," as he sees it. So his videos have gone from pointing out cultish thinking in Mormonism to cultish thinking among the some of secular far-left in his videos at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVTCFh ... Zlwl1JOoHQ

Again, even if only five or ten percent of what these authors say is true and are legitimate criticisms, then there is a "new religion" growing up among many on the secular far-left, and whether or not that is good or bad -- and one could even make the argument that it's good because the end result would be good (depending on your politics) -- in my view it proves or supports my point to a certain degree that we are by nature homoreligious.

This article https://americandreaming.substack.com/p ... e-wokeness points out that the atheism of the early 2000s created an existential vacuum.

The Atheist on this podcast explains the origins of wokeism and the resulting divide in the atheist community: https://youtu.be/Y61IPmUEfmo

Observing this clear divide among atheists and liberals is evidence to me that the atheist community was longing for a higher meaning, craving a moral purpose in life based on metaphysical beliefs like the inalienable Rights of the individual as if he is a soul, so that he should be treated fairly and justly and given a good quality of life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue happiness or well-being. And so the mechanistic deconstructionism of Dawkins and Hitchens and others, replacing religion with the Void, was just not satisfying existentially; and so there emerged atheism(+) which evolved into the various sects of wokeism. All because, again, in my view I think we are homoreligious.

Peter Boghossian, James A. Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose attempted to basically highlight what they saw as bad scholarship in several academic fields by pointing out what they saw as religious thinking, or supernatural thinking, which led them to get published absurd ideas in academia, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/01/acade ... holarship/

One could argue this was the equivalent of people on this board criticizing Mormon apologetics when it lacks scientific rigor and is too often couched in supernatural thinking.

Peter Boghossian, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker, and many other atheists who were once revered and admired by nearly everyone in the atheist community just five years ago, are now often villainized by many or even most atheists who reject their perspectives on scientific issues. Richard Dawkins has written several massive books on evolution and biology, so it's interesting that he was once considered an authority but is now so easily vilified. I would argue that this phenomenon is because of growing religious sentiment and moralizing metaphysical thinking among some on the Left, which again can be interpreted as either good or bad depending on your political perspective.

Steven Pinker wrote The Blank Slate which was an early attempt to completely reject some views of the new-religious Left, as it's been described.

So whether you agree or disagree with these atheists, it is obvious there is division, and it's because one side sees the other side as embracing a religion.

These atheists, I have mentioned, are just a few as there is definitely a divide among atheists, which I believe comes down to those who are more mechanistic thinkers and focused on biological science and those who are more "right brain" thinkers seeking some form of meaning, spirituality and morality.

Even the atheist liberal Bill Maher, who produced the documentary Religulous, has compared the new religion on the left to Maoism, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysKhJ1U-vM which was a secular religion in many ways as Maher explains.

This is not surprising to me that there's a divide because we are I think homoreligious, and thus as Nietzche put it, we need to feed both brain chambers, the one chamber that functions via the non-rational/"spiritual" and one for rational science. Or as he put it in Human, All Too Human, “A higher culture must give man a double brain, two brain chambers, as it were, one to experience science, and one to experience non-science. Lying next to one another, without confusion, separable, self-contained: our health demands this. In the one domain lies the source of strength, in the other the regulator. Illusions, biases, passions must give heat; with the help of scientific knowledge, the pernicious and dangerous consequences of overheating must be prevented.” Is wokeism feeding the non-rational "spiritual " brain chamber? Nietzche would have said yes it is, and he would say he has a better spirituality, what scholars call Dionysian Pantheism, that rejects social justice ideals.

I actually personally support most social justice ideals, but I will readily to admit that it is completely grounded in the metaphysics of Christian ethics, which was best pointed out to me by Tom Holland in his book Dominion, and by listening to his many debates and discussions on Youtube.

When I go back and read my Swedish ancestors' Norse religious writings and learn about their culture pre Christianity, I do not see anyone concerned with social justice or stoic cosmopolitanism, but instead there was tribal justice, concern for your tribal neighbor, and the military-like valor of the strong man on the battlefield and conquering and oppressing one's enemies. The concept of "love your enemy," and being "woke" to the unfair treatment of minorities would have been absurd to my Viking ancestors, just as much as the lion would ignore one's pleas to not mangle the cute baby deer and tear into it's throat with impunity. The Vikings saw it as their natural right to take from the weak who cannot defend their property or belongings. Now look at my Viking ancestors in Sweden after converting to Christianity, so that even though they now often describe themselves as atheist or agnostic, a deeper investigation reveals that they are still culturally Christian.

You wrote:
"Any claim that nature 'designed' The human brain for spirituality is based on a misconception of evolutionary science. There is no nature that designs. The existence of a specific human trait is not evidence that is, or has ever been, beneficial to survival of the human species."

No atheist who believes religion can be beneficial, thinks that there is a teleological direction or design in evolution to make us homoreligious, that is not their argument.

This site begs to differ with your last sentence above:

"Religion can be understood as a spandrel in the same way that Stephen Jay Gould claims the surface area between two adjacent arches are spandrels. In using natural selection we have chosen for traits that allowed for a strong foundation that has promoted human survival for thousands of years. Traits similar to behavioural and cognitive characteristics like cooperation, that allow for a more communal lifestyle that may boost one own fitness or increase inclusive fitness. Survival without religion is possible so it does not make this a vital component to survival, however it continues to be a inevitable by product of the things that do continue to promote fitness to our species."
Source: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/evpsych/chap ... spandrels/

So if religion is possibly or likely a spandrel and the atheists in the videos I linked to here viewtopic.php?t=157779#p2838436 argue non-toxic religion or spiritual practices can be beneficial, and many atheists think there is a new secular religion to fill the existential Void caused by former versions of atheism, then is it not at least possible that non-toxic spiritual beliefs and religious ideas and practices are innate to our species and good for our mental health and social cohesion?

The question of whether or not atheism qualifies as a religion is one that is still up for debate.
It's crucial to remember that atheism is not intrinsically a religion. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods; it excludes the practice of worship, rituals, or a worldview typically connected to organized religions.

However, some have noted that when atheism gets structured and involves a strong feeling of community and shared values, it might develop certain traits of a religious movement. Some contend that in such circumstances atheism may adopt the characteristics of a secular religion.

However, it is crucial to understand that atheism does not represent a single movement or ideology; rather, it is a broad range of convictions and perspectives. While some atheists may be more organized and active in spreading their ideas, others may simply reject the existence of a deity without taking part in any organized atheist groups or activities.

Ultimately, interpretation and point of view will determine if atheism qualifies as a religion or not.

[Gadianton]

thank you, ChatGPT.

[Free Ranger]

Metanarrative would be a less loaded term that captures what you are arguing for, in my opinion. Well, less loaded on a board where religion is it's raison d'etre. It is equally loaded philosophically but there is history around that argument between modernism and postmodernism you might find interesting.

Fair point, I think you are right. But the topic of the thread used the word "religion" because that is what I see growing up the last five years, a new political quasi-religion. That seems to me like the elephant in the room that many exmormons do not want to discuss. The few exmormoms who do bring it up are shut down by exmormons who I think have joined this new secular quasi-religion. I find this odd because the same problems in traditional organized religions like Brighamite Mormonism can be found in these secular quasi-religions springing up. Re-read my opening post to see what I mean: viewtopic.php?t=157794#p2838899 I dared to talk about the Elephant and instead of others talking about the Elephant, it became all about ME. Granted, I am sometimes a terrirble communicator but what.about.the.elephant. I also find many an exmormon atheist jumping on board and even telling me to join the new "metanarratives," as you put it. So I just find it really fascinating how many in a group who are hyper critical of one Metanarrative will completely throw their arms around another Metanarrative, see what I am curious about? This leads me to think that as humans we are prone to making shiz up and finding meaning in Metanarratives.