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

[Marcus]

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.

I think the biggest overall problem is that there isn't even a narrative of atheism. Secularism? Sure. But "atheism" literally has nothing behind it. Free mentioned the new atheists, but these guys weren't taken seriously by academics and they had mixed success with the unbelieving public. I never read any of their stuff. Secularism is interesting -- how did secularism arise? Does that parallel the rise of religions? ...

Speaking of atheism in general not having a narrative behind it, let alone a unifying one, i was also surprised by the OP "narrative." But, there was a later explanation:

...I remember attending an atheist meet up once almost 20 years ago and there was way more diversity, quite a few political conservatives but yes mostly moderate liberals, yet mostly they were discussing science. There were a lot of engineers, doctors, professors, and biologists, etc.; but at some point atheism decided to become Atheism Plus and then it started to push out atheists who had been part of the movement for decades because these atheists would not join the new quasi-religious Metanarrative of far-Leftism (let's call it). As my opening post points out, this new "cultish" Metanarrative has been discussed by many atheists from Bill Maher who compares the new quasi-religious Leftism to Maoism (see: https://youtu.be/yysKhJ1U-vM) to Anna Kasparian, a host on The Young Turks (TYT) who talks about realizing a new far-Left ideology that she considers destructive has sprung up, saying at one point "I feel like I just woke up and got out of a cult." She goes on to point out that extreme far-Leftism is basically "cultish," maybe not "literally a cult" she says, but then goes on to basically explain what I am saying.

[bolding added by me.]

So it seems that the discussion was meant to be of "the new quasi-religious Metanarrative of far-Leftism," which some defined as "cultish" and to which some atheists may subscribe, rather than a narrative for atheism in general.

It seemed quite a leap to go from the OP description of atheism, which seemed far more over-arching than the above excerpt, to a description of humankind as homoreligious, or even quasi-religious, but the above excerpt does provide some insight.

[Gadianton]

That's an important observation, Marcus. We've all argued a variation of the "too general" objection, but your point reveals a devastating contradiction. Let's review the title:

Is there a New Secular Religion, If So Does It Support We Are Innately Religious?

I'm a little embarrassed that I missed this, but the answer is obviously "no".

If there is a new secular religion, then the old secularism must not have been a religion, therefore, whoever was a member of the old secularism wasn't religious, and therefore, we must not be innately religious.

A save would be, "the old secularism was also religious", but what you quoted clearly shows that the old secularism was "mainly discussing science", and then it went woke, and became a "quasi-religion", and so this save would be a post-hoc save.

It wouldn't help for practical reasons, as new words like "cult" would need marshalling in order to show degrees of religiosity, but forgive me for being pedantic; moving from practical to formal, we're dead in the water: even if the old secularism was also religious, it still doesn't follow from a new secularism that we are innately religious. It doesn't follow period.

[bill4long]

Humans don't really know much about the religious impulse. Or anything else ultimately for that matter.

There are no ultimate answers to be had while in the flesh.

All you can really do is keep on keeping on until you die. Make the best of it.

You seem to be quite insecure about yourself. Perhaps you should work on that. Relax a bit. That may help.

Peace

[huckelberry]

That's an important observation, Marcus. We've all argued a variation of the "too general" objection, but your point reveals a devastating contradiction. Let's review the title:

Is there a New Secular Religion, If So Does It Support We Are Innately Religious?

I'm a little embarrassed that I missed this, but the answer is obviously "no".

If there is a new secular religion, then the old secularism must not have been a religion, therefore, whoever was a member of the old secularism wasn't religious, and therefore, we must not be innately religious.

A save would be, "the old secularism was also religious", but what you quoted clearly shows that the old secularism was "mainly discussing science", and then it went woke, and became a "quasi-religion", and so this save would be a post-hoc save.

It wouldn't help for practical reasons, as new words like "cult" would need marshalling in order to show degrees of religiosity, but forgive me for being pedantic; moving from practical to formal, we're dead in the water: even if the old secularism was also religious, it still doesn't follow from a new secularism that we are innately religious. It doesn't follow period.

Gadianton, I am fairly sure that free rangers proposal is that people have a natural inclination towards being religious not that people are always religious. People may escape being religious only to be drawn back by the natural inclination. He could possibly have a point even if some people succeed in resisting the inclination and are not drawn back.

Seeing a natural inclination might even be a ueseful warning . Perhaps religious type thought has a potential to sneak back even if unbidden. Of course to be a warning of any use looking closer as to what sort of thing or things this inclination consists of would be necessary.

[Gadianton]

huck,

Free's title is a classic example of "affirming the consequence".

If we are innately religious --> new secularism is religious.

sure.

if new secularism is religious --> we are innately religious

bzzt.

Maybe there's a point in all that text somewhere, but needs to sort out what that point is.

not that people are always religious

Depending on what block of text you're examining, this claim is most definitely being made. For example: "if induction fails, we are innately religious."

y the eye roll I take it you took issue with my statement. To clarify what I meant by that statement, it was given in the context of several examples of what I consider "religion making" throughout this entire thread. For example:

> The Atheist David Hume argued that we can't even know with certainty that the sun is going to come up in the morning, so to a certain degree we are engaging in worldview constructs because we need to get through the day.

All of this is what I meant by "religion making,"

By Free's account, if we can't solve the problem of induction (sun is going to rise), then we're getting through the day by faith, or some other kind of religious construct. So yes, Free has argued repeatedly that we are innately religious and in fact always religious. If even belief that the sun will rise is religious, then every other belief is religious as well -- 100% of the time, 24/7.

Often, it's been materialists and logicians who have been overambitious and give the impression that they're going to ground knowledge, and failure to do so leaves the door open for religion. Although, this is 19th / early 20th century stuff that nobody is interested in today, least of all the New Atheists. A certain reaction from religious philosophers questioning the merits of atheism or naturalism is understandable.

But Free needs to figure out what his argument is, as much of his effort has been to say until all philosophy problems are solved (induction, free will, self etc) and science can explain everything and in fact, all philosophy problems explained by science by reducing everything to matter, then we are operating by religion. Because if he wants to believe that, it's utterly senseless to talk about the new secularism as a religion.

[Free Ranger]

Yes I agree that atheism in and of itself is certainly not a religion. All my years as an atheist I heard many atheists explain this over and over to theists, to our irritation. My opening post is not saying that at all, to be clear.

What my opening post is getting at is that atheism opens an existential vacuum, it is the removal of a belief in God and with it objectively provable values of Right or Wrong and ultimate meaning in life (cue Nietzszche's Mad Man parable), and as a result people will fill that existential void with different things. Some atheists turn to science or scholastics or their career or their family or a hobby, etc. But what I see happened about 5 to 10 years ago was atheists started to lack meaning and a value-structures and ultimate purpose and a consistent morality. They had no Metanarrative that could bind them together like religion does. I remember attending an atheist meet up once almost 20 years ago and there was way more diversity, quite a few political conservatives but yes mostly moderate liberals, yet mostly they were discussing science. There were a lot of engineers, doctors, professors, and biologists, etc.; but at some point atheism decided to become Atheism Plus and then it started to push out atheists who had been part of the movement for decades because these atheists would not join the new quasi-religious Metanarrative of far-Leftism (let's call it). As my opening post points out, this new "cultish" Metanarrative has been discussed by many atheists from Bill Maher who compares the new quasi-religious Leftism to Maoism (see: https://youtu.be/yysKhJ1U-vM) to Anna Kasparian, a host on The Young Turks (TYT) who talks about realizing a new far-Left ideology that she considers destructive has sprung up, saying at one point "I feel like I just woke up and got out of a cult." She goes on to point out that extreme far-Leftism is basically "cultish," maybe not "literally a cult" she says, but then goes on to basically explain what I am saying. See Anna say this at the 1 hour and 7 minute mark here: https://www.youtube.com/live/z8TD2jNPLK4?feature=share
She basically says that humans as tribal beings are prone to these "spiritual levers" I have been talking about in this thread. She is on one of the most popular Progressive/Leftist political channel as a progressive/leftist commentator. So I think she has some credibility, no?

Her entire interview linked above is her explaining that after 20 some odd years as a political commentator and media host, she has seen the rise of secular far-Leftism that is basically a cultish metanarrative and she wants out of the cult basically.

A guy named Thunderf00t who documented what he sees as the rise of this new far-leftism and its metanarrative and how in his opinion it ruined the atheist community. He sees modern feminism as cultish and has a video series, Why 'Feminism' is poisoning Atheism, part one here: . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR ... cmYwMHQ%3D
I'm not here to defend thunderf00t but even if only 5% of what he says is accurate, that atheism has been taken over by what the atheist James Lindsay calls Feminist Gnosticism (see: https://newdiscourses.com/2023/04/femin ... nosticism/) then maybe just maybe we are seeing a new quasi-religion emerge in front of our eyes as critical thinkers who were able see through the cultish ways of Brighamite Mormonism. That I think is a huge elephant in the room; and I am wondering why a community who prides itself on critical thinking and deconstructing the problems in Mormonism has not turned that same critical eye to far-Leftism, like all the atheists I have mentioned throughout this thread are doing?

How is it that even Richard Dawkins, who used to be a respected atheistic speaker became vilified so quickly? If that is not the result of "quasi religiosity," then I don't know what is.

I'm simply looking at this like an anthropologist might look at it and I'm fascinated by it and curious by it. It's the elephant in the room.

It seems like atheism creates a void and that void has been filled with a new cultish metanarrative which people like Bill Maher and Anna Kasparian consider a quasi cult. Is Bill Maher wrong? Is James Lindsey of new discourses, completely wrong? Is exmormon Jonathan Streeter wrong? Is Richard Dawkins, who sees this rising cultism, wrong? That is the elephant in the room and I'm curious about discussing it.

Hopefully, after saying all that, the thread will not turn again towards hyper focusing on me and focus on the actual topic and the ideas.

[Free Ranger]

It would also be helpful if people did not create a straw man of my position. Mentioning Hume is a far cry from a good summary of my position. Likewise, repeatedly bringing up my use of the word religion is disingenuous, when I clarified my meaning and offered better alternative terms based on suggestions by other posters, so continuing to make a straw man is not acting in good faith.

And there is still an elephant in the room. For example, I just read this yesterday. From The ideological Subversion of Biology by Jerry Coyne in Skeptical Inquirer (July 2023), page 45:

".. Progressive ideology is growing stronger and intruding further into all areas of science. And because it's 'progressive,' and most scientists are liberals, few of us dare oppose these restrictions on our freedom. Unless there is a change in the Zeitgeist, and unless scientists finally find the courage to speak up against the toxic effects of ideology on their field, in a few decades science will be very different from what it is now. Indeed, it's doubtful that we'd recognize it as science at all."

[Res Ipsa]

It would also be helpful if people did not create a straw man of my position. Mentioning Hume is a far cry from a good summary of my position. Likewise, repeatedly bringing up my use of the word religion is disingenuous, when I clarified my meaning and offered better alternative terms based on suggestions by other posters, so continuing to make a straw man is not acting in good faith.

And there is still an elephant in the room. For example, I just read this yesterday. From The ideological Subversion of Biology by Jerry Coyne in Skeptical Inquirer (July 2023), page 45:

".. Progressive ideology is growing stronger and intruding further into all areas of science. And because it's 'progressive,' and most scientists are liberals, few of us dare oppose these restrictions on our freedom. Unless there is a change in the Zeitgeist, and unless scientists finally find the courage to speak up against the toxic effects of ideology on their field, in a few decades science will be very different from what it is now. Indeed, it's doubtful that we'd recognize it as science at all."

Çoyne's polemic in the Skeptical Inquirer is unhinged.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula ... f-biology/

[Marcus]

What my opening post is getting at is that atheism opens an existential vacuum, it is the removal of a belief in God and with it objectively provable values of Right or Wrong and ultimate meaning in life (cue Nietzszche's Mad Man parable), and as a result people will fill that existential void with different things...

Could we just stop right here, so few things can be clarified?

1. How does a "belief in God" lead to "OBJECTIVELY provable values"?

(I capitalized "objectively" because it has a very specific meaning.)

2. Your statement that "removal of a belief in God" opens a "vacuum" again assumes as a starting condition your assumption about religion/belief in God being an innate property of humankind.

If it is not innate for all, then there is no "vacuum" upon "removal," so what is your reasoning for using these terms?

3. "and as a result people will fill that existential void with different things... "

See #2, same issue, same question.

(And just to clarify in advance, i am not feeling hostile, nor am i disturbed, offended or upset by your argument, nor is my post based on any aspect of exmormonism. I am simply responding to the ideas you are presenting, and i have some questions. I am interested in an academic discussion of these concepts.)

[Marcus]

...He sees modern feminism as cultish and has a video series, Why 'Feminism' is poisoning Atheism, part one here: . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR ... cmYwMHQ%3D
I'm not here to defend thunderf00t but even if only 5% of what he says is accurate, that atheism has been taken over by what the atheist James Lindsay calls Feminist Gnosticism (see: https://newdiscourses.com/2023/04/femin ... nosticism/) then maybe just maybe we are seeing a new quasi-religion emerge in front of our eyes as critical thinkers who were able see through the cultish ways of Brighamite Mormonism. That I think is a huge elephant in the room; and I am wondering why a community who prides itself on critical thinking and deconstructing the problems in Mormonism has not turned that same critical eye to far-Leftism, like all the atheists I have mentioned throughout this thread are doing?

So, that's the quasi-religion you're referring to.

Okay.

James Lindsay has quickly become a leading voice in the reactionary anti-student inclusion, anti-LGBTQ, and conspiracy propaganda movements...

James Lindsay regularly shares conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world (especially the United States), promotes “groomer” rhetoric against the LGBTQ community and spreads the “white genocide” theory that Marxists want to eradicate the white race. With alarmism and fearmongering, Lindsay incites and segregates his base...
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... es-lindsay