Adopting Secular Religions (Or Not)

Reader Rob sent me a link to this TCSDaily article by Karl Reitz – essentially a criticism of recent atheist books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens. Reitz takes on the response to the claim the atheist societies (for example fascists and communists), have done as many evil things as religious ones. He quotes Hitchens saying that such beliefs “were types of secularised religion, and as such do not count." Reitz responds that if people became atheists, they would inevitably adopt such “secular religions” in the place of religion:

A world in which everyone stopped believing in God would likely provide fertile ground for such secular faiths. These secularized religions are what we would really have if we somehow got everyone to stop believing in God. Realistically, atheists […] may only have a choice between living in societies that are traditionally religious or ones that have adopted secularized religions.

So, far from "not counting," secular religions must be taken very seriously, and their implications understood, before we preach the benefits of godless society.

Reitz is presenting us with a false dilemma – humans will either believe in God and religion, or they will adopt false secular faiths such as fascism or communism. But there is a third option – they will adopt critical thinking and the scientific method. I agree that “secular religions” should be taken seriously – that’s why this blog is about skepticism and critical thinking, and not solely about atheism and being anti-religious (although I am both). So yes, of course when and if people stop believing in God, they should adopt critical thinking in its place. Not as any kind of religion (which it isn’t), but as the normal way to evaluate claims. Secular religions are not inevitable.

Reitz goes on to assert that the common factor in both secular and non secular religions, is faith:

I am atheist because I don't believe in faith, which I believe is the common dogma shared by traditional religion and secularized religions.

I agree with him here – the common factor is faith: belief without evidence, and/or in the teeth of contradictory evidence. However, he is missing the important area where most religions differ from secular religions - belief in God. This is important because, although people may feel free to disagree with the tenets of a secular faith, they cannot disagree with God. As I have written before, religion tells us that its rules are the way God says things have to be. You and I can disagree on all sorts of things, but if God is telling us the other person is wrong, ultimately we can’t peacefully disagree. And it’s the certainty that God-belief provides that is the reason religion is so dangerous. Secular leaders such as Stalin or Mao could only stay in power and keep their “faith” alive with an iron fist. Such measures, contrary to the will of the people, are ultimately doomed to fail no matter how brutally they are applied. Contrast that with (for example) Islam. Muslims didn’t have to be forced by their leaders to riot in the streets to protest the Muhammad cartoons and demand an end to free speech; they did it because they believed God wanted them to. That’s why Islam is still going strong after 1,300 years (and Christianity after 2,000 years), while the Soviet Union collapsed in about 70.

Having missed the important difference between secular and non-secular religions, Reitz goes on to highlight an irrelevant one:

The fundamental difference between traditional religions and these secular religions is that secular religions promise us that perfection (heaven) is possible here, on earth, in present times.

So what? If they both promote a false reality they’re both bad. But isn’t religious anti-science worse? The Soviets (and later the Communist Chinese) promoted the anti-science Lysenkoism which resulted in crop failures and famine, as well as the execution of numerous geneticists. But Lysenkoism eventually collapsed under the weight of contradictory evidence. Compare that with the anti-science creationists who want to get their ignorance taught in schools as though it were science, or Christians who reject condom use in Africa as a means of preventing the spread of AIDS. The religious are driven by God-belief to take us back to the dark ages. Unlike with Lysenkoism, we can be sure that such religious anti-scientific beliefs will never be influenced by contradictory evidence. Contradictory evidence only makes God-believers fight harder.

I think that in his penultimate paragraph, Reitz reveals the real source of his disagreement with Hitchens, and shows us the origin of his confusion about religion:

For the same reasons that I don't want religion taught to my [theoretical future] children in public schools, I don't want Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to be a requirement for graduation. If the First Amendment prohibits the teaching of religion in public schools, shouldn't it prohibit showing that movie? After all, what's the difference between that movie and one that presented a traditional religion in the same way?

What’s the difference? Wow - it’s obvious! Al Gore’s movie was based on actual current scientific research and for the most part, Gore gets the science right. Both it, and the scientific research it is based upon, can be questioned and will be revised as better evidence presents itself in future. Religion is immune to such reality checks. Still, I think the fact that Reitz thinks “An Inconvenient Truth” is a religion, gives us a window into his secular religion – global warming denial. I guess he really did “adopt a secular religion” in the place of religion, when he became an atheist.

Comments

[Chris Bradley]

Yeah, I've noticed that false dilemma, myself.

For myself, the prime reason I'm not religious because of the way that religion stifles inquiry and critical thought. Certain things are simply unacceptable to even intellectually study.

Sure, atheists will do stupid things, and sometimes lead to great tragedy (tho' I rather agree with Chris Hitchens that folks like Stalin and Mao were able to get away with their tragedies because of the subservience and obedience to authority taught by the Russian Orthodox Church and Confucianism, respectively), but the real difference is that secularism has fewer impediments to changing itself. No secularist can legitimately say that whole swaths of intellectual inquiry MUST BE off-limits for arbitrary reasons. And any so-called secularist who does this is probably selling something that doesn't smell very nice.

[Techskeptic]

Obviously as atheists we would all agree on some points. For example (and as you mentioned):

"A world in which everyone stopped believing in God would likely provide fertile ground for such secular faiths."

We see this today with the rise of such nonsense as The Secret, Deepak Chopra's blathering and anything that comes out of Sylvia Brown's mouth. Its everywhere already. I'm just not sure its worse. Perhaps only in that there is not organized and relatively cohesive set of moral teachings that come from these secular 'religions' (which is only a small improvement since morals are innate)

Skeptico, you are right on that critical thinking and casting off any religion is a third option, and unfortunately the hardest to do and make pervasive. so where does this guy come from with his thinking? how could he leave out such an important and obvious third option? Look at this:

"By railing against God, especially the Christian God, these authors are missing the real target, faith"

It appears to me, that Reitz didn't read the books he is writing about. I read the Harris and Dawkins book, and while they both spend a little time ripping apart the bible to solidify the points they are making (Harris actually spends more time on islam) the great majority of the books are in fact dedicated towards the "real target" faith. Why would he write about books he didnt read?

Look at the TCS about us link. They quote:

“What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution.” -- Friedrich Hayek

spontaneous evolution? could it be that Mr. Reitz is in fact, NOT an atheist? Could that be why he left out a far more obvious and important "alternative" rather than secular religions?

[Jimmy_Blue]

I read the quote from Reitz and thought 'Well I'm an atheist but not communist, fascist, libertarian or any other 'secular religion' so right there, just on this sample of one, your argument falls flat on its arse.'

Unless there's some 'secular religion' I'm a member of and just haven't recieved the membership benefits. Can we pick and choose? What are they anyway? I'd like to make an informed decision.

I'll take an eternal life and a harem of the nubile and horny to start, please.

[Diana]

I sometimes think that religion is something that desperate, miserable people may turn to for lack of any other ray of hope.

So, perhaps ridding the world of poverty (and other problems) may have some impact on diminishing people's dependence on religion?

For instance, if more people had enough money to afford health care, they might never turn to faith healing. (Or alternative medicine quackery, for that matter.)

I think desperation and misery may serve as a motivation for people to latch onto irrational secular movements as well. For instance - my guess is, if Germany hadn't been in an economic shambles, Hitler would have been much less likely to rise to power.

Probably if people in our society didn't have to slave so much merely to keep treading water and living from paycheck to paycheck, a lot less people would turn to things like prayers, affirmations, magic spells, crystals, astrology, divination, etc. in the wild hope that one of these things may serve to bail them out of the hopeless mess they're in.

I know if I had been part of the middle class or above, chances would have been much lower that I would have had ended up as interested as I am in astrology... :-) I would have been too busy with college, getting a decent job, maybe starting a scientific career, etc.

By the way, I usually go by the name Apollia elsewhere on the internet, but I'm still using my same old alias "Diana" because I know Skeptico frowns on people using multiple aliases. If Skeptico gives me permission, I'd like to use the name Apollia from now on.... :-)

I doubt I'll be posting that many comments in the future, but, I am a devoted fan of this blog, and just figured I might as well unmask and not be so anonymous here.

[Big Al]

Good points, Apollia! I think a major part of the absolute stranglehold religion had over swathes of people in the Middle Ages was the promise of more than they could ever achieve in their brief, squalid little lives. What people wanted to hear was "It won't always be like this, as long as you work your backside off in this life. Then you'll have Paradise forever."

I'd be willing to bet that every increase in the general standard of living has loosened the grip of religion.

You mentioned Hitler and the advent of Nazism. His main argument was that the loss of the First World War, the severity of the reparations and the subsequent breakdown of the German economy was the fault of traitorous Jewish elements.

Again, he was telling people what they wanted to hear: "This wan't your fault. Don't blame yourselves, blame the Jews."

All religions, secular or otherwise, do this. They may treat you worse than a dog,but they tell you you're special - as long as you conform. And they all promise jam tomorrow.

[Techskeptic]

from appolia:
"For instance, if more people had enough money to afford health care, they might never turn to faith healing. (Or alternative medicine quackery, for that matter.)"

sadly not true. Just look at all the rich scientologists, the 'clinic' that coretta scott king went to (http://tinyurl.com/ypg98n), montels nonsense with sylvia brown, oprah and The Secret, etc etc. Money has nothing to do with where you seek comfort. I think it is all about how we generally transmit information to the masses and how we educate them in our schools.

Al,
"Again, he was telling people what they wanted to hear: "This wan't your fault. Don't blame yourselves, blame the Jews.""

right on... just like we are hearing these days about the horrible immigrants that are stealing american jobs. Now find me a single American who wants to clean the stain ridden sheets in the nearest Hilton hotel or wants to pull carrots out of the ground at minimum wage or less.

[pv]

Can't we just label all religions, secular or theistic, "absolutism"?
I'm an atheist and, like many others, I am also not a member of any secular absolutist organisation, such as communism, fascism etc. I'm rather keen on the intellectual pursuit we call science, though, the premise of which is anti-absolutism. That is, accepting that the evidence and observations are good only until new, as yet unknown, evidence and observations contradict and supersede it. Accepting the unknown but not necessarily unknowable.
In order to maintain any intellectual integrity, God, any god, all knowing, all seeing or otherwise can only be compatible with absolutism. On the other hand, if intellectual rigour and integrity are not to one's taste, and taking personal responsibility for one's altruistic or murderous impulses is too burdensome, then I suppose God is the superstition of choice for the discerning craven buck-passer.

[Big Al]

A laudable aim, pv, and I totally agree about "the ultimate buck-passer", but you seem to be somewhat brighter than the average person.

Unfortunately, as Arthur C. Clarke wrote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Present-day technology and science is already at that level for a lot of people.

"OK, you say this two slits experiment thing shows that this indivisible quantum thingie can go through both slits at once. How can something be in two places at the same time? Why do you believe that but then deny that Jesus turned water into wine? Science is no different from any other religion. Your faith in science is no different to my faith in God."

My own brother-in-law, a highly-educated, intellectual software engineer and churchgoer verbally attacked me in a most uncharacteristic manner when I told him I was an atheist: "Atheism is your religion."

He wouldn't listen when I protested that lack of belief without proof is diametrically opposed to any religion.

Religion seems to short-circuit the higher critical functions. People do seem to have a fondness of believing that someone "up there" is holding their hand.

[pv]

Theistic religion does seem to be the preserve of those with an egocentric view of the universe.

And, Al, sorry about your brother-in-law. He might be "highly educated" in a particular sense, and he might be a software engineer but he clearly doesn't have any qualification in etymology or philosophy. He doesn't appear understand the meaning of the word "atheist". Does he understand the difference between "amoral" and "immoral", for example? I'd say he probably doesn't know what "theism" is either. He obviously doesn't understand the simple notion that ascribing the non-existence of a deity gives you nothing to worship.

[Big Al]

I'm afraid he has a degree in Philosoophy, pv. It's just that the blinkers seem to slam down over religion.

Even my sister, who's also a churchgoer, couldn't believe how he sounded off at me. At least she understood when I said I couldn't commit to being my nieces' godfather because of my (lack of) belief.

[David D.G.]

To Big Al: Good grief, a guy with a degree in Philosophy who doesn't even understand what atheism is, or grasp its definition? He should sue his university for giving him a passing grade in the subject, let alone a degree in it!

~David D.G.

[Citizen Deux]

I find the comments about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth to be debatable (get's the science right??), however, that's not the point. Any belief system which suppresses debate or discourse becomes absolutist. Most of the modern Christian faiths are moving out from under that umbrella. Islam has had no such reformation. The Climatists are moving under that umbrella - despite substantial uncertainty in the data and hypothesis.

Most importantly, humanity needs to agree on a basic set of moral principles from which to develop. Religion typically provided these tenets. Can a "non-faith" based philosophy endure, given humanity's desire to seek something greater than themselves in their thoguhts (be it science, etc.)

[pv]

Jesus Christ, Al, as the saying goes! Is it a mail order Philosophy degree or something? That's an extraordinary position he takes given his qualification.

David. D.G, I disagree that religion has provided moral principles. It has merely provided a brutal way to enforce them, along with some other, sometimes nasty, religion specific rules. Some of the means employed to ensure adherence to religious rules have included the most barbaric forms of torture, including mutilation and impalement. Most Christians I know don't like to be reminded of this, and like to pretend that the perpetrators weren't somehow "real" Christians - you know, Popes, Bishops, Priests and so on.

[pv]

Sorry David. D.G., the previous comment should have been addressed to Citizen Deux. I blame my lack of reading qualifications. :)

[Diana]

Thanks, Big Al. :-) Excellent points. I had forgotten all about the Middle Ages, great example... :-) I can't think of much else to say to your reply to me besides, I agree... :-)

Techskeptic: Oh, yeah, I forgot about all the wealthy celebrities pushing and even believing in bizarre things. :-) Excellent points.

I definitely can't go so far as to say that money (or the lack thereof) has nothing to do with the motivation to turn to irrational beliefs, but yes, especially in light of the examples you pointed out, it definitely isn't the only motivation for irrational beliefs.

No matter how rich one gets, it might never remove the fear of death, pain, loss, etc., all of which might serve as an incentive to turn to faith. Among plenty of other motivations, such as the grief of losing loved ones, etc.

I do wonder what exactly motivates some of those celebrities. Clearly it's not money (unless some of them are out to make themselves _even more_ rich). I guess some of them (like the ones with TV shows) might just be trying to appeal to their audience, entertain them, etc. Many, though, seem to actually believe in what they're saying.

Actually, since one doesn't need to be desperate and actually _in_ poverty in order to be deeply emotionally affected by even the mere existence of poverty (and all the suffering that acompanies it) - it occurs to me that another possible motivation for some people to take up faith may be that some people are so sensitive to and anguished by the plight of the world's downtrodden, and they may feel so helpless to do enough for the downtrodden (even if they themselves are rich, and have vast resources with which they could doubtless make a genuine large difference), that they turn to faith in the hope that miracles, magic, Jesus, or something, can save the world.

In some people's cases, I suppose faith might also help relieve some people of burdensome feelings of guilt and a sense of responsibility for taking the time, effort and money to think up, organize, and implement mundane, rational, practical solutions to the world's problems, solutions which probably have far more chance of making a real difference than anything based on faith alone, but which are also a lot more work. But why bother with all that, when you believe a simple prayer might work just as well, and God will take care of everything?

I wonder if some folks might delude themselves that if they can just convince all the downtrodden to believe in a certain thing, like "The Secret" or whatever, the downtrodden people's lives will magically really change for the better.

And then, if (or when) the downtrodden people's lives don't improve, then they can regard it as all those downtrodden people's own fault for not thinking positively enough, or not having enough faith, or something.

Which may serve as an excuse to not be generous or charitable and to not actually help fix things on a material level, such as by giving away money to individuals, etc.

(I think an irrational secular belief serving much the same purpose - i.e., a rationalization to do next to nothing to really help fix things on a practical level - may be the belief that the plight of the poor is _all_ because of the poor's own personal failings.

As if oppression such as income taxes, the fact that lending practices which used to be deemed usury and loan-sharking are now legal in the U.S., giant late fees and other fees when you can't afford to pay your bills on time or if you bounce a check, the fact that just going to college can cost so much that it'll put you into so much debt you'll never get out, and countless other things, can't possibly have anything to do with why so many people are poor).

Such beliefs can even serve as an excuse to be brutal, merciless and uncaring, blind to the misfortune and injustice that befalls totally undeserving people - an excuse to sit idly by and prate superciliously about how "They created their own reality", or "It's their karma", or (in a popular secular opinion on the poor) "They're just lazy, stupid people who constantly make bad decisions".

So, if it's true that some turn to faith/irrationality due to being unable to bear their anguished feeling of helplessness regarding solving the plight of the world's downtrodden (perhaps even _so_ unable to cope with reality that they go into denial that unfairness and oppression exist to the extent that they do, and come up with irrational ways to blame the victims) - here again, perhaps solving the problem of poverty might help remove some motivation for some people to turn to faith and other forms of irrationality.

It certainly wouldn't remove _all_ motivations for people to turn to faith/irrationality, but at least it might help a bit.

But even if it doesn't, well, at least it would probably be much nicer to live in a world without poverty rather than a world with poverty, even if people in general remain just as irrational as ever... :-)

Apollia

[Diana]

Techskeptic wrote:
right on... just like we are hearing these days about the horrible immigrants that are stealing american jobs. Now find me a single American who wants to clean the stain ridden sheets in the nearest Hilton hotel or wants to pull carrots out of the ground at minimum wage or less.

I can't believe _any_one, American or not, would want to be exploited like that. I guess since things cost less in Mexico, the immigrants can actually get by on such low wages, but, they're still being exploited, I think.

As for whether an American would want to do work like that - well, to me, jobs like that, as distasteful as they are, sound like decent, honest work, and for that reason, I'd certainly be willing to do it, if it paid well enough. Not that I'd really _want_ to - who would? - but there are things in life that no one really wants to do but which need doing.

The only problem is, I (and the average American) probably can't live on so little money. And, unless I'm mistaken, one of the main reasons the wages for jobs like that may be so low is because there are so many people willing and able to work for such low wages.

Maybe one solution for all Americans who are out of a job because of illegal immigration would be to move to Mexico, where the cost of living is lower, and then, just like an illegal immigrant, they can cross the border and work in America, and take home (since their home is now Mexico) the equivalent of perfectly adequate wages. As former U.S. citizens, they'd blend in so well in America, no one would ever suspect they were non-citizens/aliens... :-)

OK, I'm joking with that solution... :-) (Though I actually wouldn't be that surprised if some people really tried that!)

OK, now a serious suggestion... :-)

I think it might be good to make it so businesses have less incentive to seek out people they can exploit by paying illegally low wages.

Maybe this could be accomplished by abolishing various things that steal from businesses' and employees' hard-earned profits, like income taxes (both for businesses and individuals), legally mandated health care benefits that the employee may not even want, etc. (Back when I still had a job, I definitely would much rather have had the money for my health care benefits in my pocket - not to mention, all the money that was stolen from me by taxes and Social Security).

Then, businesses could much better afford to pay people fair wages. Also, not having so much money robbed from business profits by taxes, etc. would also make it a lot easier for people to succeed in business, and would probably encourage the creation of more businesses, and hence probably create many more jobs, etc.

But perhaps I'm getting off the topic of secular religion here... :-)

To get myself on topic again, I'll just state that, though I don't really know all that much about this issue overall, I think people who complain about immigration may actually have a valid point, and possibly aren't being completely irrational. If no one were willing and able to work for excessively low wages, I would think businesses would be forced to pay people higher wages. (Well, assuming they can _afford_ to pay people those higher wages). Or else, go without employees.

So, I can see how someone might blame immigration - even though, looking at things from a broader perspective, the decreased availability of well-paying jobs is probably the fault of a variety of factors, like businesses struggling and having a diminished ability to hire as many people and to pay their employees well, because of things like income taxes, and being forced to pay for health care benefits for employees even if the employees don't want those benefits, etc. (If I'm not mistaken; don't know too much about business, though, so I'm not sure I have all my facts straight).

What might be irrational, I think, might be to blame immigration for absolutely everything. I think immigration is probably a factor, but just one of many.

Hmm, I guess in these last couple of comment, I went on rather at length. Hopefully not too much length, and hopefully it was on topic enough. :-) Oh, well. I hope it was interesting, at least... :-)

Apollia

[Big Al]

I'm sorry ro say my brother-in-law's degree is from a reputable university. He's a pretty didactic guy most of the time and loves to play "I'm a better logician than you" by loudly and gleefully throwing back at me some technical logical term that I've used wrongly. On the other hand, any subject about which I happen to know more than him (such as electronics and physics) is unimportant, and any misstatement on his part irrelevant.

Oh, the shame: I ought to throw my own degree in philosophy back for not using Hegelian or Russellian dialectic properly... oh, hang on: I haven't got one!

However, on the religion thing, all pretence at logical rigour seems to disappear. All that's left is the same didactic, loud harangue, without the least semblance of logical argument.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Apollia:

Libertarianism, which is what your last post pretty clearly identifies you as a proponent of, is a 'secular religion'.

It shares in common with other religions its attitude towards reality and facts, the fanatacism of its followers and their often astonishing naivety. Hell you even make a point of admitting you know nothing about business after a long post about business and its actions, just as you can commonly see your average bible thumper say "I'm not a biologist but evolution just seems to be wrong because [insert junk argument here]."

[Apollia]

Hi Jimmy_Blue.

Well, thanks for giving me a word to somewhat describe that particular viewpoint of mine, and giving me some idea of how I was coming across. I didn't even realize that qualified as libertarian, and I certainly wasn't trying to make it so.

I also certainly wasn't trying to sound like a creationist. Bad me, I have appeared to blasphemously stray from the skeptical fold... :-) I'm so ashamed, how can I repent??? Can I join your harem of the nubile and horny? ;-) Ha, ha... :-)

Years ago I did take some interest in libertarianism, and I agreed (and probably still agree) with _some_ of what some libertarians said - but I definitely saw what you mean about "astonishing naivety". I don't completely trust anything that seems to give human nature too much credit.

In fact, I'm not sure there's anything at all I completely trust. I tend to question everything, to the point where many people would find me quite a drag if I didn't tone it down and refrain from bursting everyone's bubbles by puncturing their belief systems with pointed questions... :-)

I have very little interest in or knowledge about politics, political parties, or economic ideologies, which is one reason why I hate to adopt any labels, because I generally don't know much about the implications of those labels, and I don't want to give people the wrong idea.

I also like to hopefully avoid people assuming various wrong things about me and my perspectives, and perhaps being prejudiced against my ideas and automatically rejecting everything I have to say, on the basis of a label.

I much prefer to simply explain my exact outlooks, and hopefully have people actually think about and judge my ideas on their own merits (if there are any).

I don't deliberately try to adhere to any particular belief system. I also neither automatically, blindly accept nor automatically, blindly reject anything someone says simply because that person or their beliefs can be described by a particular label, since I don't regard prejudice or bias as adequate substitutes for actually thinking about something and judging it on the basis of logic and the actual hard facts.

I don't think it's logical to jump to the conclusion that simply because someone or what they state may superficially appear to match a certain ideoogical label, that that person is definitely a proponent of that ideology, with a naive belief in every scrap of nonsense any _actual_ proponent of that ideology has ever spouted.

I also don't believe it's necessary for someone to be an expert with utterly copious knowledge of something in order to possibly have worthwhile, potentially logical, factual things to say about it - especially when they're making casual remarks on a subject like business, a subject which, I suspect, is hardly so complicated that it deserves to be compared to a science like biology.

However, I also think non-experts may even have worthwhile things to say, or at least raise worthwhile questions, even about complicated subjects.

So, aside from thinking I sound in some ways libertarian and like a creationist, what do you think of what I actually said? What do you think of the actual content, instead of just the apparently unappealing presentation?

I'd love to know everything I did wrong. Was there anything specific that was factually wrong? Did I say anything specific that was deficient in logic?

I welcome answers from anyone/everyone who feels like answering... :-)

Apollia

[Diana]

Oops!! Sorry, I accidentally used the name Apollia in the name field despite not yet having heard from Skeptico regarding whether I can switch names. It's a habit.

Sorry about that. I hope I don't get banned for that, I didn't mean to. :-(

Apollia

[Skeptico]

Diana/Apollia:

You can use whatever name you want. The rule was to stop a person from posting with different names, pretending to be different people agreeing with each other. Anyway, use whichever name you want to use.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Apollia:

If Skeptico doesn't think its going too off topic then I'll happily reply with what I thought was wrong with your comments on business/health care etc.

[Apollia]

Thank you very much, Skeptico!

I look forward to it, Jimmy_Blue. (I'd also be willing to talk about it somewhere else if it's too off-topic here.)

Apollia

[Jimmy_Blue]

Apollia:

I don't think it is too far off topic because in looking around skeptical blogs I have come across a lot of atheists who seem to have adopted libertarianism as their secular religion, and in that sense it needs debunking just as much as any other religion.

The most ridiculous group I came across was here but I'm sure there are more:

Shame on you, atheists

Note that although a few of them claimed to be able to answer the long list of questions I had for them, none of them did.

[pv]

Jimmy, I've just had a look at that link. Very funny and terrifying at the same time, but thanks anyway. It's most illuminating, even entertaining, to find a bunch of such unremittingly idiotic morons who obviously don't have a clue as the the meaning of "theism", or anything else really, and yet who have such vehemently aggressive views about "atheism".
Absolutely priceless!

[Jimmy_Blue]

pv

I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry throughout that thread. These people claim to be evidence/rationality based critical thinkers, just apparently not when it comes to their own opinions. They are absolutely convinced they are right, but they have never actually thought about it but convince themselves they have.

One of the things I find amongst some atheists and a small minority of skeptics is because they think they reach every decision after careful critical examination, they also think they can't be wrong so everyone who disagrees is a moron. That is where some of the adherence to secular religions comes from.

I don't agree that atheism immediately leads to adopting secular religions, but it is certainly a precursor amongst some groups.

[Apollia]

Thanks for the link, Jimmy_Blue. Very interesting. I haven't read the whole thread yet - mostly just your posts - but, some of your posts actually detail some of my own misgivings.

You also appear to be quite a fearsome opponent... :-) I'll bet you'd persuade a lot more people with a less harsh approach.

I don't think the other side is completely wrong on everything, but I don't completely agree with everything they say either.

I guess there are no really easy answers, though it would be nice if there were. But the issues are definitely too complicated to boil everything down into a simple solution like "anarchism is the answer", or "libertarianism is the answer", etc.

One of the things I most dislike about any religion is the tendency to oversimplify things too much, to neglect to pay enough attention to finer details, such as facts which logically refute or contradict many of the broad, general ideas and principles wrongly assumed by that ideology to always be correct. (Or if not assumed to always be correct - then assumed to be much more frequently correct than is actually the case in reality).

But even religions (secular or not) and their zealots can get _some_ things right, I think.

Despite having a hopefully more moderate, reasonable overall view than various zealots, I partly agree with some anti-income tax zealots insofar as I think that quite possibly, the income tax is not the only possible, nor the best possible, realistic way for governments to get the funding they need to operate and continue providing their valuable services to the people.

(And, on an emotional level, I agree with the sentiment that, at least for me, income tax feels involuntary, and like theft, robbery, or extortion, due to the threats of jail and so forth if you don't hand over the goods, the hard-earned fruits of your honest labor).

I guess I'll post more in a separate post, to make it easy for Skeptico to delete if he thinks it's too off-topic... :-)

My next post gets into more detail on the issues of taxes, health care, etc., and I'm having a hard time tailoring my post to stick to the topic of secular religion exactly.

But on the other hand, maybe it'll suffice to provide some more examples of some non-religious ideas which may or may not be correct, but which some people might unfortunately seize upon with rabid, fanatical, religiously irrational fervor regardless of their accuracy (or lack thereof).

[Apollia]

OK, I guess a lot of the following basically just explains some of the reasons why I think that income tax is possibly not necessary and may not be the best realistic way of gaining the funds to run a government.

I also wandered onto some other topics like inflation, health care, etc. I think a more important goal than simply getting rid of the income tax - which I definitely agree should not be done if it will unavoidably lead to dire consequences for society as a whole - is to somehow figure out how to make it so people in general aren't crushed by their financial burdens and menaced with (or actually put into) ruinous poverty, inescapable debt, etc.

If people's lives can be made more liveable, and filled with less drudgery and struggle, _without_ getting rid of the income tax, great... :-)

I'm basically interested in all possible solutions to the problem of poverty.

I suppose one way this relates to skepticism is the fact that there are plenty of irrational economic ideologies out there, claiming to be the solution to all the world's woes - and these probably deserve, as much as any other outrageous, unfounded claim, to be subjected to rational, objective, skeptical scrutiny.

I guess in countries where the income tax is actually used for useful things, figuring out where the money for services is going to come from is definitely an issue.

However, there was some documentary I watched called America: Freedom to Fascism which, among other claims, made the claim that none of the income tax in the U.S. actually is used for services, but instead it all goes to paying down interest on debt to an organization called the Federal Reserve, to which Congress, in 1913, ceded its Constitutionally-granted power to issue money. The documentary claims the Federal Reserve is not a government organization - it is a private bank.

So, if I understand it correctly, and it's true, that means the U. S. income tax goes solely toward paying a totally needless expense, debt and interest to a private bank - needless, because nothing is stopping the government from issuing its own money without incurring any debt and having to pay interest to a private bank.

No idea how credible that all is. (I'm guessing some people probably just accept the claims of this documentary unthinkingly, though. It would be interesting to see a blog post here critiquing that documentary, actually... :-) ).

But if that's true, then, it looks like in the U.S., there would be no harm at all in getting rid of the income tax, since all the services provided by the government are already paid for in other ways. And, it would help people by allowing them to keep their own money and spend it on the things they need.

Another possible reason why the income tax can possibly be done without in the U.S. is because, as far as I know, in the U.S., the income tax was only started in 1913 when the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted (though that documentary claims it was not even legally ratified) - so apparently the U.S. got by OK without the income tax for over 130 years.

Here's an essay I found rather interesting and persuasive. The Income Tax: Root of All Evil by Frank Chodorov.

This essay annoyingly mentions a few non-secular religious notions, which I think are completely unnecessary to make the points that this essay makes. Other than that, though, it actually seems to me to make a fair bit of sense, though I'm guessing there probably are some things wrong with it which I may be overlooking.

(Haven't read the whole thing in a while, so I'm unclear on which parts I found most objectionable, aside from the needless religious justifications for regarding the income tax as "evil". Oh, and calling the income tax the root of _all_ "evil" is going a bit far, I think).

OK, now here's a perhaps rather goofy far-out idea I came up with myself, in the process of trying to think up other ways for governments to possibly get by without income taxes... :-)

There's a massive multiplayer online virtual world game I sometimes play called Second Life, which has its own virtual currency and a currency exchange, so you can actually trade out your Linden $ (L$) for real US $. Because of this, some people actually make a living via Second Life, such as by creating and selling virtual objects, etc.

Second Life doesn't have any income taxes. (Though if I'm not mistaken they experimented with having a tax system of some sort years ago). They have many customers ("premium users", virtual land/island owners, etc.) who happily pay US $ subscription fees. They don't need L$ from the people to operate - if they really needed L$ for something, they could always simply create their own L$ out of thin air - so taking L$ from people against their will is unnecessary.

The biggest danger facing their virtual economy might be the problem of inflation, but they manage to control inflation by charging for certain services which people want and need, which serve as L$ "sinks". If you upload an image, animation, sound, or run a classified ad, that costs you some L$ - and if I understand it correctly, that takes the L$ you gave them out of circulation.

Perhaps real governments could do something similar - have no income taxes, print its own money (meaning they'll never be short on cash to fund various things - if they need more, all they have to do is print more). And then, to control inflation, the government can have its own money "sinks", where any money that is paid to the post office, or to toll roads, or to the NASA gift shop, or whatever :-), is taken out of circulation.

Just a far out idea... :-) I wouldn't go so far as to claim it definitely would work, but I think it would be interesting to see what might happen. The virtual economy of Second Life seems to work pretty well - could something similar possibly work with real governments and real economies? I wonder what kind of experiment could be designed to test how the above far-out idea might work.

Actually, even if income taxes weren't abolished at all, perhaps doing something to control inflation would help people, since I heard somewhere (not sure where) that inflation causes the value of the U. S. dollar to go down something like 3% every year.

Whatever is currently being done to try to stop inflation doesn't seem to be working very well, if the value of the dollar is still going down every year - so, perhaps some new, innovative solutions are needed.

And, speaking of other ways besides getting rid of income taxes to ease the financial burdens on average, non-wealthy people - health care.

An issue I forgot to bring up before was the issue of health care costing so much in the first place. Should it really cost so much? I often wonder about how much it really costs to provide various forms of health care, compared to how much is charged for it.

Perhaps the existence of the insurance industry simply encourages doctors and hospitals to be greedy and charge as much as they can.

On the other hand, maybe it's not the fault of doctors and hospitals just being greedy. Maybe it's because equipment and other expenses doctors and hospitals have to deal with cost so much. I wonder how much it costs to build the equipment, compared to how much doctors and hospitals have to pay to buy it. But perhaps it's not the equipment makers' faults either...

I wonder if there's maybe a lot of price gouging going on which keeps getting passed forward.

Maybe people in need of health care are getting charged too much because doctors might be getting charged too much because equipment makers, educators, and whoever else doctors have to pay might be getting charged too much somehow, and so on up the line, and maybe everyone just keeps passing the cost along to their customers...

...that is, until the end of the chain, or bottom of the pyramid, is reached - the one in need of health care, who unfortunately has no way to capitalize on/recoup the costs for the service they're forced by their ill health to either buy, or else suffer and maybe die. (Or maybe desperately turn to alternative health care and faith).

Obviously I know very little about this, and the possible root causes for why health care, insurance, etc. cost so much. :-) But I can at least say for sure that I don't believe the U.S. has the best of all possible systems for making adequate health care available to all those who need it at an affordable price, and there's definite room for improvement of some kind. How this would best be implemented, I don't know.

OK, let's see if I can get this definitely back on topic somehow... :-)

OK, I think I'll make the daring claim that none of the above ideas are inherently secularly religious in the least - but any of these ideas (or perhaps, any ideas at all) could certainly be held with such stubborn, religious, absolutist (to borrow a word from pv above :-) ), irrational, fanatical fervor that the blind, inflexible belief in those ideas would be a form of secular religion.

However, I think ideas on their own are just ideas, and it takes a person treating those ideas like they're infallible and unquestionable to turn those ideas into a faith.

If a person isn't doing that, then it's not a secular religion (or at least it isn't a secular religion for them) - even if that person gives a misleading impression of perhaps being some kind of faithful ideologue, by discussing those ideas whilst neglecting to sneer at them continuously in the process, and perhaps even giving those ideas the benefit of the doubt by admitting that they're maybe, possibly valid.

OK, guess that's all I can think of to say for now on this. :-) Hope it was interesting... :-)

Apollia

[Jimmy_Blue]

Apollia:

I'll bet you'd persuade a lot more people with a less harsh approach.

Possibly, but I also chose my tone to mirror that of the ridiculous anarchists on the site, who when challenged on their beliefs just five posts into the thread accused the challenger of being a 'dangerous maniac'. My 'style' of argument is (unless someone is charming but offensive or stupid) to take the tone of the person I am arguing with. If they can't take it, maybe they shouldn't dish it out.

The fact remains that most of what I asked remains unanswered. My tone has nothing to do with that.

I guess there are no really easy answers

I don't accept this, there are simple answers. Ideology is largely what prevents them from being given.

One of the things I most dislike about any religion is the tendency to oversimplify things too much, to neglect to pay enough attention to finer details, such as facts which logically refute or contradict many of the broad, general ideas and principles wrongly assumed by that ideology to always be correct.

This is precisely what libertarianism does. It oversimplifies, it neglects the details, it does not pay attention to facts or logic or anything which contradicts it. Just read through the thread to see this.

And, on an emotional level, I agree with the sentiment that, at least for me, income tax feels involuntary, and like theft, robbery, or extortion, due to the threats of jail and so forth if you don't hand over the goods, the hard-earned fruits of your honest labor

And it does not feel like this to me, so one must abandon the emotional argument and concentrate on the facts. Again something the anarchists I have encountered failed to do.

I guess in countries where the income tax is actually used for useful things, figuring out where the money for services is going to come from is definitely an issue.

Which means every member state of the European Union. Removing state funding for the European welfare systems would, without doubt, result in many deaths.

I will refrain from commenting on the Federal Reserve because I don't know enough about it one way or the other.

Despite that though, I will comment on this:
since all the services provided by the government are already paid for in other ways.

What are those ways, how much income do they generate for the government and does it cover the cost of government spending? Of course, your average anarchist thinks this is irrelevant because there won't be governments.

so apparently the U.S. got by OK without the income tax for over 130 years.

This is not strictly true, an income tax was first proposed during the War of 1812 but the motion was defeated, and then in 1861 Congress passed a 3% income tax on incomes that were over $600 a year, and more were enacted until 1894, then in 1895 the previous years income tax was ruled to be unconstitutional and so no more were enacted until 1913.

And the claims that the 1913 act was not legally ratified seem to centre around some errors in punctuation.

I'm not going to go into detailed replies to the essay, but I will note that even before the author has reached his argument, the Hitler Zombie rears its head:

American's pay income tax. Germans paid income tax. Nazis were the leaders of Germany. Therefore paying income tax is something the Nazis did or wanted. Therefore anyone who pays or wants an income tax is like a Nazi.

You should note that some of the anarchists I ran into made a similar argument.

There's a nod to the hysterical American fear of socialism.

It cites the bible.

It poisons the well, if you don't want to get rid of income tax then you have no 'sense of self-respect and human dignity'. So we can throw out chapter one.

It resorts to the 'morality comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition' argument.
'Putting it another way, any political action which disregards man’s inalienable rights disregards God.'
Or
'Thus, the fabric of Judeo-Christian morality is undergoing deterioration as a result of the "evil" that has infiltrated our political life.' So, we can throw out chapter 2.

It asserts plenty of stuff, but offers little proof for those assertions.

In fact, that's as far as I'm reading and commenting on here. Anyone who wants to basis their moral argument on the bible just fell flat on his ass and lost all credibility. I'll read the rest, but no further comments.

Perhaps real governments could do something similar - have no income taxes, print its own money (meaning they'll never be short on cash to fund various things - if they need more, all they have to do is print more). And then, to control inflation, the government can have its own money "sinks", where any money that is paid to the post office, or to toll roads, or to the NASA gift shop, or whatever :-), is taken out of circulation.

This takes no account of the need for international trading systems and could lead to events like hyperinflation. 'Not enough money, print more.' Leads to people pushing wheelbarrows full of paper into a shop to pay for bread because the paper money becomes meaningless.

I often wonder about how much it really costs to provide various forms of health care, compared to how much is charged for it.

That's a figure I am unsure of, but giving birth under medical care in the US without health insurance costs approximately $10,000 at least. Even with my income tax payments in my pocket, that would be completely unaffordable.

Perhaps the existence of the insurance industry simply encourages doctors and hospitals to be greedy and charge as much as they can.

This is pure speculation and so should be left out of the debate unless you have some evidence of this. Besides, the libertarian argument is that the cost of health care would go down if it wasn't mandated by the state and private citizens had to arrange it.

Under a welfare system I pay income tax, some of which provides a national health service which is free at the point of need, for all.

However, I think ideas on their own are just ideas, and it takes a person treating those ideas like they're infallible and unquestionable to turn those ideas into a faith.

That's what anarchists and libertarians do, the evidence is there in the link I gave.

[vjack]

I see you labeled this with "religious idiocy," and this is exactly where it belongs. The idea that Al Gore's movie has anything to do with "secular religion" (paradoxical term if you ask me) is certainly idiotic. If our populace gets to the point where it can no longer distinguish science from religion, I fear we are doomed.

[Big Al]

I don't see anything wrong with the term "secular religion", vjack.

As far as I can see, a religion is a credo to which a person holds without any proof or evidence: basically, it's based on some priest's say-so or a book, or some celebrity's say-so or a film.

The former is a metaphysical or theistic religion, the latter a secular one.

[Apollia]

Jimmy_Blue wrote:

Possibly, but I also chose my tone to mirror that of the ridiculous anarchists on the site, who when challenged on their beliefs just five posts into the thread accused the challenger of being a 'dangerous maniac'.

Yeah, that definitely was unfair. :-(

My 'style' of argument is (unless someone is charming but offensive or stupid) to take the tone of the person I am arguing with. If they can't take it, maybe they shouldn't dish it out.

Yes, true.

You do have an exquisite talent for vitriol. I have to admit that even though it makes me wince at times, I also find it rather satisfying and entertaining to read. Although I'm guessing it's probably not at all fun to be the target of it.

Except I suppose the harshness might make it all the more satisfying to not back down, and to make effective counter-arguments (or at least _pretend_ that one is making effective counter-arguments, as some of your opponents seem to do).

I guess the trouble might be, such a harsh approach may urge people to fight and stubbornly resist, even if they otherwise might have admitted, "hmm, I was wrong, I'll give you that" if they had been dealt with more gently.

The fact remains that most of what I asked remains unanswered. My tone has nothing to do with that.

Actually, I think it might. Too much nastiness can chase people away who otherwise might have stayed to carry on a civil discussion (like that patrick guy in the astrology thread).

I'm guessing if you had been nicer, some might have been more likely to cooperate in at least attempting to answer. (Even if, in the end, their answers likely would have been inadequate).

On the other hand, I know from experience that it can be very hard to deliver criticism in a non-offensive way. Especially when someone else attacks first.

But I think holding back on the sarcasm and so forth is sometimes the only way to keep things from degenerating into bickering, or to keep the discussion from abruptly ending.

I don't accept this, there are simple answers.

Hmm, on second thought - I agree. 2+2=4, that's simple enough.

Ideology is largely what prevents them from being given.

Yes... too often true.

And it does not feel like this to me, so one must abandon the emotional argument and concentrate on the facts.

Yes, I agree, emotions alone aren't a good enough foundation for an argument. Without facts and logic, we're left with truthiness and wikiality... :-)

Which means every member state of the European Union. Removing state funding for the European welfare systems would, without doubt, result in many deaths.

That would be horrible. :-( Oops, I'm getting emotional here...

What are those ways, how much income do they generate for the government and does it cover the cost of government spending?

Excellent questions. At the moment, I don't feel like researching all that in depth, but I recall that somewhere in the first half of the America: Freedom to Fascism documentary, a few possible answers to this question are given, though it doesn't completely answer what you asked.

I think it might've mentioned something about property taxes paying for one major expense, a gasoline tax paying for another. (Again, I don't know how credible it is).

This is not strictly true, an income tax was first proposed during the War of 1812 but the motion was defeated, and then in 1861 Congress passed a 3% income tax on incomes that were over $600 a year, and more were enacted until 1894, then in 1895 the previous years income tax was ruled to be unconstitutional and so no more were enacted until 1913.

And the claims that the 1913 act was not legally ratified seem to centre around some errors in punctuation.

Wow, thanks for all that info. You seem to know more about American history than I do... :-)

I'm not going to go into detailed replies to the essay,

Thanks for what you did comment on.

I guess sometime I myself ought to go over that essay carefully, and try to extract the factual, logical bits from amongst all the emotional, moralizing and religious demagoguery that even rubs me the wrong way, and which doubtless turns a lot of people off of even considering that there may be some grain of truth in there, somewhere.

This takes no account of the need for international trading systems

Yes, true, I didn't even think of that at all. Thanks for pointing that out. Back to the drawing board, I guess... :-)

and could lead to events like hyperinflation. 'Not enough money, print more.' Leads to people pushing wheelbarrows full of paper into a shop to pay for bread because the paper money becomes meaningless.

Yes, I thought of that. I guess it might take quite a lot of money "sinks" where money is taken out of circulation to forestall that - and perhaps, sensible restraint and frugality on the part of the government, which I suppose may be too much to ask for.

Maybe it's not feasible at all. Ah, well. Back to the drawing board... :-)

That's a figure I am unsure of, but giving birth under medical care in the US without health insurance costs approximately $10,000 at least.

Wow, that's shocking. I didn't know that.

Even with my income tax payments in my pocket, that would be completely unaffordable.

Same here.

I wrote:

Perhaps the existence of the insurance industry simply encourages doctors and hospitals to be greedy and charge as much as they can.

Jimmy_Blue replied:

This is pure speculation and so should be left out of the debate unless you have some evidence of this.

Well, a lot of things I say are pure speculation - I would probably have a lot less to say if I had to go research everything before I mention some possibility or speculation or other.

But, OK, I'll let it go, since you have me there - I don't have any evidence to back this speculation up, so it's pointless to argue about it, much, or maybe at all. :-)

Maybe I was being too cynical - maybe all doctors and hospitals are too moral to even consider overcharging for their services because of insurance.

In fact, I have evidence against my own speculation - even my own doctor gave me a price break for something because I don't have insurance, which was clearly quite ungreedy of him.

Besides, the libertarian argument is that the cost of health care would go down if it wasn't mandated by the state and private citizens had to arrange it.

I definitely don't believe that. Just looking at the credit card industry and other predatory lenders having a field day since usury laws and caps on late fees were repealed suggests to me that some regulation is needed to keep many businesses in line.

Under a welfare system I pay income tax, some of which provides a national health service which is free at the point of need, for all.

Hmm, that sounds nice. Is that the way health care works in England?

[Jimmy_Blue]

Apollia:

You may have a point about my abrasiveness, but with most of these people I think I will be able to sleep at night if I upset them.

I have said elsewhere that my aim is not to convert those already entrenched in their opinions, my aim is to provide an alternative position to those who are undecided. So if the 'woos' get defensive and don't back down, it doesn't matter to me.

Patrick had I think already made up his mind not to come back because he couldn't really answer the things I said, regardless of the tone. He used the same script that most woos use.

My American history isn't great, but the Internet is a good source of informtion when you need it!

Yes, true, I didn't even think of that at all. Thanks for pointing that out. Back to the drawing board, I guess... :-)

You are not alone in not having thought of that, it is obvious that most libertarians haven't either. That doesn't stop them from pretending that they have though, so good on you for 'fessing up!

Wow, that's shocking. I didn't know that.

Trust me, you weren't as shocked as I was when I found out. Health care in England is free at the point of need, the health system is paid for from income tax paid by everyone. You don't get billed, you just get medical treatment.

$10,000 was a figure given by an hospital dedicated solely to pediatric care as well, and that was the absolute lowest figure for if everything goes according to plan and you are in for the delivery and out at the earliest opportunity with no extra care or treatment necessary.

Hmm, that sounds nice. Is that the way health care works in England?

England and most (if not all) of the rest of Western Europe and Scandanavia.

[Apollia]

Jimmy_Blue wrote:

You may have a point about my abrasiveness, but with most of these people I think I will be able to sleep at night if I upset them.

Yes, I probably would be able to, too... :-)

I still think credit card company CEOs, and other predatory lenders/legalized loan sharks, and perhaps assorted politicians, are probably more deserving of vitriol than people like poor Deepak Chopra, though. :-) My guess is they've directly ruined many more lives than people pushing "woo".

(Though of course I still think "woo" should still be challenged - I don't think it should go ignored, even if there are other things that are worse).

I have said elsewhere that my aim is not to convert those already entrenched in their opinions, my aim is to provide an alternative position to those who are undecided. So if the 'woos' get defensive and don't back down, it doesn't matter to me.

OK, makes sense to me. :-)

Patrick had I think already made up his mind not to come back because he couldn't really answer the things I said, regardless of the tone. He used the same script that most woos use.

Yes, it's definitely not all your fault he left. Especially if he was convinced he could win easily, he should have stayed, I think.

You are not alone in not having thought of that, it is obvious that most libertarians haven't either. That doesn't stop them from pretending that they have though, so good on you for 'fessing up!

Thanks... :-)

Trust me, you weren't as shocked as I was when I found out.

Yes, that could well be true. There are all kinds of outrageous things that happen in America, you start to get jaded after a while... :-)

Health care in England is free at the point of need, the health system is paid for from income tax paid by everyone. You don't get billed, you just get medical treatment.

Amazing... :-) Sounds like England and much of Europe might be a nice place to live.