The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Duped by secular rationalism > Comments

Duped by secular rationalism : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 15/5/2006

Theological relativism has subverted all theological discussion.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 26
  9. 27
  10. 28
  11. All
I don't know that there is much to be gained from dancing on what some might assume to be the grave of organised religion - or disorganised religion for that matter - and as for reality Kenny religion is very real - whether it is doing any one any good is another question. If a gozillion people believe in religion then it is very real indeed.

The underlying principles behind the three main religions Chritianity, Judaism and Islam are so common as to be funny - and it is a strange paradox that it is the apparent differences as minor as they might be that give rise to such vehement animosity - usually stemming form the religious leaders who in turn infect the followers.

The common threads also tend some to believe that there is something in this thing called religion - if nothing else apart form a search for a mate, food and shelter it is the only other continous cultural theme that has been with us virtually since the year dot.

Whether really there or not the construct of God has been a dominant social theme. Some times he has been portrayed as benevolent and kindly and at others vengeful but always omnipotent.

Peter yearns for a theological discussion I guess - and he might get one amongst his peers - but he will be hard pressed to get one in mainstream Australia; Partly because religious leaders have excluded followers from the debate, partly because they preferrred to train rather than educate and partly because there is so much choice about - once there was none - and now we have a smorgasbord of options with which to seek eternal salvation or alternatively just to fill in the time between womb and tomb in the best way we see fit
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 15 May 2006 11:25:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sellick's opinion is typical of what the deluded nature of religious thinking can do to an otherwise intelligent mind. Theology is indeed the proper study of psychologists. He is right to criticise cultural relativism, (and moral relativism) but he proposes to replace it with a version of Christo-facism, presumably his version.

Sellick feels threatened by secular rationalism and with good reason. That is because secular rationalism, rather than his cherished sectarianism, actually provides the only viable antidote to his so-called impasse. It is only by embracing universal values such as compassion, honesty, freedom and justice, that unity can be achieved.

The widespread adherence to primitive religious mythologies, such as embraced by Sellick, is no trivial matter. This deluded mind-set, reproduced worldwide, is threatening the future of civilisation as we know it. For a real non-duping alternative see http://www.secular.org.au where secular rationalism is given a real purpose.
Posted by John Perkins, Monday, 15 May 2006 12:26:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess there are three main points to make here:

To the author, another interesting article, but not one without its qualms. One must remember that before the Treaty of Westphalia, and before the 30 years war, there was a truce between Protestant and Catholic forces in Germany. This in no way allowed for relativism: what it said was that there is one objective reality, but that there was a disagreement over some part of it. Much like the Orthodox/Catholic split, and the Coptic schism, none of these brought on relativism, which involves a step beyond tolerance or drawing zones of influence, to embracing anything.

Perseus, for a person who I consider to often be full of conservative logic, the "Enlightenment as the rebirth of thinking man" line is a doosie. Surely Edmund Burke, who spoke only against 'Enlightment' and its revolutionaries, and spoke of the necessity to preserve parochialism, sound prejudice and that which feels homely, was a thinking man, and as the father of British (and early Australian) conservatism should be considered a thinker even though he did not worship the god Reason!

Sneekeepete, being monotheistic, there are many similarities between the different groups. That being said, the differences are stark: the Jews are waiting for the saviour, Christians are busy building the kingdom of God on earth (or they should be) on an example gained from the saviour, and Muslims are asked to be submissive completely to the will of God as recieved by a man about 1500 years ago. There is much to unite religions, as there is much to unite people of different cultures, but there is also enough to mean that they are different. Just as an Italian, a Greek and a Dane can be all considered European, they are very different when it comes to their own culture and values, and so it is with religion.
Posted by DFXK, Monday, 15 May 2006 12:41:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That’s right DFXK! Bow down to the god (small G) of Reason (big R)! Then all will be well.

Seriously though. Any individual who claims the market on best practice with regard to religious belief, values and morals is as deluded as those we incarcerate for the safety of society. No individual has the right answer for anyone else – except themselves. The best they can do is practice for themselves and maybe – maybe! – they may sway one or another to follow their way.

It is simply hubris to say ‘follow me and my way, I have the right way and know what God wants.’ How many do we hear say that daily? How on this weird, beautiful, horrific earth is any individual to know whether the speaker is right, deluded or simply manipulating the less sure?

Practice what you believe and let the observer decide. Speak and they should all turn away in pity…
Posted by Reason, Monday, 15 May 2006 12:57:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most of the focus of this article was on the process and not the conclusion, that of the danger of "secular rationalism". The disagreements are over historical occurances. I'd like to focus on the conclusion.

As I alluded above, one can use one's rational faculties and not embrace "secular rationalism", take Edmund Burke. The most obvious difference between the acheivements of Christendom and those of secular rationalism is this... Christendom preserved and took to heart the culture of the ancient world, and did so because it saw in it true expression of part of our nature, and and expression of the great things to which mankind can aspire. This was not difficult, because the Christian message was inherantly global and universal, whilst not trampling on the particular in each culture... unfortunately, as Peter Sellick pointed out in case of missionary activity, it has not always been applied so. Christianity took classicism, and combined it with what can only be described as Charity, and in that achieved the greatest things in music, art, literature and thought ever seen (the Renaissance)... Christianity not only enriched but was also enriched by the classical world.

Secular rationalism, because of its assertions about cultural relativism, and its attempts to "reinterpret" the world and history, can not achieve such a betterment of mankind and his view of the world. The equality of cultures would have meant that the classical world was "an option", not a claim to higher knowledge, and we wouldn't have had the renaissance as we know it. Students put through year 12 are told of equality of "texts", and duly leave Shakespeare, comforted by the BOS's relativistic call to mediocrity. It's like killing God and reverting back to being an animal. Christianity's acceptance of the spark of the divine in man, rather than the depression of nihilism, is why it is ultimately a force for the bettering of man. The change is slow because the spiritual capital of Christianity is very strong, and lives on for a limited time without faith itself... a sure sign of its power.
Posted by DFXK, Monday, 15 May 2006 1:02:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, it is hardly a "silly question" that "asks if there is a God or not", because how can you have theological anything without one? Describe your God that you seem to know so well.

Nor is it a silly question to ask how this Harper stoooopid is going to get his teddy (god) to set the minimum wages in Australia.

Professor Ian Harper, an Anglican lay preacher and financial markets expert, and now the head of the proposed new body to set minimum wages in Australia (the Fair Pay Commission) says ..... "For me as an individual, I will be resting on my faith and my belief in God in helping me reach balanced decisions."
Posted by Keiran, Monday, 15 May 2006 1:28:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 26
  9. 27
  10. 28
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy