This is a continuation of my observations of some of the comments you have made to my article.

1. AJ Philips (Tues), you say, ‘All the sophistry in the world won’t make atheism a religion’ and then you refused to read the rest of the article in which I defined my understanding of religion and worldview. Your refusal to read the article sounds awfully like a closed mind, yet you still interacted with others who had read the article! Andy Bannister disagrees with you. See ‘The Scandanavian Sceptic (or Why Atheism Is a Belief System)’.

2. One of the rules of OLO is ‘Do not flame’. I found several inflammatory comments: ‘I didn’t bother reading the rest of the article. When you can’t even grasp such basic definitions and concepts, or are dishonest enough to try to fit a square peg in a round hole, then there is no point in continuing’; ‘Environmentalism and the Loony Green Left are the new religion’; 'the something from nothing brigade are certainly the most irrational believers we have today'; ‘Religion is like a penis’, and ‘Declaring synonymy between the two is blatant, self-serving balderdash’.

3. I will engage briefly with the more lengthy posts by Rational Razor, Form Designer, and Pogi later, as I have time.

Spencer

RationalRazor,

I refer to your Tues post. You are sounding more like a supporter of Hugh Harris’s promotion of secularism in schools and elsewhere.

1. Since you did not identify your source for a definition of secularism, I am left to conclude it comes out of the mind of RR. Your view differs from that of the Macquarie Dictionary (1997, 3rd ed. s v secularism), which gives the definition as ‘1. secular spirit or tendencies, especially a system of political or social philosophy which rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of the religious element’. It defines ‘secular’ as ‘1. Of or relating to the world; or to things not religious, sacred, or spiritual; temporal; worldly’. My article is contending that secularism is as religious as, say, humanism, environmentalism, consumerism, socialism, etc. The Rationalist Society of Australia’s ‘10 Point Plan for a Secular Australia’ is as forthright an example of a Statement of Belief as I’ve seen in any church or denomination.

2. It is not incongruous to claim secularism is at odds with Section 116 of the Constitution if one understands secularism is as religious as Christianity. If the Rationalists want to impose a secular 10-point plan on Australia, that would violate Section 116 if secularism is considered to be religion, having a worldview and praxis (see my article).

3. Your #3 point here is trumped up. My point is that I’m raising the issue that ‘No religion’ can be very religious once one understands the dynamics of the religious categories. My article has nothing to do with making Christians look better. It has to do with honesty about the nature of religion. (continued)

Spencer

RationalRazor, (continuation)

4. Please provide the evidence for this point of yours (Tues post) that Australia regards religion as relating to ‘some sort of supernatural entity’. Your statement, ‘This is why ethics and philosophy cannot be taught at the same time as fundamentalist religious instruction in QLD Schools’. There is no ‘fundamentalist religious instruction in Qld schools’(I live in Qld). There is Christian religious instruction, Hindu religious instruction, Muslim religious instruction, etc (depending on the distribution of such students – and availability of instructors). ‘Fundamentalist religious instruction’ is your pejorative imposition.

5. Of course people are entitled to say that they have ‘no religion’ on the Census of 9 August, but I’m raising the issue that it is a misnomer for many of the –isms around, including secularism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. You say, ‘Most secular people are united in wanting an end ot the conspicuous privileging of outdated and largely irrelevent Christian religious beliefs in our society’. This is an example of your promotion of a straw man fallacy against the accurate content of Christianity. I hope you live long enough to meet some people whose lives have been radically changed by an encounter with the living Jesus Christ who is not your anachronistic ‘outdated and largely irrelevant Christian religious beliefs’.

Spencer

AJ Philips,

>> please explain to me how the third definition is equally valid to the first <<

I never claimed such equivalence, and besides, dictionary is about the usage of WORDS, not about various definitions of the same CONCEPT (as I mentioned, there are a heap of definitions of the concept of religion, referring mainly to the first usage of the word, some encapsulating the third one in the list, some not). On the other hand, whatever you understand about the phenomenon religion (first usage), it is obviously not the same as religion in the sense of “denomination” (second usage).

Nevertheless, let me repeat, we should leave it to specialists to decide how to compose an authoritative dictionary.

Also, if somebody who admits adhering to a religion claims you also adhere to some religion he/she might be wrong but it would hardly be derogatory since he/she himself/herself is happy to apply it to himself/herself. On the other hand, calling somebody irrational, superstitious, etc could be seen as derogatory since nobody would like to have these adjectives applied to himself/herself.

As for the article itself, I never stated I identified with the author’s rather confusing for me terminology, and the way he defends his Christian position that I share in principle. [As I pointed out, I consider secularism an extreme version of secular humanism in a similar sense as biblical literalism is an extreme version of (worldviews inspired by) Christianity, or islamism an extreme version of Islam. In all these cases one speaks of worldviews, for me a concept much more basic and less blurred than that of religion, although the latter word is much more in use.]

Dear Yuyutsu,

I am afraid we have different views on what is the purpose of a census or a survey. In my opinion it is to get statistical data about the population (without having the identities of individual respondents disclosed), that can also influence political decision making. More precisely, the authorities will collect information that the respondent wants it to have. If I tick off “Catholic” then my voice will be added to the Catholic weight, if I tick off Buddhist, it will add to the number of Buddhists the authorities think there are, etc.

You are right that there is no legal obligation to tell the truth because an undetectable lie cannot be prosecuted. And as far as moral obligation is concerned this depends on the moral code the particular respondent subscribes to. I would not lie in a census or survey, nor offer an essay instead of a tick (or number) if for no other reason, that my own outlook can benefit from the statistical information offered by a census or survey.

Spencer

Nice pick up - I am Hugh Harris who wrote the Census piece you refer to.

You accuse me of making a straw man while yourself clutching at straws.

1. Secularism is a widely understood term. Finding an odd definition in the Macquarie dictionary (which I cannot check) does not invalidate the general community understanding of its meaning.

Oxford Dictionary on line - Secularism.

"The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions: 'he believes that secularism means no discrimination against anybody in the name of religion'"

Secularism is synonymous with the separation of church and state. It's a political attitude towards the role of religious beliefs in society, and it distinctly political in nature.

Wikipedia:
"Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people"

There are many Christian secularists. Victoria premier Daniel Andrews might regard himself as one. The Christian authors of Australia's Constitution containing Section 116 were secularists. By your lights all such people have two religions - Christianity and Secularism. ?

I think the Census should include s separate question to allow Australians, Christian, Atheist or otherwise, to nominate their position on secularism. Previous surveys have shown 70-80% of Australians want religion kept out of politics. (I'll respond to your other concerns later).