• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Secular Pseudo-Religion?

Conaeolos

Conaeolos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
416
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I would most like to hear from skeptics.

Three examples of secular pseudo-religious candidates have been pretty regularly raised up in public discussions, specifically as of late racism:

"Environmentalism."
Humans are distinct from some type of natural order. Our human existence is at odds with this natural order which is actively fighting back. You can either be with it or against. Faith is in appeasing nature and restricting that which is artificial and thus evil.

"Racism / Patriarchy / Oppression "
All things steam from and are related to racism(et al). One is collectively responsible for the condition and history of their race/group. The individual is less than the group. Equality of outcome is the highest good. One should seek Humility and repentance until this highest good is achieved.

" Progressivism "
Secular relativistic ethics has risen the moral good of societies around the world. Society has so much more to progress if only we continue the work of the ancestors and tear down more the "traditional" / "right wing" institutions which stalwart against the humanistic ambitions. We must radically change this world in our ideal image and cast off that which holds from our ideals.

My question is do you think enough modern day people meet conditions of being pseudo-religious on secular ideas that it would be fair to classify them as a religious faith? Do you have any comment on these three in particular? Further, what do you make of the human tendency to create "religion" out of most human experience?


Ps: I am not here to imply all environmentalists, activists or progressives meet the conditions of being pseudo-religious only enough do as to warrant a discussion as the influence of these faith based actors.
 
I respectfully disagree with you.

According to Merriam-Webster's page on religion, it has three definitions:

  1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
  2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
  3. (informal) an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Considering the "informal" nature of that third one, I'm going to discard it as an apt basis upon which a "pseudo-religion" can be categorised. I hate to argue solely from the dictionary as I consider such reasoning to be abjectly disingenuous, so I'll try and back it up with the reasoning I have to offer on the subject.

I suppose, in a way, the dedication people hold to these causes could be compared to somebody's dedication in a religious deity. We must, however, make a few main distinctions between typical organised religion and these beliefs, however. To start with, we must realise that most organised religion (excluding perhaps Buddhism, unless you count the Buddha as an individual akin to a deity, which I admittedly don't find very fair) finds themselves categorised by a belief in deity/deities.

Ideological tenets such as those you have outlined do not have a diety; this is one of the diversions in which religion differs from ideology. I suppose I mean to say that dedication to religion is spiritual; dedication to ideals, not so much. Environmentalists, progressives, et cetera, believe strongly in mere ideas. There is nothing about environmentalism or progressivism that mandates a sort of spiritual affinity.

To conclude, I believe your outlook is fundamentally flawed by the nature of its inception. Can you have an ideological conviction akin to a religious conviction? Absolutely. Can this be equated to the fundamentals of religious belief? Not at all.
 
Where did you get your definition for environmentalists? They do not see themselves as separate from the rest of nature ("distinct from the natural order" as you wrote), they seem humans as a part of nature, and no different, no higher or lower, than other living things.

Humans are part of that natural web of life, not separate from it.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Conaeolos said:
I would most like to hear from skeptics.

Three examples of secular pseudo-religious candidates have been pretty regularly raised up in public discussions, specifically as of late racism:

"Environmentalism."
Humans are distinct from some type of natural order. Our human existence is at odds with this natural order which is actively fighting back. You can either be with it or against. Faith is in appeasing nature and restricting that which is artificial and thus evil.

"Racism / Patriarchy / Oppression "
All things steam from and are related to racism(et al). One is collectively responsible for the condition and history of their race/group. The individual is less than the group. Equality of outcome is the highest good. One should seek Humility and repentance until this highest good is achieved.

" Progressivism "
Secular relativistic ethics has risen the moral good of societies around the world. Society has so much more to progress if only we continue the work of the ancestors and tear down more the "traditional" / "right wing" institutions which stalwart against the humanistic ambitions. We must radically change this world in our ideal image and cast off that which holds from our ideals.

My question is do you think enough modern day people meet conditions of being pseudo-religious on secular ideas that it would be fair to classify them as a religious faith? Do you have any comment on these three in particular? Further, what do you make of the human tendency to create "religion" out of most human experience?


Ps: I am not here to imply all environmentalists, activists or progressives meet the conditions of being pseudo-religious only enough do as to warrant a discussion as the influence of these faith based actors.
Click to expand...

I do no see the validity of this concept. While there might be ideologies that people are passionate about, that does not make them religions
 
RAMOSS said:
I do no see the validity of this concept. While there might be ideologies that people are passionate about, that does not make them religions
Click to expand...

Is there a line where you think a "passion" would cross into one?
 
RAMOSS said:
I do no see the validity of this concept. While there might be ideologies that people are passionate about, that does not make them religions
Click to expand...

He did say "pseudo-religion." And some people do take an ideology to a faith-based level where everything must afford to that ideology despite any evidence to the contrary in any respect.

In Stalinist USSR, Communism was in effect the state religion to the point where the pseudoscience of Lysenko was the only biology allowed because it fit Communist ideology better than Darwinian evolution and Mendelian beredith.

In North Korea, the veneration of the ruling Kims has certainly reached religious equivalence.
 
Danube said:
I respectfully disagree with you.

According to Merriam-Webster's page on religion, it has three definitions:

  1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
  2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
  3. (informal) an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Considering the "informal" nature of that third one, I'm going to discard it as an apt basis upon which a "pseudo-religion" can be categorised. I hate to argue solely from the dictionary as I consider such reasoning to be abjectly disingenuous, so I'll try and back it up with the reasoning I have to offer on the subject.

I suppose, in a way, the dedication people hold to these causes could be compared to somebody's dedication in a religious deity. We must, however, make a few main distinctions between typical organised religion and these beliefs, however. To start with, we must realise that most organised religion (excluding perhaps Buddhism, unless you count the Buddha as an individual akin to a deity, which I admittedly don't find very fair) finds themselves categorised by a belief in deity/deities.

Ideological tenets such as those you have outlined do not have a diety; this is one of the diversions in which religion differs from ideology. I suppose I mean to say that dedication to religion is spiritual; dedication to ideals, not so much. Environmentalists, progressives, et cetera, believe strongly in mere ideas. There is nothing about environmentalism or progressivism that mandates a sort of spiritual affinity.

To conclude, I believe your outlook is fundamentally flawed by the nature of its inception. Can you have an ideological conviction akin to a religious conviction? Absolutely. Can this be equated to the fundamentals of religious belief? Not at all.
Click to expand...
Going back to my university days, I learned that religion asserted a belief in God or deities, and that religion sought to find an impermanence after death, an answer to mortality, where ones soul or spirit or aspect of one's existence, finds something beyond death like heaven, hell or purgatory or the possibility of re-incarnation.

The existence of sumpernatural deities and hope of an afterlife to cheat death of its total victory, are what distinguishes religion from other ideas.
 
Last edited:
Conaeolos said:
I would most like to hear from skeptics.

Three examples of secular pseudo-religious candidates have been pretty regularly raised up in public discussions, specifically as of late racism:

"Environmentalism."
Humans are distinct from some type of natural order. Our human existence is at odds with this natural order which is actively fighting back. You can either be with it or against. Faith is in appeasing nature and restricting that which is artificial and thus evil.

"Racism / Patriarchy / Oppression "
All things steam from and are related to racism(et al). One is collectively responsible for the condition and history of their race/group. The individual is less than the group. Equality of outcome is the highest good. One should seek Humility and repentance until this highest good is achieved.

" Progressivism "
Secular relativistic ethics has risen the moral good of societies around the world. Society has so much more to progress if only we continue the work of the ancestors and tear down more the "traditional" / "right wing" institutions which stalwart against the humanistic ambitions. We must radically change this world in our ideal image and cast off that which holds from our ideals.

My question is do you think enough modern day people meet conditions of being pseudo-religious on secular ideas that it would be fair to classify them as a religious faith? Do you have any comment on these three in particular? Further, what do you make of the human tendency to create "religion" out of most human experience?


Ps: I am not here to imply all environmentalists, activists or progressives meet the conditions of being pseudo-religious only enough do as to warrant a discussion as the influence of these faith based actors.
Click to expand...

None of these -isms is a "religion" or even a "psuedo-religion" (buy yourself a free online dictionary, ffs), and your description of each of them (especially environmentalism) is such a massive and obvious straw man, that's it's not worth explaining why.
 
Conaeolos said:
"Racism / Patriarchy / Oppression "
All things steam from and are related to racism(et al). One is collectively responsible for the condition and history of their race/group. The individual is less than the group. Equality of outcome is the highest good. One should seek Humility and repentance until this highest good is achieved.
Click to expand...

That's stupid beyond words. Good luck.
 
There are two more such religions:

vegan
vegetarian


And some of those faithfuls can be quite fanatical :shock:
 
Danube said:
I respectfully disagree with you.

According to Merriam-Webster's page on religion, it has three definitions:

  1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
  2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
  3. (informal) an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Considering the "informal" nature of that third one, I'm going to discard it as an apt basis upon which a "pseudo-religion" can be categorised. I hate to argue solely from the dictionary as I consider such reasoning to be abjectly disingenuous, so I'll try and back it up with the reasoning I have to offer on the subject.

I suppose, in a way, the dedication people hold to these causes could be compared to somebody's dedication in a religious deity. We must, however, make a few main distinctions between typical organised religion and these beliefs, however. To start with, we must realise that most organised religion (excluding perhaps Buddhism, unless you count the Buddha as an individual akin to a deity, which I admittedly don't find very fair) finds themselves categorised by a belief in deity/deities.

Ideological tenets such as those you have outlined do not have a diety; this is one of the diversions in which religion differs from ideology. I suppose I mean to say that dedication to religion is spiritual; dedication to ideals, not so much. Environmentalists, progressives, et cetera, believe strongly in mere ideas. There is nothing about environmentalism or progressivism that mandates a sort of spiritual affinity.

To conclude, I believe your outlook is fundamentally flawed by the nature of its inception. Can you have an ideological conviction akin to a religious conviction? Absolutely. Can this be equated to the fundamentals of religious belief? Not at all.
Click to expand...


We are talking about PSEUDO-Religions - as the title says!
So - no need for corrections.
 
Rumpel said:
We are talking about PSEUDO-Religions - as the title says!
So - no need for corrections.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was more referring to the question that was asked in the OP, mate:

Conaeolos said:
My question is do you think enough modern day people meet conditions of being pseudo-religious on secular ideas that it would be fair to classify them as a religious faith?
Click to expand...
(underline and bolding added)

My post answers this question. As far as I'm concerned, "pseudo-religion" as a term sounds like trying to define it would be an exercise in futility. It's impossibly vague and could be defined an incredible amount of different ways. Furthermore, as emphasised above, the question is still based on the premise that these ideals could be recognised as a religious faith -- something I consider ridiculous.
 
Conaeolos said:
I would most like to hear from skeptics.

Three examples of secular pseudo-religious candidates have been pretty regularly raised up in public discussions, specifically as of late racism:

"Environmentalism."
Humans are distinct from some type of natural order. Our human existence is at odds with this natural order which is actively fighting back. You can either be with it or against. Faith is in appeasing nature and restricting that which is artificial and thus evil.

"Racism / Patriarchy / Oppression "
All things steam from and are related to racism(et al). One is collectively responsible for the condition and history of their race/group. The individual is less than the group. Equality of outcome is the highest good. One should seek Humility and repentance until this highest good is achieved.

" Progressivism "
Secular relativistic ethics has risen the moral good of societies around the world. Society has so much more to progress if only we continue the work of the ancestors and tear down more the "traditional" / "right wing" institutions which stalwart against the humanistic ambitions. We must radically change this world in our ideal image and cast off that which holds from our ideals.

My question is do you think enough modern day people meet conditions of being pseudo-religious on secular ideas that it would be fair to classify them as a religious faith? Do you have any comment on these three in particular? Further, what do you make of the human tendency to create "religion" out of most human experience?


Ps: I am not here to imply all environmentalists, activists or progressives meet the conditions of being pseudo-religious only enough do as to warrant a discussion as the influence of these faith based actors.
Click to expand...

all of those three things are bad
 
Thanks all for your answers. It was very surprising but informative. Another example of 2 movies 1 screen, I guess.

I originally thought most skeptics would have deconstructed religion to some extent and been quite open to suggestions of secular equivalents(even if very different than these suggestions) as afterall all religions by this view are secular. If I am interpreting these answers correctly though "religion" is more akin to that of an enforced fantasy / fairytales / myth by most classifications(at least by sample of this forum) rather than having any psychological component. I personally find that an odd and arrogant notion, as it would indicate a perception of faith as form of over indulgence in fantasy and imagination rather than a broader phenomenon built into the human experience. I am not sure how one rectifies years of diverse religious human history as some group of fairytales told to children, but I suppose when spirituality plays little role in one life, it becomes easy to think this is true for most people. Atheism (in practice) remains a most fascinating phenomenon.
 
And what about the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
 
Conaeolos said:
I would most like to hear from skeptics.

Three examples of secular pseudo-religious candidates have been pretty regularly raised up in public discussions, specifically as of late racism:

"Environmentalism."
Humans are distinct from some type of natural order. Our human existence is at odds with this natural order which is actively fighting back. You can either be with it or against. Faith is in appeasing nature and restricting that which is artificial and thus evil.

"Racism / Patriarchy / Oppression "
All things steam from and are related to racism(et al). One is collectively responsible for the condition and history of their race/group. The individual is less than the group. Equality of outcome is the highest good. One should seek Humility and repentance until this highest good is achieved.

" Progressivism "
Secular relativistic ethics has risen the moral good of societies around the world. Society has so much more to progress if only we continue the work of the ancestors and tear down more the "traditional" / "right wing" institutions which stalwart against the humanistic ambitions. We must radically change this world in our ideal image and cast off that which holds from our ideals.

My question is do you think enough modern day people meet conditions of being pseudo-religious on secular ideas that it would be fair to classify them as a religious faith? Do you have any comment on these three in particular? Further, what do you make of the human tendency to create "religion" out of most human experience?


Ps: I am not here to imply all environmentalists, activists or progressives meet the conditions of being pseudo-religious only enough do as to warrant a discussion as the influence of these faith based actors.
Click to expand...

You forgot "Trumpism." He came down from above to save us from ourcsin of electing a black man, and hs being crucified daily. Am I wrong?
 
rocket88 said:
You forgot "Trumpism." He came down from above to save us from ourcsin of electing a black man, and hs being crucified daily. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Would you like to discuss that or is that only a joke?
 
Conaeolos said:
I would most like to hear from skeptics.

Three examples of secular pseudo-religious candidates have been pretty regularly raised up in public discussions, specifically as of late racism:

"Environmentalism."
Humans are distinct from some type of natural order. Our human existence is at odds with this natural order which is actively fighting back. You can either be with it or against. Faith is in appeasing nature and restricting that which is artificial and thus evil.

"Racism / Patriarchy / Oppression "
All things steam from and are related to racism(et al). One is collectively responsible for the condition and history of their race/group. The individual is less than the group. Equality of outcome is the highest good. One should seek Humility and repentance until this highest good is achieved.

" Progressivism "
Secular relativistic ethics has risen the moral good of societies around the world. Society has so much more to progress if only we continue the work of the ancestors and tear down more the "traditional" / "right wing" institutions which stalwart against the humanistic ambitions. We must radically change this world in our ideal image and cast off that which holds from our ideals.

My question is do you think enough modern day people meet conditions of being pseudo-religious on secular ideas that it would be fair to classify them as a religious faith? Do you have any comment on these three in particular? Further, what do you make of the human tendency to create "religion" out of most human experience?


Ps: I am not here to imply all environmentalists, activists or progressives meet the conditions of being pseudo-religious only enough do as to warrant a discussion as the influence of these faith based actors.
Click to expand...

Yes, although since you can have non-thiestic religions, where you don't have a god or gods in it, there is no need for the psudo.

Any senese making framwork, such as christianity or confucianism, where some questions are not allowed to be asked has become a religion.
 
Conaeolos said:
Would you like to discuss that or is that only a joke?
Click to expand...

I think it is as serious as all of your examples. .. which is to say, not at all.
 
RAMOSS said:
I think it is as serious as all of your examples. .. which is to say, not at all.
Click to expand...
By your standard of what makes a religion I am not in any way religious as I partake in no ritual. Despite this, I consider myself very religious and do not see religions as a whole as cartoon fantasies. To me the study of 'ideologies that people are passionate about' are extremely fascinating, useful and something I would quite like to understand more about.

Rocket was obviously joking, and choose to respond to me jest-fully in direct response to my choice to only highlight left-wing political movements as examples, a choice I made because religious skeptics are by and large politically far-left. If he actually does, however, view support of Trump at all as resembling the structure of the religious. I would very much like to hear more about his thoughts on that as part of my deeper exploration of this issue.
 
Conaeolos said:
By your standard of what makes a religion I am not in any way religious as I partake in no ritual. Despite this, I consider myself very religious and do not see religions as a whole as cartoon fantasies. To me the study of 'ideologies that people are passionate about' are extremely fascinating, useful and something I would quite like to understand more about.

Rocket was obviously joking, and choose to respond to me jest-fully in direct response to my choice to only highlight left-wing political movements as examples, a choice I made because religious skeptics are by and large politically far-left. If he actually does, however, view support of Trump at all as resembling the structure of the religious. I would very much like to hear more about his thoughts on that as part of my deeper exploration of this issue.
Click to expand...

I don't see any kind of 'religion' in any of your examples. Not one wit. The one thing that your list would have in common is they are ideologies that many conservatives disagree with. As such, it's not an honest list.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
I don't see any kind of 'religion' in any of your examples. Not one wit.
Click to expand...
I know, you said, in your view religion or religious-like structures require rituals. Thus, since dogma isn't exclusive to religion, just because "secular ideologies that people are passionate about" display some dogma doesn't mean they are comparable to the same pitfalls & dangers of religion as a concept.

There is not really much more to say from there as I think you're wrong. I think it's rooted in your cartoonish view of religion as some sort of set of ritual done to imaginary fairies. But if that what it means to you, that's what it means to you. I look at the religious history of man as psychological meta-structures and so I am inevitably going to see 'religions' where you see none. I was hoping for a more middle ground by deconstructing my view, but clearly the only discussion possible is a political one, dogma by dogma. There are plenty of more appropriate places to have such discussions.
 
Conaeolos said:
I know, you said, in your view religion or religious-like structures require rituals. Thus, since dogma isn't exclusive to religion, just because "secular ideologies that people are passionate about" display some dogma doesn't mean they are comparable to the same pitfalls & dangers of religion as a concept.

There is not really much more to say from there as I think you're wrong. I think it's rooted in your cartoonish view of religion as some sort of set of ritual done to imaginary fairies. But if that what it means to you, that's what it means to you. I look at the religious history of man as psychological meta-structures and so I am inevitably going to see 'religions' where you see none. I was hoping for a more middle ground by deconstructing my view, but clearly the only discussion possible is a political one, dogma by dogma. There are plenty of more appropriate places to have such discussions.
Click to expand...

That is , well, trying to push ideologies you don't like into 'religion'. That's utter nonsense in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom