collective conscience calls for a set of guidelines and norms set forth, hopefully, upon agreement, by all its members, in order to maintain a culture of fair and just societal set up.
in secular thought, however, there is very little or no room for a collective conscience.
being ‘Muslims’, what are your thoughts on what to follow and why?
how is secular thinking in sync with collective conscience approach to living as members of a society?
dushwari
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
of course it does. Having a secular mind doesn't supress certain values in ones life, wiether its a concept of good and evil or human rights and personal freedom. In fact some of these concepts ARE consistent with collective consciousness of any system of belief. (lets not rule out secularism being a system of belief).
EDIT:- I think what you want to ask is " if Spirituality and secularism can be reconciled?"
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
Xenophanez, you make sense in saying that 'lets not rule out secularism being a system of belief', but my query was "how is secular thinking in sync with collective conscience "?
in terms of any lawful framework, the society in essence says that there is an unspoken social contract to be followed in co existing as members of the same society, whose rules govern the lives of al its members.
but, when each one of the members lives a totally self -centered, and not to mention, only a purely materialistic life style, then whatever happens to collective conscience and its requirements is of no concern to the secular mindset.
thence, difference in good and evil or human rights is not observed as keenly as it ought to have been.
perhaps, secular needs a different definition, or the followers of secular thought process might benefit from a more even handed perspective of greater good of all people, or as many people as can be possible, rather than as few or restricted to the luxury of only a select number of people.
religion and spirituality are two DIFFERENT things.
without being fundamentalist or conservative, we can reflect on the reason for religion being a code of living - pleasing the Almighty, which implies, not indulging into anything not acceptable to Almighty.
in some ways, spirituality is at best, an ephemeral feeling of being religious. The main thing being, how powerful its impact is on the human conduct. if the motive is to gain esteem in the eyes of God, and do good to other, or be kind and humble to the sustaining earth, then, spirituality has achieved its religious degree - obedient, genuine, persistent and consistent following of the ethical and moral laws of living that have been set forth by the Almighty.
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
[QUOTE]
in terms of any lawful framework, the society in essence says that there is an unspoken social contract to be followed in co existing as members of the same society, whose rules govern the lives of al its members.
but, when each one of the members lives a totally self -centered, and not to mention, only a purely materialistic life style, then whatever happens to collective conscience and its requirements is of no concern to the secular mindset. thence, difference in good and evil or human rights is not observed as keenly as it ought to have been.
[/QUOTE]
What gave you the impression of a flawless society! You mentioned its more like a lawful framework. and just a Framework it is, and there are no checks in place to control individual behavior. no society can control ones likes and dislikes. Being self-centred is a character flaw, but I fail to understand how it affects ones's capability to distinguish between geed & evil! the collective mindset says that one shouldn't indulge in such activities, but you can't bound an individual. can you? after all the same mindset also gives directions about civil liberties.
[QUOTE]
** religion and spirituality are two DIFFERENT things. **
without being fundamentalist or conservative, we can reflect on the reason for religion being a code of living - pleasing the Almighty, which implies, not indulging into anything not acceptable to Almighty.
in some ways, spirituality is at best, an ephemeral feeling of being religious. The main thing being, how powerful its impact is on the human conduct. if the motive is to gain esteem in the eyes of God, and do good to other, or be kind and humble to the sustaining earth, then, spirituality has achieved its religious degree - obedient, genuine, persistent and consistent following of the ethical and moral laws of living that have been set forth by the Almighty.
[/quote]
I agree to that, indeed there is very fine line between these two and normaly people fail to notice that. ONLY for that reason I mentioned SPIRITUALITY.
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
flaws have not been discussed yet.
the systematic error in the thought process of the secular mind was the object.
it goes, we are only as ethical as we 'do'.
forget religion, for get spirtuality, 'market' all that one can.... to amass countless riches or resources, that one may never ever even be in the need of....
that seems to be the basis of contemporarry self-serving secular living arrangements - personal, communal, national or international.
these ideologies harp on 'exploring', or searching for the true connection to finding the purpose of one's life, falling prey to the illusion of a steep (justified greed and rebellion against the code of unified discipline) slipery slope of the idea that, while you are at it, you might as well see for your self, what the glamour of the secular, individualistic life has to offer. nonetheless, there are many people, who would be okay with the rule of 'live and let live'.
then no wonder, evil committed is evil reaped.
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
The ugliest flaw is loss of emotions. In a society, where everything is weighed by its materialistic value, there is very little room for emotions. (I am refering to ones emotions for others & certain values, which are thought as old fashioned)
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
What could be more secular and posess collective conscsiousness than socialism and communism? But I sure don't see socialist societies as being more 'moral' than capitalist societies or capable of doing less evil. While the secular mind set isn't necesarily synyomous with collective consciousness, they are not mutually exclusive.
Even in religioius societies there has always been evil. Many times in the name of religion. Take the example of the murder of the Pakistani minister by a man who said he was enforcing God's laws or the centures of blood shed basd on the mininterpretation of religion.
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
To keep things simple, I’ll just provide a short answer. i.e.
For a collective moral conscience you don’t need people who accept same religion, but people who has some common culture and history(if not all). Because Common culture and history would surely provide enough dimensions to exist collectively, by making them agreeing on alot of things.
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
For a collective moral conscience you don't need people who accept same religion, but people who has some common culture and history(if not all). Because Common culture and history would surely provide enough dimensions to exist collectively, by making them agreeing on alot of things.
so in other words you are saying that collective conscience has no room for multiculturalism?
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
these are some of the problems with secularism.
the problem i have is that there is something un explainable about secular thought.
i do concur with what Words have shared.
agreeing on things which are for teh good fo the common lot, is not a bad thing is it?
yet, we find in secular way of thinking, that people are not at all cognizant of other people’s rights.
there is not a uniformally established social contract
between all members of a group, as each one of them has own agenda.
market mentality diminishes true religion and fair politics to a lowly level self interest by the powerful few in the society and give way to all kinds of lop sided sentiments of extremes.
that is what is bothersome about secularism.
any solutions?
dushwari
The problem with secularism
Phillip Blond and Adrian Pabst
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Common to virtually all versions of contemporary religious fanaticism is a claim to know divine intention directly, absolutely and unquestionably. As a result, many people demand a fresh liberal resistance to religious totalitarianism.
But it is important to realize that this reduction of a transcendent religion to confirmation of one’s own personal beliefs represents an ersatz copy of liberal humanism. Long before religious fundamentalism, secular humanists reduced all objective codes to subjective assertion by making man the measure of all things and erasing God from nature.
This was a profoundly secular move: It simply denied natural knowledge of God and thereby eliminated theology from the sciences. Religion, stripped of rationality, became associated with a blind unmediated faith — precisely the mark of fanaticism. Thus religious fundamentalism constitutes an absence of religion that only true religion can correct.
Although the cultured despisers of religion are once again making strident appeal to secular values and unmediated reason, they do not realize that the religious absolutism they denounce is but a variant of their own fundamentalism returned in a different guise.
Richard Dawkins’s barely literate polemic “The God Delusion” declares that religion is irrational without ever explaining the foundations of reason itself. Sam Harris’s diatribe “The End of Faith” has to falsify history by claiming that Hitler and Stalin were religious in order to make its case for the malign influence of faith. The attacks on religion are becoming ever more shrill and desperate — a clear sign of atheist anxiety about the status of their own first principles and explanatory frameworks.
This atheist apprehension is well founded, as the latest developments in biology, physics and philosophy all open the door to a revivified theology and a religious metaphysics.
Darwinism is close to being completely rewritten. Hitherto, it had been assumed that forms of life are the product of essentially arbitrary processes, such that (as Stephen Jay Gould put it) if we ran evolution again life would look very different. However, evolution shows biological convergence. As Simon Conway Morris, a professor of biology at Cambridge University, has argued, evolution is not arbitrary: If it ran again, the world would look much as it already does.
Nor is natural selection now thought to be the main driver of biological change. Rather, life displays certain inherency, such that the beings that come about are a product of their own integral insistence. All of which means that there is no necessary conflict between evolution and theology. Indeed, evolution is no more arbitrary than God is deterministic. Similarly, in cosmology and physics the idea that the world was produced by chance has long been dismissed. The extreme precision of the gravitational constant that allows a universe like ours to exist requires an explanation. Rather than envisioning the world as an intended creation, secular physics posits infinite numbers of multiverses existing alongside our own. Thus, the sheer uniqueness of our universe is qualified by the existence of all other possible universes.
The trouble is that this supposition sounds more bizarre than religion. Moreover, to posit this paradigm leads to the Matrix hypothesis that we are actually only a virtual simulation run by other universes more powerful and real. So religion finds itself in the strange position of defending the real world against those who would make us merely virtual phenomena.
Philosophically, if one wants to defend the idea of objective moral truths, it appears ineluctably to require some sort of engagement with theology. For if there are universals out there, we need to explain why they care about us or indeed how we can know them at all. And if human beings do not make these truths, then it seems an account of the relationship between ultimate truths and human life can only be religious.
Thus we are witnessing a real intellectual return to religion that cannot be reduced to the spread of fanaticism. It is also becoming clear that secularism reinforces rather than overcomes both religious fundamentalism and militant atheism.
In the new, post-secular world, religion cannot be eliminated and, properly figured, is in fact our best hope for a genuine alternative to the prevailing extremes.
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
Actually my friend, There isn’t really a multi-culturalism, There had been enough overlapping of cultures that you can find common things and standerds to start with and bulid more.
Dushwari,
I had read the article you posted, My response to the major points of it is as follows:
Author is mistaken here, by labelling the demand for resisting, religious totalitarianism to “reduction of a transcendent religion to confirmation of one’s own personal beliefs” because there isn’t any transcendent religion, what i mean is that, Even if we accept transcendency of religion, still it needs someone to interpret and by confirming to the transcendency we are giving the power to that perosn to rule us.
Thats a way to allow religious leaders to be the rulers. And i think thats what is happening in pakistan.
Man was already the measure of everything, As i said earlier that, whatever is claimed to be divine was interpreted by men. Which give them false reason to rule and also to fight each other. By denying the what religious icons, spoke through the mouth of God, Society declared that they want to decide from what they know(either less or more) rather then from faith. Thats how i translate the “Death of God”.
This is the main thesis of the article, Author is claiming that scularism is just another form of religious absolutism. But if we explore the meaning of “absolutism”, It says that accepting something with 100% certainty for all times. It doesn’t applies to secularism, its are always open to challenge. In contrast about the rules of religion the same author himself said,
"Common to virtually all versions of contemporary religious fanaticism is a claim to know divine intention directly, absolutely and unquestionably. "
In secularism there is no claim of knowing the “truth directly”(which avoids the concentration of power to a single), and absolutelyand unquestionably(which always lets the door of imporvement and reasoning open).
Its very obvious, but still if someone raises the question that how the rules of secularism are not absolute just like religion? then the short answer is that there isn’t any assumed divine intervention. In contrast the rules of religion are absolute because its been accepted as God saying, and they believe it too.
If attacks on religion by atheists are desperate, still what evidence has to conclude that they are anxious about the status of their own principles(i.e. the principles which religious person assumes that an atheist have). This is the clear case of emotional tact used by author to manipulate the readers minds. The author is criticising the principles of rationality and also using the same (in bad way though) to prove his point.
The time that i had now, i could only comment on half of the article, i’ll comment on the rest soon. Meanwhile i’ll provide a breif treatment of the main question that is raised by Dushwari in this thread.
The sources of morality lies in culture not religion, And culture in itself is such a thing which could hardly be misused, because there isn’t any absolutism, it is something that you want, not something that you are bound to do. Why you want? Simply because its the actual material from which your self is build up. Now to form a good society we need soothing, positive voices of culture to be spreaded like a warm breeze in all directions. Culture contains everything, its your identitiy, its your morality and its your life. But it always needs to be nurtured because when a nation isn’t in good shape, the negative things do flourish. Pakistan is not just one culture, it has atleast four major cultures, and offcourse they do have alot of overlapping areas for common good.
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
Very thorough dissection of the article i referenced.
interesting to read a varied perspective.
thanks.
here is what can be understood and offered as further points - again, adding to the substantive reasons replied as explanation and answers for the original argument and inquiry regarding secular thought and mind.
and so the personal accountability on which the morality of the self ought to anchor gets, lost, faded, subdued or utterly forgotten in the quagmire of the perils of social comparison in the race of getting ahead, being different while searching for one's own true identity...meanwhile hopping in and out of all kinds of ill-willed sins, sometimes, of eating away on someone else's rights, stealing one's own peace, or that of the others' & on top of all this, feeling an irresolvable distress of being twice far removed from religion, from morals and from a sense of being accountable to those living around oneself.
secular never holds true for a collective conscience.
we would be fine, even if the secular had promise of being on a higher ground of self-check, but the problem is neither it has collective conscience, nor any room for personal accountability.
makes sense?
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
Still not getting enough time and will to respond to the rest of the article, but i think i should respond to your central argument, before you loose interest in it. Actually, i do think i had responded to it quite clearly, but may be its not as clear enough to you as i thought.
Let me say it again, that the sources of morality lie in culture not religion. Religion is a subset of culture. Now Regarding accountability, there are many ways to make people accountable, or make them think about what they are doing.
The way of religion, which mainly based on fear, absolute assumptions(faith) and unjust allocation of power( The power of a religious opinion leader).
The way of culture, which mainly based on letting someone to discover its true self, by providing a positive cultural environment, where people can feel proud of their identity.
The way of Law, which is also based on fear(with a sense of responsibility). But it differs from religion on the point that, In making new laws we aren’t bound to dogmas.
In a way all the points are related, and they effect each other. But in my opinion, Your personal morality is where the role of culture is most important, and your law comes into play when its about the group of people.
So what is the answer to your main question, To make people accountable, express the positive voices of culture, let people discover their identity, let them be proud of their identity, So that they can feel good about their selves, and don’t always try to mimic other nations. Mimicing is not learning(for those who, may find my opinion as against learning from other nations), you got to know yourself and then learn from others, this will make you adopt, rather then fell-apart. If people recognize and feel good about their selves culturally, and their is a positive cultural environment, then you can use the “Moral Cultural Notions” to make them think about what they are doing, and also to make them change, And all this could happen in the absense of religion.
You can pick any single “Moral Cultural Notion” from any culture and analyze its impact on the people who recognize themselves from that culture, and understand totally what i’m saying.
The main assumption, which i’m making is that, **“Once people recognize there self as cultural, i.e. call themsleves as Punjabi, Pashtoon, Balochi or Sindhi and when they are proud of this cultural identity, then that cultural identity in the presence of a positive cultural environment will make them do good mostly”. **
Now from this context, i can’t see a “morality which is bound to the religions”, and further “a secular” person which is immoral and “a religious” person which is moral, What i’m seeing is that there are negative voices comming in from the all directions, and there are people who are confused about their identity at all levels, and have low self-respect. Further the distinction which i can see clearly in people(mostly) is that, there are masters and slaves, But i can see both of them, equally low in self-respect.
I would like to see responses on this.
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
Words,
true valid reasons.
yet, there are other truths than each one of us's, alone.
meaning life experiences, and the degree of 'Muflisi' or lack of piety might lend people to be justifying their personal wrong doing.
even laws themselves are sometimes dilemma ridden.
they've exceptions to the rules.
what we are talking about is an issue to intent - how one dilutes right into wrong and wrong into right... very truly secular, to me.
honestly, things right and things wrong ought to be separated quiet distinctly, but it is only seldom that that happens.
people believe in self interests, because they are necessary to ensuring one's sense of having accomplished personal powers to do as one likes.
secular, to me, is totally side stepping greater good for the maximum amount of people.
an example:
market based, interest- laden use of capital vs. regular flow of charity money. two forms of same thing - monetary resource, but their outcomes are totally different.
secular would have you believe in the former, since it is profiteering to adopt that way.
whereas a collectively conscientious individual might say, wait a minute, why should i owe anything to anybody.
seculars, religiously, would have no problem in being absolved from basic religious dictums, reason being, 'i have to live and enjoy my life, so i can get away stealing other people's rights.' a God fearing minded person would say, i am accountable for how i treat or mistreat others, so upon my life, i must not even imagine betraying someone, stealing someone's property or lying to someone – thus we have relaxed ‘spirituality’ instead of ‘real’ religiosity.
politically, secular thinking is all about amassing personal power to execute de novo.
hunger for power wont ever end in a secular's case.
but a responsible non secular minded individual will think over again and again, the consequences of her/ his actions in the light of how they will impact their own conscience as well as the actual lives and persons of people around them.
the theory is that marketability will enable one to enjoy luxuries of life.
that stepping on someone's toes is fine, and that making someone believe in and like what we do, is the way to be.
world, then, is a kill or get killed kind of pandora.
also remember, that we are only as ethical as we do.
it cannot be that we are all equal and then we harp that some are more equal than others.
that's what i think is the case on secular mindset.
morality driven by principled and rule -based logic is much better than one delivered on the basis of a confused mix of self satisfying name sake, game sake to the purpose approach to acquiring gains and pushing others into losses.
culture and environ do indeed shape the whole individual and a group based on their needs and wants.
argument is, are the needs and wants fair and justifiable, when there must be equitability and honest distribution of assets and liabilities?
hopefully, it is making sense as well, as i do find my self concurring with what you said here.
'Your personal morality is where the role of culture is most important, and your law comes into play when its about the group of people.'
Re: is secular mind set, consistent with collective conscience?
[QUOTE]
morality driven by principled and rule -based logic is much better than one delivered on the basis of a confused mix of self satisfying name sake, game sake to the purpose approach to acquiring gains and pushing others into losses.
culture and environ do indeed shape the whole individual and a group based on their needs and wants.
[/QUOTE]
Moral Principles and Rules, could be rooted in culture. So your rage against secular isn't right. I'd already explained a case of cultural morality for a country like pakistan.