#42264: Paul — 09/30  at  10:11 AM
That was quite the surprise - what did my 3 year old do now? Then I realized that he wouldn't come up with such crap, so it must be some other Sam Harris.

#42267: QrazyQat — 09/30  at  10:34 AM
By far the greater part of secularism has nothing to do with religion at all, not referencing it or being or acting in opposition to it -- it's religion that continually wades in and tries to start a fight with it. At which point secularism typically turns the other cheek, something, ironically, that religion seems incapable of doing.

#42268: — 09/30  at  10:35 AM
SH: Most atheists appear to be certain that consciousness is entirely dependent upon (and reducible to) the workings of the brain. In the last chapter of the book, I briefly argue that this certainty is unwarranted. I say this as one who is deeply immersed in the neuroscientific and philosophical literature on consciousness: the truth is that scientists still do not know what the relationship between consciousness and matter is.

Is this claim a.)true and/or b.)relevant? My impression is that while we cannot claim a full understanding yet, scientists have certainly made a great deal of progress toward understanding these relationships. While we may not understand the "source" of consciousness, we are now able to manipulate it through chemical and mechanical means, and barring any further developments, there is no evidence yet that any non-material explanations should be necessary. If anything, non-material explanations of phenomena (transcendence, etc.) have given way to material ones (endorphins, etc.). Is this just another case where scientists working diligently toward an answer to a problem get knocked along the way for not having solved everything yet?

#42269: Ron Sullivan — 09/30  at  10:43 AM
the truth is that scientists still do not know what the relationship between consciousness and matter is.

Looks like a version of the God of the gaps only without a god.

The ID of the gaps?

Whether "scientists do not know" (NB that "still" ... What is he hiding behind there?) or "atheists are certain" (Are they? Who?) has no bearing on what actually exists or how it works. One of those omphaloskeptics who think we (What you mean "we"?) create reality by consensus might think it does, but no.

This looks just as floundery as the Missing Link or abiogenesis arguments from the religious, and like those seems to come from someone who can't tolerate uncertainty.

#42271: — 09/30  at  10:52 AM
Is there any chance that Mr. Harris has been channeling Ken Wilber?

#42273: — 09/30  at  10:57 AM
OK, Harris' take on "secular" is nuts, but I don't quite agree with yours either:

Secularism is about reality. We accept our day-to-day existence, the empirical, observable, measurable, physical world as a worthy and important and all-encompassing feature of our lives, without reference to invisible, imaginary, immaterial, and inconsequential confabulations by the irrational.

In the socio-political context, at least, "secularism" just means that whatever my beliefs may be about the supernatural, mystical, gods, etc, I decline -- even oppose -- the use of economic or political power to make others kow-tow to them. And on that definition, even many religious people are "secular", having read enough history to realize that imposing belief generally turns out badly.

#42275: tristero — 09/30  at  11:19 AM
"He also sets up secularism as nothing but "perpetual opposition" to religion. That's complete nonsense, an unthinking acceptance of the definition used by the religious. "

I'm afraid I'm going to be misunderstood, but I'll try anyway.

First of all, I've never liked Harris' writing. And for many of the reasons you mention. However, when you look at the origins of the terms "secular" and "secularism," I think it is very problematic, or it should be problematic to use in the context you use it in.

Again, I have no problem with the set of ideas you assigned to the term "secularism." The problem is the history and derivation of the word itself and whether it is appropriate in this context. I submit it is not. The following is based on definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary, and other readings.

"Secular" comes from an ancient word coined by the Catholic Church to describe priests who were not cloistered. It later began to acquire the meaning of "not pertaining to the divine." In short, the religious defined the word because they invented it. Now, historically, the word has at least two (for your purposes) unpleasant meanings:

1. "Secular" assumed the division of reality into a wordly domain and a transcendent divine domain. Historically "secular" clearly implies that both exist. You wish to assert the existence of one domain. "Secular," by definition, contradicts that.

2. "Secular," in its long historical usage, defines a negative, something that is not. It does not define positive values, except to the extent those values are defined negatively as not within the purview of a divine provenance.

To make matters worse, the entirely separate word "secularism" has its own far-from-helpful history. As far as I can tell, it was coined in 1846 by George Holyoake in England who had just been released from jail for the "crime" of atheism. He formed "The British Secular Institute of Communism and Propagandism " to advocate "secularism."

In short, at its birth, the term "secularism" was associated with "communism." Regardless of your views on Marx or communism, it's a fact that in American politics, association with communism is the kiss of death.

If Harris is unfamiliar with the etymology of these words, I assure you that the religious right knows exactly where these words come from and what they meant. It is part and parcel of a sophisticated rhetorical assault.

(The phrase "secular humanism" also has an interesting history; basically, it was coined by a Supreme Court judge, then defined by the right to bash liberals over the head, and then adopted - probably unknowingly - by some of their opponents.)

So what's wrong with simply defining "secular" and "secularism" the way we want to? Well, it means fighting an uphill rhetorical battle against all their accumulated historical meanings, especially negative ones. For example, Harris' essay - consciously or not - taps into the negative aspects of the words - "secular" is not pertaining to the divine, it is opposed to something rather than standing independently for something.

While I know this is not a popular suggest, I suggest that the word be abandoned. It's a church word and really doesn't get at the core of the worldview and values "secularists" stand for. There are legitimate uses for "secular" and "secularism" but they are constrained to issues directly connected to religion, not to a worldview that asserts a consistent phyical reality independent of the existence of other worldviews -such as religious ones - that assert something different.

What to use instead? Well, that's a problem. One could use realist, or humanist, or scientific humanist, or a bunch of others. None seems quite adequate. But simply leaving "secular" to fester is, I think, worse.

Again, I am not disagreeing with the values of "secularism" as you describe it. I am questioning the terminology. I do think it is not just semantics to find a replacement as the terms have associations which are easily manipulated by malicious opponents. And one thing that is certain is that the religious right is a very malicious opponent.

#42280: — 09/30  at  11:45 AM
SH: Most atheists appear to be certain that consciousness is entirely dependent upon (and reducible to) the workings of the brain. In the last chapter of the book, I briefly argue that this certainty is unwarranted. I say this as one who is deeply immersed in the neuroscientific and philosophical literature on consciousness: the truth is that scientists still do not know what the relationship between consciousness and matter is.

We have yet to see a reliable report of a consciousness without a brain, and we have plenty of demonstrations of aspects of consciousness and cognition that are impaired by brain damage. It is pretty certain that you need a brain to be conscious. (unless, of course you define consciousness as the ability to react to your environment, in which case all life forms are as conscious as they need to be)

Now, the fact that all thoughts are embodied in the electrochemical workings of the brain is often depressing to those who want to believe in some kind of supernatural nature to thought. I really don't get this. They seem to feel that it diminishes the thought itself, that it is "just a chemical reaction". Of course, they don't seem to mind the effects that chemicals like ethanol has on these thoughts, so there.

#42281: PaulH — 09/30  at  12:00 PM
tristero - I agree with what you say (mostly, anyway!) One of the issues of defining a group as atheist, secularist or any similar word is that you're defining a group according to a criteria it finds conceptually unimportant. It's not unlike asking a nudist who his favorite shirt-maker is; he may have an opinion, but it's hardly relevant to him or to society.

So I'd suggest we don't try to define people as secularist or anything else except as a passing reference; I'm an atheist, a cyclist, an analyst and a rower, yet none of them comes even close to defining me.

#42282: PZ Myers — 09/30  at  12:18 PM
This is too much nitpicking over words. Do we also think that when someone defines themselves as religious, they're using criteria that they find conceptually unimportant?

All words are going to carry this freight of historical baggage. If we're going to go shopping for new terms that are unencumbered, we're going to look forever, and no matter what we do, we're going to strike unintended notes. Look at that godawful alternative to "atheist" that some people came up with: "brights"? Aaargh. That was truly pukeworthy.

So what can we do? We make do. We take the words and make them our own and give them better meanings. Where "secular" was once a term used by the religious to demarcate what they thought was important from those trivial worldly matters, we can embrace this very useful term and show that their trivia is what really matters.

We don't let flakes like Sam Harris pretend that the secular is "negligible".

#42283: Hank Fox — 09/30  at  12:23 PM
I remember when I was a kid and I discovered the two words “fiction” and “non-fiction” for the first time. I felt vaguely cheated that there was a unique word for the made-up stories, but for the REAL stories there was only a derivative – a term which had meaning only in opposition to the made-up stories.

I conjecture that we came up with a word for story-telling before we came up with a word for fact-telling only because fact-telling was mixed in with the everyday realness of life, and nobody thought of even giving it its own word until after the distinction was made necessary by the existence of story-tellers. And then it seemed natural to use the derivative term.

Yet some part of me still thinks there should be a unique word for the true stuff, the real stuff, and it should be the made-up stuff that has to suffer the derivative term.

Despite being a big fan of fiction, I know that the field of non-fiction is vaster than anything fiction can ever approach. Non-fiction has a reality, a basis, an independent ground of existence that fiction does not and can never have.

I feel somewhat the same way about “religious” and “secular.” (Despite the fact that the word “secular” is not a derivative, apparently some of us are convinced that the meaning behind it is.)

We all know what “religious” means. To me, “secular” translates not just as “the other stuff from religion” – but more like “the real stuff, the true stuff.”

“Secular” might be popularly defined merely in opposition to religion, but the field of meaning and practice it encompasses has a trueness, a realness, vaster and more profound than anything religion can ever approach.

“Secular” has an independent ground of existence that “religious” does not and can never have.

#42284: tristero — 09/30  at  12:26 PM
PaulH,

The issue is that the terms "secular" and "secularism" have a history that contradicts the definitions PZ, and others, want to use. Since it describes a dualism between the sacred and the not-sacred, "secular" implies the existence of the divine. That clearly is not what is intended by PZ's usage of the word. Likewise "secularism" has unfortunate associations with communism, which are also unintended, and all but unknown, by modern American advocates of a worldview grounded entirely in physical reality.

And that is the problem. The right plays off these associations -which they are quite aware of - which have nothing to do with what PZ Myers wants the word to mean. He wants "secularism" to describe a worldview that is positive, filled with moral and intellectual virtues that are, in some sense, rooted in a celebration of the physical. The problem is that "secular" is, historically, the wrong word to describe such a worldview because, by defiinition, it pertains to the not-divine, which implicitly recognizes its existence.

It is not by accident that it is the religious right who have been the most enthusiastic users of these terms to smear their opponents. If we are to use these words as PZ suggests, the re-definition must be explicitly stated. But why bother fighting uphill when it is the reigious right who should be on the ropes? Better to find a more accurate set of terms.

#42287: — 09/30  at  12:43 PM
When I'm asked what I am, I just say I'm a naturalist. Not the practicing kind (my B.S. is in Computer Science and Geography), but rather the philosophical kind. To me, secularism is what amount to a system of government that is neutral on matters of religion.

#42288: tristero — 09/30  at  12:44 PM
Hank Fox,

"To me, “secular” translates not just as “the other stuff from religion” – but more like “the real stuff, the true stuff.”"

Exactly. That's what it means to you but historically, that's not what it meant. In fact, it may have meant the exact opposite, if the world is illusion and the only truth is God. And that is the problem.

PZ Myers,

Fair enough. "Brights" stunk worse than "secularists." However, it had one major advantage: "Brights" didn't have any historical baggage that could enable Harris, or anyone else, to say brights focus, by definition, on the mundane and trivial.

To employ "secular" in the way you and others want, it really should be deliberately, and consciously redefined as a new word, a homonym in comparison to the ancient one. That's fine, but it is an awful lot of hassle and it won't stop someone like Harris or Dobson from insisting upon the older meanings, which are not ones you agree with. Sure, Dobson won't be deterred by a word change, but why hand him a rhetorical advantage right at the start?

"Brights" might have been the wrong word - I think it was. But the reasoning behind it was rather, er... bright.

(For what it's worth, the religious right have a similar problem with their use of the word "supernatural." I've heard a video of Dobson going through hoops to get his viewers to understand he wasn't talking about haunted houses. I suspect that soon they'll find a word with less baggage to describe what they are talking about, whatever that might be.)

#42291: HP — 09/30  at  12:56 PM
I tend to use whatever word communicates most clearly with whomever I'm talking to. If I want to convey my godlessness to a nutjob, I say I'm an atheist. If I want to convey my rejection of ideology or revealed truth, I say I'm an agnostic. Lately, I'm quite fond of the anglo-saxon directness of "freethinker" in social situations.

People like Harris remind me of the mob in "Life of Brian," all shouting in unison, "Yes! We're all individuals!"

A colleague found out I was a freethinker, and asked me if I'd like to join his atheism discussion group. I should have said, "Okay, but I'm only available on Sunday mornings. Shall I bring an instrument in case we want to make some music?"

Don't talk to me about your secularism, or atheism, or humanism, or whatever, in the the context of some kind of authentic group movement. It doesn't work like that. But then, maybe the self-descriptor I'm looking for is "misanthropist." I'll just bugger off then.

#42295: Sculptorsam — 09/30  at  01:41 PM
Perhaps what PZ is advocating is a "taking back" of the term from the religious (even though the term never belonged to the non-religious in the first place as tristero has pointed out). Perhaps in the way the homosexual community has turned slurs like queer into badges of honor. In doing so they have empowered themselves and placed the bigots on their heels. Words have their own history, but language is constantly evolving. It is possible to turn the weapon around and proudly identify with what your opponent felt was a slander. You can render their slur meaningless, attract attention and converts to your banner while unsettling an opponent now-deprived of a convenient hammer.

#42296: tristero — 09/30  at  01:45 PM
HP,

Certainly. The point is not you personally, but politically. I suspect I share your distate of marketing; after all, whatever worldview goes by the name of "secularism" doesn't get altered by a mere name change.

Nevertheless, it may be distasteful, but it is quite important.

#42297: — 09/30  at  01:48 PM
augghh!

This is similar to "materialism". In the philosophical sense it means the rejection of the supernatural, but in common usage it's something closer to greedy.

I wonder how long it took Hubbard to come up with the term "Scientology?" Man, that one stuck. What a great bullshit artist that guy was, huh?

#42299: Hank Fox — 09/30  at  02:00 PM
Tristero, if we leave off for a few minutes falling all over ourselves over the "historic" definition, and correcting everyone in sight about how wrong they are to use it in a new way, we might realize that the word CAN BE REDEFINED in popular usage if enough people simply start using it that way.

Yes, you have a point. But here's this other point: You're placing yourself in the godder camp by insisting that this word is not plastic enough to take on new meaning (or that we can't bring new emphasis to a meaning which already exists) ... and the lot of us will continue to be stuck with religion as the only ground of argument on this particular issue.

The godders are already winning the battle over the popular-usage definition of "theory." Don't be the guy who helps them control the meaning of "secular."

#42300: — 09/30  at  02:08 PM
Heck, "to prove" used to simply mean "to test", without the connotation of demonstrating truth.

"dirty" used to refer to items soiled by feces. As in diapers were "dirty" but laundry in general would be "soiled"

The list goes on and on.

#42303: — 09/30  at  02:25 PM
I think PZ has been a little harsh with Sam Harris.

My read on the Harris excerpt is that secularism as a doctrine is generally viewed as a negative stance. But the key is that by "negative" Harris means a stance about the absence of something as opposed to a stance about the presence of something, and not negative in the sense of bad. It is the difference in saying "not there" vs. "not good". So, by this account, to be a secularist, all you need to do is not believe in the supernatural. You needn't do any more than that: just not believe. (And let's assume that by secular Harris we mean non-believer, ok folks?)

And he argues that this, in of itself, is unnattractive to many. There is no doctrine or creed or behavioral directives in secularism to grasp onto; he describes this as "no content".

Now PZ sees it differently: for him secularism is all wrapped up with PZ-valued things like reason, science, awe, football, fashion, etc. But those are not necessarily part and parcel of secularism; it just so happens to be PZ Myers's version of his secularism. Harris's point is that when one orders "Secularism" off the menu of belief systems, the waitress brings them a big steaming bowl of nothing. Harris worries about this because he wishes everyone would become secularists and he knows most people will think this absence of content devalues secularism.

What PZ Myers has and shares so well on this site is more than mere secularism, it is a sort of a mixture of naturalistic zeal, science boosterism, and bonhomie. I absolutely applaud it, but I'm not sure that "secularism" really captures all that.

#42307: — 09/30  at  02:37 PM
Actually, "secular" meant "belonging to (this) century", "involved in everyday life". It did not imply "the existence of the divine" in any special way. It was in opposition to the supposed "timelessness" of life in a monastery, and only applied to the clergy.

The rest of society was "lay" (and still today, the English word "secular" most closely translates to "laicità", "laity", in Italian).

I tend to agree with PZ: every word has baggage, if you allow your opponents to define it.

(word for posting: "agnostic")

#42309: — 09/30  at  02:47 PM
talking of words and usurping of meaning, i've wanted to ask science-y folks something for a while now...when i was a kid in india, we learnt about global warming and greehouse gases...when and how did this change from 'warming' to 'climate change'? i saw a pbs documentary recently on how this change was suggested to republicans by some kind of strategy "consultant" who studies subconcious effects of words on people's emotional reactions...but how come even the scientists use 'climate change' consistently these days? if scientists started doing this inadvertantly, that sounds like a damn good example of introducting a brand new term into the public discourse...

#42311: doctor(logic) — 09/30  at  03:23 PM
HP: Don't talk to me about your secularism, or atheism, or humanism, or whatever, in the the context of some kind of authentic group movement. It doesn't work like that.

Actually, HP, atheist meetups are a really powerful form of activism. While it's important to fight the encroachment of religion into government in the courts, this does little for the acceptance or popularity of atheism. Besides, organizing atheists is like herding cats.

However, getting cats to show up at feeding time is pretty simple. I highly recommend atheist meetup groups like those at organized through meetup.com.

What do we do at meetups? Eat, drink and be merry. We discuss science, philosophy, art, movies, whatever. That's my kind of activism!

I know atheists who have come out of the closet to their families or been more overt in their atheism since they started attending my small meetup group. This is just the ticket, IMHO. I'm convinced that most people who don't like atheists think they don't know any.

#42315: tristero — 09/30  at  03:43 PM
Aureola Nominee, FCD:

If you type into a google search box define:secular you will encounter the most common meanings of "secular" as:

"Not religious."

"an item that is free of religion."

"material & worldly as opposed to spiritual; thus ANYTHING not religious."

And ones like this, both as adjective and noun:

"1) in relation to clergy, priests living in the world, not under a rule, who are bound by no vows and may possess property, working under the authority of a bishop: 2) more generally, refers to people who are not clergy, the laity"

Definitions like "belonging to this century" also appear but the other definition is more common.

"Secular" most definitely implies the existence of the divine, not only in the religious sense of "priests living in the world" but also in "things not regarded as religious or spiritual" which means there exist two classes of things - those that are religious/spiritual and secular ones that aren't.