# Come All Ye Secularists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2010, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861 "2010-12-12T05:51:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/41 "2010-12-13T20:30:48Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > But the claim wasn’t that dogmatism implies incorrect theories, rather that it implies bad scientists, which isn’t the same thing. Whatever you think of our inherent predilection toward dogmatism, a highly dogmatic outlook makes certain behaviors more reasonable – e.g. contortions to cram evidence into a particular box – which doesn’t help anyone and can lead astray the more impressionable. (This is probably, but maybe not, much more of an issue in the social sciences …) There are well understood sources of bias that don’t depend on rabid dogmatism. And any senior scientist probably got there by being at least a bit dogmatic. A good example is in Walter Alvarez’s book on the dinosaur extinction issue. I’d say that scientists on both sides were quite dogmatic, but there weren’t bad scientist on either side. I think someone politely sure of himself is just as much at risk of unconscious bias than someone loudly sure of himself. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/42 "2010-12-13T21:03:54Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > If we have a state religion and it really has to be Christian can it be Mormonism? They’re fun. :mad: When you pry my bottle from one cold, dead fist and my bong from the other. Without spilling my coffee. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/43 "2010-12-13T21:31:37Z")
[QUOTE=Hold Fast] Liberalism has seemed to me to be the most extrordinary ideal of which its followers will give no ground whatsoever, **and will malign you every chance they get if you possess dissenting opinions**. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Hold Fast] There is no “gist” of what I was trying to say because you, one, dont care about dissenting opinions that differentiate from your own(moreso religious ones), and two, have no real reasoning against me or the thoughts presented other then malicious statements you try to masquerade as such. This is precisely the sort of thing I asked in the OP for people to refrain from. Too hard I guess. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Hold Fast] Hate to put this so bluntly dude, but it seems your information on the founding fathers has been gathered in an some liberal education institution. [/QUOTE] Dude? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/44 "2010-12-13T21:57:03Z")
Damn those liberal education institutions! What do they know about education? ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/45 "2010-12-13T22:01:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Damn those liberal education institutions! What do they know about education? Apparently they’re too busy egging on their students to start World War 3 and complaining about South Park. Is there _no low_ to which these liberals will not stoop? ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/46 "2010-12-14T02:25:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > There are well understood sources of bias that don’t depend on rabid dogmatism. And any senior scientist probably got there by being at least a bit dogmatic. A good example is in Walter Alvarez’s book on the dinosaur extinction issue. I’d say that scientists on both sides were quite dogmatic, but there weren’t bad scientist on either side. > I think someone politely sure of himself is just as much at risk of unconscious bias than someone loudly sure of himself. I wouldn’t couch it in terms of the volume with which someone is sure of himself, but rather the openness with which he approaches further, possibly worldview-challenging, evidence. Clearly everyone is subject to bias; just as clearly, wearing dogmatic blinders makes the problem worse. A foolish consistency, and all that. Or so I would argue – but I’ve perhaps changed my opinion too often to be good for me. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/47 "2010-12-14T03:46:21Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > @SeldomSeen–Hate to put this so bluntly dude, but it seems your information on the founding fathers has been gathered in an some liberal education institution. Go take a big pile of primary source material written by the founding fathers…the majority of them make hardcore Tea Partier’s look like Lincoln Chafee. Got cites? Seriously, **SeldomSeen** put up a raft of quotes from several of the most celebrated of our Founding Fathers wherein those worthies either attack the idea of a government established religion or Christian religion as practiced. If you’d like to claim that the majority of the Founding Fathers (other than Jefferson) were in fact both very religious and in favor of a non-secular government, you need to argue that his quotes do not reflect the views of the Founding Fathers _and_ you need to give us a plausible reason to believe that they believed something else. Saying the words “primary source material” does not lend your argument any credence at all. Show us quotes from that primary source material that support your argument. Argue that **SeldomSeen** is taking the quotes out of context and provide a larger context that demonstrates your point. All you’re doing is saying “I’m right and you’re wrong, because I say so.” That’s really unconvincing. Simply accusing your opponent of bias is meaningless. He\* has provided evidence and you have provided none. \*Or she, I have no idea. ---
**Author:** ![ram16](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@ram16](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ram16)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/48 "2010-12-14T05:15:26Z")
There’s no such thing as freedom of religion without freedom from religion. They are opposite sides of the same coin. Doesn’t anybody remember why the first colonists left England in the first place? It was to escape state sponsored religion. Those of you advocating religion in government only do so if it’s your religion. Don’t think so, then lets put “IN ALA WE TRUST” on our money. See what I mean? It wouldn’t matter to me because all superstitions are equal to me. Didn’t 8 years of “W” teach us anything? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/49 "2010-12-14T06:39:17Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Because secular and religious are not opposites? Indeed. “Secular” describes those aspects of all our lives that are not religious. Driving is secular, money is secular, sports is secular. Some people spend 100%OF their time doing secular things, some merely _most_ of their time doing secular things. (Is sex secular? How about sleeping?) Most of us can make the distinction between secular law and religious law. What religious laws apply to you, and how they are enforced, varies according to which religion you belong to and the extent to which you recognize particular religious authorities. Much of the focus is on the metaphysical plane and the afterlife, the nature of which are not directly knowable and subject to divergent belief. Secular law applies equally to all persons residing within the section of terra firma that we all share. The authorities have sovereign power. Jail is a real place. So when secular laws are enforced, elaborate procedures are used to best ensure the outcome is fact-based and fair no matter who is subjected to it. Science too has elaborate procedures to best ensure that it is fact-based because it too has a certain authority to have its conclusions treated as likely facts by the government, educational institutions, the media, and so on. So thos things that are imposed upon us all must rise to certain standards and stay within the realm that we all share. ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/50 "2010-12-14T10:32:41Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > My main statement about the FF topic on the whole is this–if you don’t agree with them, then simply say it! I would have much more respect for the man that claimed that “the FF’s were smart dudes but the world is different now and we know better.” The founding fathers were smart dudes, but the world is different now and we know better. The world is growing more secular as science improves living standards and answers some of the unanswerable questions people have traditionally looked to religion for. It will be a slow transition, but there’s no question that science will continue to erode the sway of religion for one simple reason: science delivers miracles. If scientists tell you they will cure diseases, or allow you to see distant corners of the globe through a magic box in your living room, or destroy entire cities in the blink of an eye, they will actually do these things. If your holy man of choice tells you to pray that your cancer will be cured, you will, and what’s the harm, but you’re probably going to take the chemo as well. And if you don’t, your children will after seeing how well the prayer worked. Most of those who claim to favor religion over science don’t actually believe what they’re saying. They still drive their cars and take ibuprofen and post on the internet and expect these miracles of science to work as advertised. When they chips are down, they bet on science too. This battle between science and religion isn’t really a battle. It’s a long, slow, merciless beating. Religion has solid defense and a granite chin, but ultimately no offense. None of us will live to see the knockout, but it’s coming. ---
**Author:** ![SecondJudith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@SecondJudith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecondJudith)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/51 "2010-12-14T11:03:13Z")
> [@ram16](#): > > Doesn’t anybody remember why the first colonists left England in the first place? It was to escape state sponsored religion. That wasn’t the way we were taught it. I thought (broadly, in the religious-persecution version of the US Colonising Narrative) the Puritans left England so they could have their own state sponsored religion the way they wanted it. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/52 "2010-12-14T11:22:22Z")
> [@SecondJudith](#): > > That wasn’t the way we were taught it. I thought (broadly, in the religious-persecution version of the US Colonising Narrative) the Puritans left England so they could have their own state sponsored religion the way they wanted it. And then promptly drummed out Roger Williams, the Quakers and anyone else they didn’t like. The Puritans were not big on religious tolerance (unlike Williams, who was). The Pilgrims (who were not the Puritans; the Puritans came 10-20 years later) left England because of persecution but fled to Leiden which was extremely tolerant. They left Leiden again because 1) they were running out of money and not finding enough work; and 2) the kids were becoming too “Dutch” (i.e. too relaxed about bad behavior). The journey from Leiden to Southampton to Plymouth and thence to America followed. ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/53 "2010-12-14T13:53:15Z")
> [@Dumbguy](#): > > This battle between science and religion isn’t really a battle. It’s a long, slow, merciless beating. Religion has solid defense and a granite chin, but ultimately no offense. None of us will live to see the knockout, but it’s coming. Um, religion is a spent force in much of Western Europe. Saying it is already knocked out is a valid metaphor. Sucks to be living in a theocracy I imagine, but don’t lose hope just yet, change could happen faster than you think. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/54 "2010-12-14T15:43:16Z")
> [@Dumbguy](#): > > This battle between science and religion isn’t really a battle. It’s a long, slow, merciless beating. Religion has solid defense and a granite chin, but ultimately no offense. None of us will live to see the knockout, but it’s coming. I like this analogy but don’t see it that way. I see it more as science trying to hold back the tide of ignorance while religion tries to knock down the dikes. Science shines a light into the dark corners of knowledge, places where religion claims to have absolute, irrefutable information. When they don’t like the information, the religious just close their eyes, call for their fellows to close their eyes as well and all pretend those dark corners are still just as dark. Education is essential in spreading this real knowledge to each generation. It will only take another disaster like the plague to give religion the break it needs to regain power because they don’t need to discover new knowledge, they only need to stop others from doing so. Cecil hasn’t been about to end ignorance in decades of fighting, what chance does science have? I do agree with the OP sort of (if I understand that wall of text). Some nonbelievers have fixated on evolution as an essential subject to be taught in schools. It can only be because the religious have chosen that subject as the battleground. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/55 "2010-12-14T15:48:11Z")
> [@SecondJudith](#): > > That wasn’t the way we were taught it. I thought (broadly, in the religious-persecution version of the US Colonising Narrative) the Puritans left England so they could have their own state sponsored religion the way they wanted it. This. They were escaping religious persecution, but mostly just hoping to do some of their own. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/56 "2010-12-14T15:49:51Z")
> [@SecondJudith](#): > > That wasn’t the way we were taught it. I thought (broadly, in the religious-persecution version of the US Colonising Narrative) the Puritans left England so they could have their own state sponsored religion the way they wanted it. Both interpretations are literally true. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/57 "2010-12-14T16:11:16Z")
> [@Dumbguy](#): > > The founding fathers were smart dudes, but the world is different now and we know better. > > The world is growing more secular as science improves living standards and answers some of the unanswerable questions people have traditionally looked to religion for. Come back when learn secular ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/58 "2010-12-14T16:49:37Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Come back when learn secular How is he wrong, precisely? It isn’t a contradiction to engage in both secular and religious activities (no matter how religious someone is he’s bound up in the secular), but “the world becomes more secular as it becomes less religious” is a valid thing to say: effort previously devoted to religiousness is now, increasingly, devoted to the secular. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/59 "2010-12-14T18:50:10Z")
So science is getting closer to discovering why we are here? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861/60 "2010-12-14T18:53:45Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > So science is getting closer to discovering why we are here? Mu. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-all-ye-secularists/563861.md?page=4)