Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are comparing apples and pencil sharpeners.

In societal terms spiritualism is not the opposite of secularism - theocracy and/or atheocracy are the non-neutral alternatives to secularism, and neither is appealing as both will lead to special privilege and discrimination. Only a secular society can be free of special privileges and discrimination on the basis of whether its citizens are religious, spiritual etc or not.

A secular society recognises the rights of individuals to believe as they wish, but that it should be societally neutral with regards to those beliefs (or lack thereof).

Societal neutrality is achieved when the full life of that society is represented. Yes I want my secular life and concerns represented and yes I want people to represent my world view concerns....and yours.

Your version of secularism is according to you one that is only comfortable with reduced religion which is tolerated as long as atheists do not feel bothered by religion....and when is that going to be satisfied? 
And perhaps it cannot be socially neutral while political appointments continue to be a special case,or white old professional men......but it can to some extent reflect that life is spiritual and secular.

[ProfessorDavey]

Societal neutrality is achieved when the full life of that society is represented.

Indeed, and none is privileged over another - having 26 bishops automatically afforded places in the Lords clearly privileges one aspect of society over another - it is not societally neutral.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your version of secularism is according to you one that is only comfortable with reduced religion which is tolerated as long as atheists do not feel bothered by religion....and when is that going to be satisfied?

And religious people do not feel bothered by atheists.

It will be satisfied when we have a genuinely secular society in which there is no discrimination nor special privileges on the basis of religion or lack thereof.

I don't want special privileges for atheists, I do not want special privileges for humanists, I do not want special privileges for vegetarians, I do not want special privileges for christians, I do not want special privileges for hindus, I do not want special privileges for crystal healers etc etc.

Do you not get it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And religious people do not feel bothered by atheists.

It will be satisfied when we have a genuinely secular society in which there is no discrimination nor special privileges on the basis of religion or lack thereof.

I don't want special privileges for atheists, I do not want special privileges for humanists, I do not want special privileges for vegetarians, I do not want special privileges for christians, I do not want special privileges for hindus, I do not want special privileges for crystal healers etc etc.

Do you not get it.

I get from your sinister idea of a comfortably secular society that there will be little religion with the threat of removal if rights of worship if atheists feel bothered.

[ProfessorDavey]

I get from your sinister idea of a comfortably secular society that there will be little religion with the threat of removal if rights of worship if atheists feel bothered.

Secularism protects religions from threats from atheists just as much as protecting atheists from threats from religions.

A society that allows atheists special privileges that allow them to discriminate against religious people is not a secular society.

But hey - let's worry about levelling the currently unlevel playing field that provides special privileges to religion and religious people rather than a purely hypothetical situation where it becomes unlevelled in the other direction (which I'd oppose and so would all secularists worthy of the name).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Secularism protects religions from threats from atheists just as much as protecting atheists from threats from religions.

A society that allows atheists special privileges that allow them to discriminate against religious people is not a secular society.

But hey - let's worry about levelling the currently unlevel playing field that provides special privileges to religion and religious people rather than a purely hypothetical situation where it becomes unlevelled in the other direction (which I'd oppose and so would all secularists worthy of the name).

The means of "protection" though involve the elimination from forums. The take away here is, the least profile you have the safer you will be and we are looking after you by making you look more like us.

[ProfessorDavey]

The means of "protection" though involve the elimination from forums. The take away here is, the least profile you have the safer you will be and we are looking after you by making you look more like us.

Nope it means elimination of special privileges afforded on the basis of religion or lack thereof. Which therefore means elimination of discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof.

Try to turn this into some kind of hysterical moral panic all you like - it won't work. People understand fairness and unfairness in society - that those people who are the beneficiaries of unfairness fight tooth and nail to maintain their special privileges does really cut much ice, I'm afraid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope it means elimination of special privileges afforded on the basis of religion or lack thereof. Which therefore means elimination of discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof.

Try to turn this into some kind of hysterical moral panic all you like - it won't work. People understand fairness and unfairness in society - that those people who are the beneficiaries of unfairness fight tooth and nail to maintain their special privileges does really cut much ice, I'm afraid.

There is no special privilege over secular Lords because there are er, secular Lords.
There are far more secular Lords than Lords spiritual.
The Lords spiritual could be repopulated to reflect the spiritual demographic.
It could be renamed as the Lords world view.
Should atheists and humanists not wish to take part that will be because their view of what a lord represents is satisfied in the Lords temporal.
Therefore making all Lords Lords temporal specially privileges  their desire.
This special privilege is over and above any other privilege alleged to exist over the current system since there are more Lords temporal than Lords spiritual.

Redefing the Lords spiritual to a more plural and broader definition of societies spiritual life is fairer than just cofe lords spiritual and much fairer than just satisfying atheist understanding and goals for society.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no special privilege over secular Lords because there are er, secular Lords.
There are far more secular Lords than Lords spiritual.

But the Lords temporal come from all walks of life and have a diversity of religions and world views, including not doubt vast numbers of members of the CofE - therefore adding even a single Bishop, automatically appointed to he Lords because they are a senior member of the CofE provides a special privilege to the CofE not afforded to any other religious or non religious organisation.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Lords spiritual could be repopulated to reflect the spiritual demographic.

Which would make it exactly the same as the Lords temporal so what would be the point - take the simply route - abolish them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Redefing the Lords spiritual to a more plural and broader definition of societies spiritual life is fairer than just cofe lords spiritual and much fairer than just satisfying atheist understanding and goals for society.

But you cannot do that is you narrow your view to a 'broader definition of societies spiritual life' as many if not most people in the UK do not consider that they have a spiritual life, even though they might have a world view.

Effectively all you are doing is suggesting that the automatic Lords should be from many religions, but that biases against the vast majority of the UK population who have no active involvement in any religion.

Better to abolish them and allow the membership of the Lords to best represent the UK population without the special privileges and biasing factor of having additional Lords defined by their involvement in organised religion (whether just CofE or a range of religions).

I have no doubt that active members of religions are already way over-represented on the red benches compared to broader society, even without the further biasing factor of the Lords spiritual.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which would make it exactly the same as the Lords temporal so what would be the point - take the simply route - abolish them.

Not everyone is an antitheist Davey seeking to convert society by kidding people that their interest is about privilege and assuring religionists and others that "It's alright friends well see youre ok".

[ProfessorDavey]

Not everyone is an antitheist Davey seeking to convert society by kidding people that their interest is about privilege and assuring religionists and others that "It's alright friends well see youre ok".

Seeking to remove a special privilege doesn't make you an anti-theist - that would involve either wanting to discriminate against religions or provide special privileges to non religious organisations. Abolishing the Lords spiritual is neither of those things - it is about fairness and levelling the playing field.

But if wanting to remove the bishops from the HoLs or being against any religious leader should having an automatic right to seats make a person an anti-theist, well there are rather a lot. Over 60% of the population do not want any religious leader to have an automatic right to seat, compared to just 8% who want to retain the Bishops and 12% who said leaders from other faiths should be added to sit alongside bishops as Lords Spiritual.

But of course those 62% aren't anti-theist (plenty of them are probably theists themselves), no they are people who want fairness and understand special privileges when they see them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seeking to remove a special privilege doesn't make you an anti-theist - that would involve either wanting to discriminate against religions or provide special privileges to non religious organisations. Abolishing the Lords spiritual is neither of those things - it is about fairness and levelling the playing field.

But if wanting to remove the bishops from the HoLs or being against any religious leader should having an automatic right to seats make a person an anti-theist, well there are rather a lot. Over 60% of the population do not want any religious leader to have an automatic right to seat, compared to just 8% who want to retain the Bishops and 12% who said leaders from other faiths should be added to sit alongside bishops as Lords Spiritual.

But of course those 62% aren't anti-theist (plenty of them are probably theists themselves), no they are people who want fairness and understand special privileges when they see them.

I want to get bishops out  if we stick to having a tiny minority of seats other than Lords temporal. But not all of them.
Those interested in privilege and its removal would also be concerned about all privilege in the house of Lords. You are fooling no one.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, you talked about capitalism, not capitalist societies. And the vast majority of capitalist societies we have are also based on some form of theism. Indeed there is a good argument that capitalism arises from a protestant view  of Christianity.  It's a long standing argument - see Durkheim.

And you miss that you that you regard religion as external.

Thanks for that steer NS. I did a search on Durkheim and found this interesting blog comparing Weber's and Durkheim's views in the area of religion and its role in shaping social behaviour and history -

https://roadstarsociology.blogspot.com/2008/12/comparison-of-weber-and-durkheim-in.html

Obviously I will need to look into Weber and Durkheim further as this is just an overview of why religion might have influenced different societies and how societies in the West  adopted a more capitalist approach compared to the East.

And an alternative theory is in Ian Morris' book "Why the West Rules for Now" which identifies geography rather than social, cultural or political influences as being the main driver of economic progress. Though East and West seem arbitrary abstract constructs.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/30/why-the-west-rules-ian-morris-review

[ProfessorDavey]

I want to get bishops out  if we stick to having a tiny minority of seats other than Lords temporal. But not all of them.

I'm not saying that Bishops shouldn't be allowed to be members of the HoLs - what I am saying is that they should not be automatically appointed as a member - that's the issue with the Lords spiritual - they are automatically appointed unlike every other peer.

If the ABofC wants to be a peer - fine by me, he should be nominated and subject to the same scrutiny and appointment process as all other peers (other than the Lords spiritual).

And if you retain a tiny number of automatically appointed peers (that is the key point about the Lords spiritual), but broaden it beyond CofE bishops, how is that going to be automatic - who decides which roles in which organisations automatically confer a seat. And regardless, this can only work on the basis of 'organisations' not individuals - and in doing so it systemically discriminates against people whose 'world-view' doesn't align itself with joining an organisation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not saying that Bishops shouldn't be allowed to be members of the HoLs - what I am saying is that they should not be automatically appointed as a member - that's the issue with the Lords spiritual - they are automatically appointed unlike every other peer.

If the ABofC wants to be a peer - fine by me, he should be nominated and subject to the same scrutiny and appointment process as all other peers (other than the Lords spiritual).

And if you retain a tiny number of automatically appointed peers (that is the key point about the Lords spiritual), but broaden it beyond CofE bishops, how is that going to be automatic - who decides which roles in which organisations automatically confer a seat. And regardless, this can only work on the basis of 'organisations' not individuals - and in doing so it systemically discriminates against people whose 'world-view' doesn't align itself with joining an organisation.

Who would sit in the Lords non temporal would be up to the various world view groups them selves. Composition of what world views sit would be decided demographically..

Each would then be sworn in acknowledging that they are not Lords temporal.

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks for that steer NS. I did a search on Durkheim and found this interesting blog comparing Weber's and Durkheim's views in the area of religion and its role in shaping social behaviour and history -

https://roadstarsociology.blogspot.com/2008/12/comparison-of-weber-and-durkheim-in.html

Obviously I will need to look into Weber and Durkheim further as this is just an overview of why religion might have influenced different societies and how societies in the West  adopted a more capitalist approach compared to the East.

And an alternative theory is in Ian Morris' book "Why the West Rules for Now" which identifies geography rather than social, cultural or political influences as being the main driver of economic progress. Though East and West seem arbitrary abstract constructs.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/30/why-the-west-rules-ian-morris-review

Yes, that's a good blog. It highlights the main difference between Weber and Durkheim about that question  of the externality of religion. I find it odd that there are a numbet of atheists here who seem to regard religion as some sort of external cause.


Based on the book review, I think I may be somewhat in agreement with the ideas of Morris, at least superficially. Searching for direct reasons for advances in history is fraught with trying to avoid post hoc ergo propter reasons, and it',s easy to look at the big ticket items such as religions as the drivers. To refer to another thread, it may be that a society at any one time may for a variety of reasons have a greater phenotypic plasticity which allow it to advance but I think these are often really comparatively small differences in what we regard as advance. (I should add that am using the idea of phenotypic plasticity in this context completely metaphorically).

To take an example, it is not clear that anyone in 1945 would after the defeat of Japan predicted how quickly it would grow into a major economy, and one that did so by embracing a 'westernised' view along with a maintenance of many of its social structures. 

[Nearly Sane]

Who would sit in the Lords non temporal would be up to the various world view groups them selves. Composition of what world views sit would be decided demographically..

Each would then be sworn in acknowledging that they are not Lords temporal.

So what definition of a world view are you going to use?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what definition of a world view are you going to use?

Don't know yet.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who would sit in the Lords non temporal would be up to the various world view groups them selves.

Firstly, what on earth is a world view group - sounds suspiciously like organised religions to me as I suspect most people with a world view do not join an organisation (a world view group) but treat it as a largely personal and private matter.

Secondly, certainly in the UK the whole trend has been away from being seen to be part of an organised religion (or world view group) - so to reform the Lords to base it on organised groups who are increasingly losing their influence within broader society seems bonkers.

And finally and most importantly - if you have 26 places, who decides which world view group is important enough to get an automatic seat (or seats) and which don't. There are surely hundreds of groups of this kind, including countless religious denominations and sects which in an increasingly fragmented and diverse society each represent tiny proportions of the population. So which world view groups are included and which aren't. And what about the proportion of the population (almost certainly the majority) who look at them all and say 'well none of the them represent my world view sufficiently for me to be part of that world view group'.

[ProfessorDavey]

While I don't agree with the notion of the Lords spiritual I do understand (but disagree) with the logic.

Effectively it goes like this.

1. The CofE is the established church and therefore represents all people
2. Therefore the presence of CofE Bishops in the Lords (who represent all people) means that the spiritual dimensions of everyone is covered.

Now of course it is flawed because the reality is that the CofE only really represents its approx. 1million members, but the logic at least has some merit on the basis of established church.

So actually dividing up the 26 seats amongst various religious groups (as is often suggested) solves nothing but also destroys the only logic of the original system as these organisations are not the established church, merely member organisations with no special national remit. So if you added in a bunch of other religions you've lost the 'the CofE is the established church and therefore represents all people' argument, but you probably only increase the proportion of the population who those groups represent (in other words their members) to perhaps 10% of the population.

So in my view the 'share it around other religions' argument is worse than the status quo which at least has some bizarre logic on established church and tradition grounds to recommend it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First of all. I use the word worldview as it is imho more inclusive
Hand the term the lords spiritual.

The logic of having another set of lords other than the lords temporal is that people need more than their physical needs met or more importantly represented. This deserves a voice and so I would Include atheists and humanists as members of this.

If one says I am represented adequately by the Lords temporal then wanting to remove what little representation those who do not think they are sufficient is a bit perverse imho.

I don't know why you are making what looks like an argumentum and populum.

[ProfessorDavey]

f one says I am represented adequately by the Lords temporal then wanting to remove what little representation those who do not think they are sufficient is a bit perverse imho.

Not at all, because the reason to remove the Lords spiritual is about fairness and creating a level playing field.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't know why you are making what looks like an argumentum and populum.

No - it is you who seem to think that the Lords spiritual should somehow reflect the variety of world views and as they are automatically appointed on the basis of a role in a different organisation you are therefore obliged to try to explain the approach to determining which organisations get an automatic seat or seats and which do not.

So I'll ask again - in you proposal how (and who) determines which organisations (world view groups as you call them) are entitled to an automatic seat and which do not.