1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: − + − * [[Opposition to Christianity]]+ + + + + + + + + +
→Secular ethics
Hunter Baker in ''The End of Secularism'', distinguishes between pluralism and secularism, and argues that while the latter has rejected religious foundations of traditional morality, yet secularism itself is an ideology based upon certain philosophical foundations, with its own presuppositions. Rather than being the impartial referee it is promoted to be, when this becomes the orthodox ideology of a nation, it works toward censoring that which opposes it, stifling religious life and discourse.
Hunter Baker in ''The End of Secularism'', distinguishes between pluralism and secularism, and argues that while the latter has rejected religious foundations of traditional morality, yet secularism itself is an ideology based upon certain philosophical foundations, with its own presuppositions. Rather than being the impartial referee it is promoted to be, when this becomes the orthodox ideology of a nation, it works toward censoring that which opposes it, stifling religious life and discourse.
==See also==
==Secular ethics==
{{Main|Secular ethics|Secular religion}}
[[George Holyoake]]'s 1896 publication ''English Secularism'' defines secularism as:
<blockquote>
Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.<ref>Holyoake, George J. (1896). ''English Secularism.'' Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company.</ref></blockquote>
Holyoake held that secularism and [[secular ethics]] should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong [[freethought]] and atheism. In this he disagreed with [[Charles Bradlaugh]], and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.
Contemporary ethical debate is often described as "secular", with the work of [[Derek Parfit]] and [[Peter Singer]], and even the whole field of contemporary bioethics, having been described or self-described as explicitly secular or non-religious.<ref>{{Citation |publisher = Clarendon Press |isbn = 0198246153 |publication-place = Oxford [Oxfordshire] |title = Reasons and persons |url = http://openlibrary.org/books/OL3172889M/Reasons_and_persons |author = Derek Parfit |publication-date = 1984 |id = 0198246153 }}</ref><ref>[[Brian Leiter]], "[http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/06/is-secular-moral-theory-really-relatively-young.html Is "Secular Moral Theory" Really Relatively Young?], ''Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog'', June 28, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Richard Dawkins]], "[http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_18_2 When Religion Steps on Science's Turf: The Alleged Separation Between the Two Is Not So Tidy]", ''Free Inquiry'' vol. 18, no. 2.</ref><ref>{{Cite pmid|16423736}}</ref>
==Further reading==
==Further reading==
* Emmet Kennedy, "The Tangled History of Secularism," ''Modern Age'' (Winter 2000) Volume 42, Number 1; [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/42_01/kennedy.pdf online edition]
* Emmet Kennedy, "The Tangled History of Secularism," ''Modern Age'' (Winter 2000) Volume 42, Number 1; [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/42_01/kennedy.pdf online edition]