SECULAR, what is it? And is it bad? WhyWhynot?

[Jayne]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't have to "take that up" with anyone. I just have to provide rational arguments and supporting examples in the context in which I am engaging (i.e. in this thread where we are discussion the definition). 

Your argument here is an Appeal to Authority (a.k.a. an Appeal to Expertise). This type of argument is recognized as a logic fallacy because experts/authorities can be wrong for many reasons. It therefore is illogical to conclude an expert is correct, just because they are an expert. Presumably, an expert will have a better-informed argument, however, logically speaking, it is the argument that matters - and not the credential. It is therefore not technically rational to conclude oneself correct merely because an expert (or authority) agrees with them. The reasoning itself must be presented, examined, scrutinized, argued, defended etc.

 

OK - I provided arguments demonstrating why such a definition is both meaningless and useless. I will be happy to fairly consider your counter-arguments.

 

Brother, why NOT listen to definitions from reputable sources?  I don't care how you define the word.  I defined the way the average person does and how the compilers of dictionaries and lexicons do.

If you don't care for that definition, that's fine with me.

There is a phrase for defining words by what they are not. Definition by negation.  What is hard?  Not soft like a marshmallow.  What is quiet?  Not loud like bullhorn.

I'm content with what Webster says.  If you are not - I'm content with that too.

[Tristen]

5 hours ago, Jayne said:

Brother, why NOT listen to definitions from reputable sources?

I am happy to hear definitions from any source, but if a provided definition does not conform to logic, then the definition has no practical usefulness. The purpose of a definition is to tell us what a word means - not to tell us what a word doesn't mean.

 

6 hours ago, Jayne said:

I defined the way the average person does and how the compilers of dictionaries and lexicons do.

In reality, you are appealing to the most simplistic, and illogical, interpretation of the definitions. The definitions don't disagree with me - even though any fail to clarify the required nuance to make the definition meaningful.

Is a rock religious or secular? According to your definition, the rock is secular. But what if the rock is being used in a religious landmark, or a place for religious sacrifices - is the rock religious or secular? But then, what if the rock is being used to ascribe a date to the geological layer, or in a photograph demonstrating the beauty of nature?

Is the rock secular or religious?

The answer: the rock itself is neither secular nor religious. Secularity or religiosity are ascribed to the rock based on the intention of the user. Until that intention is attributed, the rock is just a rock - independent of any secular or religious affiliation.

That is, the common "not religious" definition of "secular" refers to the ideas/concepts/beliefs that are juxtaposed against (or in direct contrast to) religious ideas/concepts/beliefs. It is oversimplistic to interpret "secular" as anything and everything we don't associate with religion.

Or else I could be just as obtuse. Since God created everything, everything is "religious". And now we have 2 useless definitions.

 

6 hours ago, Jayne said:

If you don't care for that definition, that's fine with me.

Are we not having a conversation?

The issue is not about me having, or not having, "care for that definition". I have demonstrated why the definition you propose defies logic. You have rendered the word to be both meaningless and logically useless.

 

6 hours ago, Jayne said:

There is a phrase for defining words by what they are not. Definition by negation.  What is hard?  Not soft like a marshmallow.

It is perfectly fine to try and explain an idea using juxtaposition, but that is not a definition.

Consider that, "Not soft like a marshmallow" could also mean "soft" like a kitten, or flexible like rubber, or bright like the sun, or green like a leaf, or hot like fire, or gentle, or cool, or wet etc. All these logically fulfil the definition of "Not soft like a marshmallow".

The definition of "hard" (as it pertains to a physical property) is rigid, firm, solid etc.

 

7 hours ago, Jayne said:

I'm content with what Webster says.  If you are not - I'm content with that too.

It is telling that Merriam-Webster defines secular alongside the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic'.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/what-do-secular-atheist-agnostic-mean

In that, there is a recognition that secularism represents a parallel ideology to atheism and agnosticism. 

 

[Jayne]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/what-do-secular-atheist-agnostic-mean

In that, there is a recognition that secularism represents a parallel ideology to atheism and agnosticism. 

 

Again, the definition there is "not religious".

Brother, I'm nor going to beat this dead horse any more.  You are not wrong and neither am I.  Good day.

[Tristen]

5 hours ago, Jayne said:

Again, the definition there is "not religious".

Brother, I'm nor going to beat this dead horse any more.  You are not wrong and neither am I.  Good day.

Lol. Since you inflicted one last strike before deciding shut things down, I feel I am permitted to respond.

The question is about how we are interpreting "not religious". 

- You are interpreting "not religious" to mean anything and everything that is not overtly associated with religion. I have demonstrated through logic and reason why that is not a useful definition.

- My position: The term "religious" pertains to an idea, a paradigm, a conception, an ideological perspective - i.e. that of association with a supernatural belief. Therefore, "not religious" refers to the counter-perspective to that of the "religious" perspective. "Religious" or "secular" ideas can be applied to anything, but the things themselves are not intrinsically either "religious" nor "secular" - as I have also demonstrated through rational argument.

 

 

[Tristen]

On 9/23/2024 at 7:06 AM, Neighbor said:

The idea of "secular" activity and it being being bad or unproductive must have some cultural basis, and require a definition of what is secular  too; shouldn't it? 

 

Just to wrap-up my thoughts on the matter with regards to the OP:

I think the reason for the negative connotation of "secular" among Christians is because we realize that "secular" represents the counter-perspective (or counter-paradigm) to the "religious" perspective (including the "religious" perspective of Christian belief). 

Therefore, even though "secular" and "religious" occasionally arrive at the same conclusions, they more often arrive at conflicting conclusions. More specifically, "secular" conclusions often conflict with what God has taught Christians about reality - and therefore represents an intrinsically deceptive motivation/perspective.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

On 9/24/2024 at 10:01 PM, Jayne said:

There is a phrase for defining words by what they are not. Definition by negation.  What is hard?  Not soft like a marshmallow.  What is quiet?  Not loud like bullhorn.

You're right. This pops up a lot amongst our words that have Greek origins and start with "a-". Apathy, without feeling. Amoral, without morality. Agnostic, without knowledge. Outside of words of Greek origin or influence we have a whole slew of words starting with "un" and "ir". Unconcerned. Unfaithful. Irreverent. Irrelevant. It goes on and on.

[Neighbor]

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

Just to wrap-up my thoughts on the matter with regards to the OP:

I think the reason for the negative connotation of "secular" among Christians is because we realize that "secular" represents the counter-perspective (or counter-paradigm) to the "religious" perspective (including the "religious" perspective of Christian belief). 

Therefore, even though "secular" and "religious" occasionally arrive at the same conclusions, they more often arrive at conflicting conclusions. More specifically, "secular" conclusions often conflict with what God has taught Christians about reality - and therefore represents an intrinsically deceptive motivation/perspective.

 

Hi, But what good is found in religion(s)?

Further: Is Christianity ( or being Christian ), a religion? 

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, AnOrangeCat said:

You're right. This pops up a lot amongst our words that have Greek origins and start with "a-". Apathy, without feeling. Amoral, without morality. Agnostic, without knowledge. Outside of words of Greek origin or influence we have a whole slew of words starting with "un" and "ir". Unconcerned. Unfaithful. Irreverent. Irrelevant. It goes on and on.

This does not relate to the context of the debate in this thread where "secular" is being defined as everything and anything in reality that is not overtly "religious".

For example, "Agnostic" does not mean everything and anything in all of reality that is not overtly "knowledge". "Agnostic" specifically refers to the faith paradigm claiming that the truth about the reality of god(s) cannot be known. That is what the "without knowledge" stands for.

Likewise, Atheist does not refer to anything that is not God - but rather the faith perspective (worldview/paradigm) that reality exists "without" god(s).

Furthermore, negation forms of words mean the opposite of an already-defined term. They do not mean everything in all of reality that is not the defined term. The negation form itself is not a definition, but merely a logic switch.

Consider the example, "unconcerned". The defined term 'concerned' refers specifically to a human emotive state (e.g. anxious or worried). Whereas "unconcerned" means the opposite human emotive state (e.g. calm or relaxed). To suggest "unconcerned" means everything in all of reality that does not fit into the category of 'concerned' would render the word logically useless. Negation forms are useful because we all know that the negation is specifically juxtaposed against the defined term.

E.g. An apple does not fit into the category of 'concerned' (i.e. apples are not 'concerned'). Therefore, if someone is "unconcerned", it means they are an apple. 

That is not how definitions work (for hopefully obvious reasons).

 

 

 

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, Neighbor said:

Hi, But what good is found in religion(s)?

Further: Is Christianity ( or being Christian ), a religion? 

Lol. I wonder if this needs its own thread.

"Religion" generally refers to an organized, systematic set of agreed-upon supernatural beliefs. In that general sense, Christianity is a "religion".

However, within Christianity we sometimes find a negative connotation of "religion" to mean 'a legalistic adherence to a set of rules determined by supernatural beliefs'. In this sense, "religion/religious" is contrary to the Christian concept of grace.

If one is a Christian, we are religious in the general sense, but hopefully not religious by the legalistic connotation of the word.

I personally avoid the legalistic connotation of "religion" - especially when dealing with the world - as it gives the impression that we are trying to deceitfully dodge a self-evident implication of our beliefs - and therefore becomes a source of confusion and derision.

- But maybe it works for others. One should do as the Lord leads.