That's Where the Truth is Found

[lightly]

hmm. Right, we can make no determinations of a universe, or anything else, we can't "examine" first hand or learn of second hand? ( I've never been to India, but i've learned the truth of it's factual existence.)

Recognize ... (re-cognate) infers some familiarity with what is being REcognized? that's ok i guess,,, but When a fact is Discovered to be true (water boils at 212º at sea level) .. what are we discovering/recognizing ? A concept? or a reality?

[Leonardo]

hmm. Right, we can make no determinations of a universe, or anything else, we can't "examine" first hand or learn of second hand? ( I've never been to India, but i've learned the truth of it's factual existence.)

Things which you can observe for yourself, you can acknowledge as a truth. You have probably met people from India, and can even travel there yourself. Basic geography also confirms to you the existence of that nation. The existence of India is recognised by yourself as true.

While, technically, you could not say India exists is a 'truth' unless you actually had first-hand experience of the country, there is sufficient evidence for you to accept the truth of its' existence without that.

But what about how various religions define divinity - which of them is telling a (or the) "truth"? Is there any evidence of the existence of a divine being?

Recognize ... (re-cognate) infers some familiarity with what is being REcognized? that's ok i guess,,, but When a fact is Discovered to be true (water boils at 212º at sea level) .. what are we discovering/recognizing ? A concept? or a reality?

When we acknowledge something as 'true' we are acknowledging its' existence, factuality or "correctness". A truth can be both an abstract or concrete thing.

However, while we might acknowledge something as 'true', we might still be wrong. Our recognition of a "truth" depends on our knowledge and ability to reason with that knowledge. And, as knowledge is built on discovered "truths", you can see that all we know might actually be a castle built on foundations of sand. This is the essence of epistemology - the study of what "knowing" is.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Leonardo

[lightly]

Things which you can observe for yourself, you can acknowledge as a truth. You have probably met people from India, and can even travel there yourself. Basic geography also confirms to you the existence of that nation. The existence of India is recognised by yourself as true.

While, technically, you could not say India exists is a 'truth' unless you actually had first-hand experience of the country, there is sufficient evidence for you to accept the truth of its' existence without that.

But what about how various religions define divinity - which of them is telling a (or the) "truth"? Is there any evidence of the existence of a divine being?

When we acknowledge something as 'true' we are acknowledging its' existence, factuality or "correctness". A truth can be both an abstract or concrete thing.

However, while we might acknowledge something as 'true', we might still be wrong. Our recognition of a "truth" depends on our knowledge and ability to reason with that knowledge. And, as knowledge is built on discovered "truths", you can see that all we know might actually be a castle built on foundations of sand. This is the essence of epistemology - the study of what "knowing" is.

Somehow... Yes! to all of the above...

As far as i know, there is no objective evidence for the existence of a divine being. Only subjective conceptualizations taken on faith? Therefore various definitions of divinity are neither truth or lie, only opinion?

Yup, "Truth" isn't Always right . But , "as knowledge builds on discovered truths " , is it truth that is found to be wrong.. or the erroneous acknowledgments of previous "truths"? . . ..(untruth? ohno .. that sounds twice as confusing as truth!)

[Mr Walker]

Not less-informed, lightly. In any argument involving subjective phenomena, all arguments are as informed as any other. That is not to say all arguments have equal validity, however.

And unless that fall is acknowledged, it is not a truth. It only became a truth when you acknowleged it by stating "It still fell."

"Truth" is an anthropocentric concept - insofar as the only "truth" we are able to discern depends on our perception (or recognition) of it. As I said, truth is not the existence of things, it is the acknowledging (recognition) of things' existence. This has nothing to do with the fallacy of Solipsism, but to do with Subjectivism and specifically the concept of philosophical realism. Yes, an objective reality exists, but the truth of that reality is only what our perception tells us it is.

I see lightly asked my next question? . Then we have to disagree on the nature of truth. Truth is like a fact. It exists and existed long before human self awareness became aware of its existence, and will exist long after we have gone . Otherwise you reach the philosophical position that all existence and reality is dependent on the observer. An obvious fallacy because it often existed before the observer entered the environment. Otherwise we would not exist to observe it.

[Mr Walker]

How do you know that no one cares about the public prayers in school assemblies? My understanding is that there are a lot of people who care and are insulted.

That was an ironic or deliberately tongue in cheek comment. Australians have a very laid back attitude to religion unlike their sport, about which they are passionate, and unlike America. Thus, ironically we can have public prayers in schools despite the exact same wording on the matter in our constitution BECAUSE we are more relaxed about it. Very few people get upset at the link between state and religious observance in Australia. Even quite small government schools like my own have a govt. approved and funded chaplain or other religious counsellor, and again few people get too fussed about it.

Policy in australia is to ensure equality and inclusion of all religious beliefs, not separation and exclusion from the arms of govt., such as govt. schools. There are some individuals who do not approve because they do not approve of religion or belief per se and would like to see al govt connection with religions done away with But some of our major charities are combined govt religious organisations and do work such as training and seeking work for the unemployed All church schools are strongly fnded by the govt which in return mandates that they provide the same form of education as state schools Lots of hospitals, nursing homes, and even colleges/universities are church run and govt funded

[Mr Walker]

I'm not sure if this is the reference here, but the old question about the tree falling unheard in the forest is a linguistic problem, not one of more basic philosophy.

There are really two definitions for the phrase "to make a sound." We don't notice the difference because rarely is it important. The first definition is "cause compression waves in the air." In this case the falling tree makes a sound.

The other definition is "register noise in the mind of a sentient being." In this case it doesn't. The confusion of the two definitions creates a feeling of discomfort that we identify as paradox, but it is really just use of language.

The tree falls whether anyone with eardrums is there to hear it or not. It also "makes a sound" when it hits the ground or strikes other trees. Again putting someone with eardrums there to record the event changes nothing. Both the tree falling, and the striking of the ground occur. If there was no sound without a human present, then a person standing there would not hear it if they were present.

This philosophical paradox is NOT quite as simple as you relate. It goes to the existence of anything that is not observed. As I said, there is a strong philosophical and even scientific position that, when you cannot see your lunch box, it ceases to "exist"; because its existence is dependent on your observation.

[Mr Walker]

Things which you can observe for yourself, you can acknowledge as a truth. You have probably met people from India, and can even travel there yourself. Basic geography also confirms to you the existence of that nation. The existence of India is recognised by yourself as true.

While, technically, you could not say India exists is a 'truth' unless you actually had first-hand experience of the country, there is sufficient evidence for you to accept the truth of its' existence without that.

But what about how various religions define divinity - which of them is telling a (or the) "truth"? Is there any evidence of the existence of a divine being?

When we acknowledge something as 'true' we are acknowledging its' existence, factuality or "correctness". A truth can be both an abstract or concrete thing.

However, while we might acknowledge something as 'true', we might still be wrong. Our recognition of a "truth" depends on our knowledge and ability to reason with that knowledge. And, as knowledge is built on discovered "truths", you can see that all we know might actually be a castle built on foundations of sand. This is the essence of epistemology - the study of what "knowing" is.

That's a circular argument Certainly if truth fits your definition it is correct. But if truth is an independent fact, then truths about india and another universe exist The statement "gravity is a constant" is either a truth or a untruth. So are any statements about india or other universes, whether we can ascertain this yet or not. Eg "Other beings are silicon based." may be a true statement even as I make it now without any knowledge if it is true. Just as the first person who said , "The earth rotates around the sun" was stating the/a truth, whether anyone knew it or not. Or the first person to say "Men are descended from primates like apes"

The truth of the statement "god exists" depends on defining what we mean by the term "god" before we can ascertain its truth. For example few would disagree that god exists as a reality in the minds and hearts of many people, but if I say "god exists as a physical intelligent entity'" people can argue if that can really be "god."

Edited October 26, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

But truth is not about existence, it's about the recognition of that existence. I don't deny that things I don't know about exist, but if someone was to say to me "This thing exists" and not be able to demonstrate to me that the thing does exist, then the existence of that thing is not a "truth" to me.

This is the crux of our difference What you believe to be true or even know to be true is not all that is true. Certainly you and I may know something to be true. But if I know it to be true and you do not, it is still true, and vice versa.

You can't hold different truths to me, only different beliefs about what IS true.

[Labyrinthus]

Please tell me then, MW, why those societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms are based on secular philosophies?

Your defence of religion as being more 'noble' in it's purpose is admirable, if misguided. A quick scan of history will show us that societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory without exception.

And the belief that some religions inculcates that human beings are somehow more 'worthy' than the rest of life on the planet has only led to disastrous mismanagement of our environment by hubris

I do not think any of this is true.

Secular Atheisitic cultures were established by the most oppressive and horrendous mass murderers in the history of mankind. (See Stalin.Mao)

The French Terror was hardly a model of tolerance, peace, love and understanding.

To say that "societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory without exception" is patently false, relatively speaking.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Labyrinthus

[lightly]

Speaking of the tree fall making noise? I was thinking about that earlier..lol The falling tree makes sound, of course, because sound is waves.

People attempt to reason that sound is not sound until it is heard . That's where the confusion occurs.. Hearing is NOT sound.. it is the ability to detect sound waves.

Waves, unheard, or above or below audible range are still sound . *solved* lol

[Labyrinthus]

Waves, unheard, or above or below audible range are still sound . *solved* lol

This is where once again, the "My Big TOE" by Tom Campbell has an intriguing perspective.

The tree falling is only a reality to the degree that some Conscious perception encounters it. The landscape in front of us is built up as we enter it and it does not really exist until we do.

Both Atheist and Faithful readers are encouraged to read this free eBook on Google Books.

[Labyrinthus]

Yes, I do believe in the concept of causality. And to answer your question about the Creator, if He was caused to exist He would not be the Creator but the One Who caused it to exist. And do not take that chain back because it will be tedious and a wasting of time.

Now if the BBT was not the closest-to-the truth achievement ever reached by Science we have only morons for scientists since the majority declare that the BBT brought the evidence they needed for the beginning of the universe. Read "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan and many others have given the same testimony in books and in the History channel which I have read and observed.

Ben, the next time they tell you to check out Hume suggest they look at this;

"The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause. This simple demand for thoroughgoing intelligibility yields some of the boldest and most challenging theses in the history of metaphysics and epistemology."

[....]

"Parmenides, another pre-Socratic, implicitly appeals to the PSR when he claims that the world cannot have come into existence because then it would have come from nothing. (Fragment B8 9–10) Nothing comes from nothing. If it did, Parmenides asks, why did it not come into existence at an earlier or a later time? Parmenides appears to reason as follows. If the world came into existence, the actual moment that it came into existence would be arbitrary. It would be a brute fact. There are no brute facts (the PSR). So, the world did not come into existence."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

[Labyrinthus]

Oh it just strikes me that God forgot to mention his presence in the Universe while He was making it.

The Producer of a movie does not inform the DVD that he created it.

[Leonardo]

I see lightly asked my next question? . Then we have to disagree on the nature of truth. Truth is like a fact. It exists and existed long before human self awareness became aware of its existence, and will exist long after we have gone . Otherwise you reach the philosophical position that all existence and reality is dependent on the observer. An obvious fallacy because it often existed before the observer entered the environment. Otherwise we would not exist to observe it.

No, it didn't. "Truth" is not the existence of something - it is the recognition of that something's existence. Thus it cannot have existed prior to that recognition.

Truth has no existence in and of itself, except as an intellectual concept born of conscious recognition.

lightly,

As far as i know, there is no objective evidence for the existence of a divine being. Only subjective conceptualizations taken on faith? Therefore various definitions of divinity are neither truth or lie, only opinion?

Indeed, yet the followers of various religion all proclaim the "truth" about what their religion says regarding divinity. While we can acknowledge that it is true those religions say something of divinity, we cannot acknowledge that what they say about divinity is true. See how subjective "truth" is?

Edited October 27, 2013 by Leonardo

[Leonardo]

I do not think any of this is true.

Secular Atheisitic cultures were established by the most oppressive and horrendous mass murderers in the history of mankind. (See Stalin.Mao)

The French Terror was hardly a model of tolerance, peace, love and understanding.

To say that "societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory without exception" is patently false, relatively speaking.

I never mentioned 'atheism' when I spoke of secular societies/cultures, so your objection is irrelevant. And I never stated that all secular societies were equal in their promotion of equality and freedoms. I stated that those societies which promoted the greatest equality and freedoms were inevitably secular in their governance.

And please produce the name of one 'religious' (i.e. non-secular) culture which has not been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory because of the beliefs promoted through it's governance.

[lightly]

No, it didn't. "Truth" is not the existence of something - it is the recognition of that something's existence. Thus it cannot have existed prior to that recognition.

Truth has no existence in and of itself, except as an intellectual concept born of conscious recognition.

lightly,

Indeed, yet the followers of various religion all proclaim the "truth" about what their religion says regarding divinity. While we can acknowledge that it is true those religions say something of divinity, we cannot acknowledge that what they say about divinity is true. See how subjective "truth" is?

I see how subjective truth can be , yes. Divinity cannot be observed. Can we acknowledge that the sun exists in fact and in truth?

The sun existed before we did... True? ... or False? ... can some things be TRUE without being A TRUTH, as in understood to be true?

( I tried to warn y'all that i may never "get it" )

objective |əbˈjektiv|adjective1 (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: historians try to be objective and impartial.Contrasted with subjective.• not dependent on the mind for existence; actual: a matter of objective fact.

truth |tro͞oTH|noun ( pl. truths |tro͞oT͟Hz, tro͞oTHs| )the quality or state of being true: he had to accept the truth of her accusation.• (also the truth) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality:

true |tro͞o|adjective ( truer , truest )1 in accordance with fact or reality:

Edited October 27, 2013 by lightly

[Frank Merton]

I would say there are objective truths, even though they may appear subjective (such as I wake up in the morning and my mouth is dry and I want a drink of water) and then there are religious teachings (the Buddha reached Enlightenment and Buddha-hood while meditating under a certain tree). The latter should never be attached to the word "truth," as that presumes way too much.

[Doug1029]

I do not think any of this is true.

Secular Atheisitic cultures were established by the most oppressive and horrendous mass murderers in the history of mankind. (See Stalin.Mao)

The French Terror was hardly a model of tolerance, peace, love and understanding.

To say that "societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory without exception" is patently false, relatively speaking.

Throughout history the church, ever mindful of who was paying its bills, supported the rulers against the common people. It comforted the masses with promises of "pie in the sky when you die." In Medieval England it was the custom for the oldest brother to inherit the throne and appoint the second oldest brother as bishop - hardly the separation of church and state. The government collected taxes, a portion of which went to the church. Religion was part of the system that starved the peasants for the benefit of the government and church authorities.

The atheistic nature of Marxist governments was a reaction to abuses by the Church. To call these societies "Secular Atheistic" ignores the role of religion in establishing them in the first place and in perpetuating them once they became established. Stahlin was raised in the Orthodox church; he decreed that the shrine to Jesus present in most people's homes be replaced by one honoring himself - an act of an egomaniac, not one of an atheist.

Mao believed in animistic gods. Once again, the Revolution was spurred on by abuses from religion - especially by the British who professed Christianity, but didn't follow Jesus' teachings.

The French Terror was a reaction to the crown which was completely out of touch with the lives of the people ("Let them eat cake."). Tax money which should have been spent on making people's lives better, was spent on an expensive and needless war - with the connivance of the church (Jesuits). Revolutionaries are hard people. In shaping themselves into weapons with which to overthrow their governments, they lose the ability to compromise. As a result, they are frequently unable to establish the peace after their revolution and resort to killing each other. That is what happened in France. And Napoleon, a devout Catholic, was hardly an improvement over the revolution he overthrew.

"To say that 'societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory without exception'" may be patently false, but neither is the opposite true.

Doug

Long haired preachers come out every night

And they tell you what's wrong and what's right.

When you ask them for something to eat

They answer in voices so sweet:

You will eat by-and-by

In that glorious land above the sky.

Work and pray; live on hay.

You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

--Joe Hill

Edited October 27, 2013 by Doug1029

[Labyrinthus]

I never mentioned 'atheism' when I spoke of secular societies/cultures, so your objection is irrelevant. And I never stated that all secular societies were equal in their promotion of equality and freedoms. I stated that those societies which promoted the greatest equality and freedoms were inevitably secular in their governance.

And please produce the name of one 'religious' (i.e. non-secular) culture which has not been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory because of the beliefs promoted through it's governance.

Atheism is a relevant part of the reply as a response to your claim about "religious" societies. You said "societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive..." -- and I replied to that, figuring that Atheism is the basis for secular societies (maybe you can identify a couple secular societies that weren't established by ahteists). Right now I can think of secular nations such as China and Russia (which are rabidly anti-religionist... and atheist) ... can you name a few others?

I will have to ask you to be more specific now. Please identify at least three societies that based on secular philosophies (seven would be better) so that I can more specifically refute the bogus claim about "why those societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms are based on secular philosophies?" Please give examples to support your claim that, "societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory without exception". Please compare with the USSR/Russia and China.

I think you can see here that your claims are nonsense and unsupportable. You may retract your false claims now.

Please tell me then, MW, why those societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms are based on secular philosophies?

Your defence of religion as being more 'noble' in it's purpose is admirable, if misguided. A quick scan of history will show us that societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory without exception.

And the belief that some religions inculcates that human beings are somehow more 'worthy' than the rest of life on the planet has only led to disastrous mismanagement of our environment by hubris

Human beings are more worthy imho and, Leonardo, just in case you hadn't noticed?... "disastrous mismanagement of our environment" is MUCH worse in countries like CHINA, Russia and other post USSR nations.

[Labyrinthus]

[...]Stahlin was raised in the Orthodox church; he decreed that the shrine to Jesus present in most people's homes be replaced by one honoring himself - an act of an egomaniac, not one of an atheist.

Mao believed in animistic gods. Once again, the Revolution was spurred on by abuses from religion - especially by the British who professed Christianity, but didn't follow Jesus' teachings.

[...]

Napoleon, a devout Catholic, was hardly an improvement over the revolution he overthrew.

[...]

"To say that 'societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory without exception'" may be patently false, but neither is the opposite true.

Heheheh. Where do people *get* this stuff?! Napolean was NOT a devout Catholic. He marched on Rome and took the Pope prisoner, fer cryin out loud....

All societies were formed around shamanistic tribal deities and then expanded in various fashions according to their organizational skill. Weren't all societies religious up till about the last century?

So simply recounting any and all abusive activity by leaders and then blaming it on their childhood religion is not a valid argument. Correlation does not imply causation.

On the contrary, the more recent formation of secular nations reveal the non religious to be the most brutal, murderous, environment trashing places on earth.

And... just FYI, Stalin definitely taught atheism to school children as part of the curriculum.

"State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as gosateizm"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

[Leonardo]

Atheism is a relevant part of the reply as a response to your claim about "religious" societies. You said "societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive..." -- and I replied to that, figuring that Atheism is the basis for secular societies (maybe you can identify a couple secular societies that weren't established by ahteists). Right now I can think of secular nations such as China and Russia (which are rabidly anti-religionist... and atheist) ... can you name a few others?

I will have to ask you to be more specific now. Please identify at least three societies that based on secular philosophies (seven would be better) so that I can more specifically refute the bogus claim about "why those societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms are based on secular philosophies?" Please give examples to support your claim that, "societies based on religious philosophies have been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory without exception". Please compare with the USSR/Russia and China.

I think you can see here that your claims are nonsense and unsupportable. You may retract your false claims now.

Human beings are more worthy imho and, Leonardo, just in case you hadn't noticed?... "disastrous mismanagement of our environment" is MUCH worse in countries like CHINA, Russia and other post USSR nations.

Atheism is nothing to do with secularism, and does not form the basis for secular societies.

As for modern secular societies, try these:

Australia

Iceland

Sweden

Denmark

Germany

Netherlands

France

USA

New Zealand

Belgium

Switzerland

Norway

Finland

...and the list goes on.

Non-secular societies:

Iran

Iraq

Saudi Arabia

Malaysia

...and more. I would actually put Great Britain in here, because it still allows the Church of England, via representation in the House of Lords, to have a say in law-making and governance.

So, please do show me (us) that my claim "societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms are based on secular philosophies." is "bogus". I look forward to your reply.

[Labyrinthus]

Atheism is nothing to do with secularism, and does not form the basis for secular societies.

Okay, I will accept that outright and thus stand corrected.

So, please do show me (us) that my claim "societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms are based on secular philosophies." is "bogus". I look forward to your reply.

Actually Leonardo, it doesn't work like that. You made the initial claim that "societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms are based on secular philosophies." I challenged that claim and now it is up to you to back up your claim with some valid support. (I've already tipped my hand on this one so you get a head start).

In fact just to speed things along I'll say now that claiming the USA is based on a secular philosophy would be overreaching. Some make compelling arguments about the origins of the USA as definitely a Christian nation while others would argue it was more Masonic... but either way those are hardly secular influences. Just because a line in the founding documents stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not suddenly make it secular or preclude any religious foundation in the forming of that government, imo.

Demonstrating that the USA is based on secular philosophy is a pretty tall order, but maybe you can pull it off. But maybe you are going to proceed on the basis that secularism includes religion and merely implies a non-Religious Authority which is really a deceptive stance. This would be disingenuous since most modern nations have emerged from deeply religious cultures that imbued the founding of those nations with religious personalities that ran very deep -- even if they were technically "secular".

The "societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms" were not so due to the secular status but due to religious tradition and active practice among the citizens and leaders. Secular nations that abandoned religious tradition were the most brutal, intolerant, oppressive and environmentally destructive on the planet.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Labyrinthus

[Mr Walker]

I never mentioned 'atheism' when I spoke of secular societies/cultures, so your objection is irrelevant. And I never stated that all secular societies were equal in their promotion of equality and freedoms. I stated that those societies which promoted the greatest equality and freedoms were inevitably secular in their governance.

And please produce the name of one 'religious' (i.e. non-secular) culture which has not been divisive, prejudicial and persecutory because of the beliefs promoted through it's governance.

Name one society of any sort which has not beenthese things Any modern british govt is tied to the anglican church in Britain constituionally Yet it is far more liberal inmany senses that some secular democracies. (for eample i would not say that modern america was more democratic, equal or free, than modern britain especiallyfor the under privileged. I think you are dividing the world in to theocratic and secularr states.Just because a sate is NOT theocratic does not make it secular. The USA is not truly a secular state. Nor is france, despite its constition being more secualar than some, after the influence of the first french republic. while scandinavian societies are more secular thanmany I would not acccept without further study that they were truly secular either.

For a democratic govt to be secular it must represent a generally secular societ.y I don't know of many such societies in the world because most humans retain a religious/spiritual identity which they use to shape the nature of their laws and governance.

In such a society public nudity would be perfectly accptable and sex would not be seen as something to be ashamed of or to be kept private because nudity and sexuall taboos are almost entirely religious in nature.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Leonardo]

In fact just to speed things along I'll say now that claiming the USA is based on a secular philosophy would be overreaching. Some make compelling arguments about the origins of the USA as definitely a Christian nation while others would argue it was more Masonic... but either way those are hardly secular influences. Just because a line in the founding documents stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not suddenly make it secular or preclude any religious foundation in the forming of that government, imo.

And you are entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong. The separation of Church and State, denying religious institutions the power of setting, or influencing, the law-making process is exactly what secularism is. It doesn't matter whether the founders of a nation were religious, or wrote words of pathos concerning a 'god' into founding documents; all that matters is that the law-making and governance processes of a society are free from religious influence. And in each of the States I listed as secular in my preceding post, including the USA, they are - as much as those processes are free from the influence of any special-interest group within the society.

The "societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms" were not so due to the secular status but due to religious tradition and active practice among the citizens and leaders. Secular nations that abandoned religious tradition were the most brutal, intolerant, oppressive and environmentally destructive on the planet.

It is precisely the secular status of modern societies which has allowed for greater equalities and freedoms - and the USA is a prime example. Part of the history of the founding of that nation was directly the case of people fleeing religious persecution in a non-secular society (16th/17th century England), and the Constitution of that nation is, in part, a direct response to that persecution by removing the influence of religion from the process of government, and making laws establishing the rights of people to embrace their religion equally and with freedom - no matter the religion.

This was not at all the result of "religious tradition or practice", but the result of secular reason. And in every category in use today to measure human development, rights and freedoms, secular nations with representative governments score consistently better than non-secular nations with representative governments.

Human Development Index

Human Rights Index

[Labyrinthus]

This was not at all the result of "religious tradition or practice", but the result of secular reason. And in every category in use today to measure human development, rights and freedoms, secular nations with representative governments score consistently better than non-secular nations with representative governments.

Very deceptive, Leonardo. Your assertion is darkly deceiving.

You artfully avoided my closing point; "The "societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms" were not so due to the secular status but due to religious tradition and active practice among the citizens and leaders. Secular nations that abandoned religious tradition were the most brutal, intolerant, oppressive and environmentally destructive on the planet."