Today, the Secular Humanists (backed by their scientific metaphysics) would claim that “science fully reflects what is real”.
The world can be understood in naturalistic terms and the supernatural is not necessary. They would claim that “traditional religion” is no longer essential to the modern world.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
What is clear is that they also provide an interpretation of reality and, in that sense, their naturalistic explanations can, at the very least, be called a “worldview” if not a “religion.”
Fine. What matters is truth, not religion (or even worldviews).
Truth is simply the way things are – the structures and content of reality. An accurate understanding (or interpretation) of that reality will provide meaning, purpose and significance as well as the proper orientation and foundation for morality.
That is the end goal of the entire discussion.
Jesus might have been the one to say that the truth will set you free, but most people, in any religion or culture, would agree – at least in theory.
Click here to read more…….
Tears of the Desert Warrior by Bert A. Amsing
Copyright 2012 by vanKregten Publishers. All rights reserved.
Footnotes and references included in the original manuscript.
0 thoughts on “The Secular Worldview”
“science fully reflects what is real”
You said this with quotation marks around it; who said this? I’ve never heard such an arrogant statement. How could any person make this claim? You didn’t just make this up, did you? If so, it’s a strawman argument.
Of course I didn´t just make it up. I´m glad that you think it is arrogant and inappropriate. Frued, for one, held this position. In fact, most scientists and secular philosophers have held this position (and many still do privately) for the last 100 to 150 years. The interesting question is why this position is no longer sustainable and even considered by many to be “arrogant.” Not at all a strawman argument. As you said to me at the very beginning, you need to do some more reading in the philosophy section of metaphysics and epistemology. Hope that helps. Bert
So who made this quote, word for word? I don’t know anyone named Frued….
I’ve read much in philosophy, so I don’t need to be told to read more. I’m doing fine without any coaching.
So I misspelled his name by typing too fast, big deal. You know who I mean. And why do you pretend that you don´t know that this is the major metaphysical position of secular humanism for the past 100 years? What would be the point? You told me to read more about evolution as if I didn´t know what I was talking about…..but I accept that I can always learn more. I meant it in that spirit. Please don´t take it so personally….but it is a bit surprising that you would take the position that this quote is made up or doesn´t represent the philosophical position of the scientific community. Why bother? I will get you the quote once I get the chance….in the meanwhile, think about it….Bert
Freud, S. The Future of an Illusion, pp. 50-2 Hope that helps. Bert
Also check out The Moral Interpretation of Religion by Peter Byrne. On page 167-8 he says, “The fact that our faith in the reality of something strikingly accords with our wishes is not proof that such faith is merely wishful. In Feuerbach and Freud the characterisation of religion as “merely wishful” is undoubtedly linked to their prior commitment to some form of materialistic/scientistic outlook. They think they know independently that morally grounded human needs cannot be a guide to what the world is truly like, because all there is to the world is what natural science can tell us. Freud, for example, plainly shows in The Future of an Illusion his commitment to the belief that science fully reflects what is real.” And in the next paragraph he says, “No one can deny that the kind of “hermeneutics of suspicion” developed by thinkers such as Freud bites home. Some facets of religion fit Freud´s suspicious interpretation of it very well. Religion, on the moral interpretation, does make a grand ontological claim about the match between our deepest moral values and the fundamental structures of reality…….It is natural and inevitable that the stance of religion, so characterised, can be seen in one of two ways: as a monstrous piece of wishful thinking arising out of a failure to appreciate that the human self is located in a truly independent reality, or as a justified, absolutely necessary commitment to the only hope which can keep human moral endeavour alive.” Personally, I think that there is a third option, which would move the entire discussion from the realm of human psychology to historical reality, but that is another discussion for another day. In the meantime, you can see that I am not making these things up. I am still confused as to how you don´t know that this is the case. Of course, this scientific metaphysics has been under heavy fire for the past 30 years and many people today have a less arrogant view of the ability of science to fully reveal reality. In this post modern age, there is a different take on truth and our ability to understand reality at all much less “fully”. In fact, Peter Byrne ends by saying “Here the value of Kantian agnosticism about our ability to know what the world is like in itself surfaces once more……It might be seen as a strength of the moral interpretation of religion that it leaves the status of religion in human life deeply ambiguous.” Still, my position goes further in the direction of historical reality of the events described in the Bible as the epistemological and metaphysical foundation for our belief in God and in the necessity and centrality of the cross. For Christians, it is more than just a moral interpretation of religion. It is a relationship with the God who is there. It is more like a sacred romance than simple acceptance of propositional truth statements however difficult to believe under normal circumstances. At the same time, the moral interpretation of religion still exposes the scientific metaphysics of atheistic secular humanism for what it is. Atheism is giving way to agnosticism. Arrogance is giving way to a more “ambiguous” approach if not actual humility in the face of the possibility that we are not alone on this planet we call Earth. Hope that helps. Bert