Is Secular Leftism A Religion?

[Polaris]

I don't agree that religious belief is built into human nature. If I had been raised by wild wolves, it is very unlikely the idea of a deity who sent his son to die for my sins, for example, would ever have occurred to me. Perhaps some elements of religion would have arisen in my mind, such as some kind of vague feeling that there is a higher power, but not necessarily... On the whole, I think religion is like the wheel. It was invented, and its continued existence largely owes itself to culture.

As for whether secular leftism is a religion or not, I think the answer is no by any normal definition of religion. For one thing, secular humanism is devoid of metaphysics, a key element of every truly religious belief system.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think you still tend to come back to the two factor definition, an object of devotion, whatever that may be and it could be a God or it could be something else, and then a frame of orientation for values etc.

I'm not sure that religion, or for the sake of this argument its equivalents, is necessarily altruistic, opposed to materialism or avarice. I've seen some great examples where it is positively avaricious, varieties of tele-evangelism or so called "prosperity gospel" for instance. Darren Brown is the most recent author I've read that wrote about it.

I was thinking of that but, I think that's largely due to the surrounding culture influencing the religion. Prosperity gospel is certainly a very odd interpretation of religious texts for a form of religion that is supposedly "fundamentalist." I wouldn't necessarily argue that religious texts don't contain anything off-putting to modern eyes, but they certainly don't say things like prosperity gospel, unless if read very selectively. It's a case of religious terminology being used to fuel the id, for sure. People naturally want more than they have, so they gravitate to something that says they can get those things just by believing. People figured out that it was a good way to get rich by selling them that. In that sense, prosperity gospel is definitely true, for the people who preach it.

 

[Maou]

If religion wasn't human nature, then why did every early human culture have some form of religious practice at some point in their existence, regardless of outside influence? Why does spirituality exist as a concept so naturally? Why does the decrease in spirituality, always lead to an increase of nihilism and dissatisfaction with life?

 

[ceecee]

People who are on the Left side of politics, generally see religion as archaic and or harmful to society. Meaning the majority are either agnostic or atheist.

You are also only looking at Religion from a single angle. There is far more to religion than just belief in a god. It is a way of life. Leftists also have a way of life, and it tends to mirror religion quite well. They hold beliefs that they deem absolute, despite the fact very few things are absolute, as they do not question their "god". Just like Christians take the bible as law.

Take Identity politics that some practice for an example of "doctrine" It is accepted as fact by many, and that all should abide by it. If they do not, they are evil racist bigots and must be purged, shunned, or exiled socially and sometimes physically. Calling everything a Nazi, is like saying things are the Devil. The same irrational intolerance that you see devout religious people do, is seen in some Leftist who do not get their way. Then to top it off, they preach that they are the good guys and they are trying to help everyone, and the world. That if everyone was the same as them, the world will become a utopia.

The right sees this exactly the same. Many on the right also feel the US would be better off governed by Christian biblical premises (see U.S. Taxpayers Party), never mind that whole first amendment thing and they appear to be succeeding in some places. The right also does identity politics but if your Nazi comment mean fascist movements in the US and worldwide are simply a figment of the left, I don't know what to tell you. You should really aim your intolerance comments at liberals and centrists though, they're far less likely to modify their views or listen to anything from the left or the right.

 

[Lark]

The right sees this exactly the same. Many on the right also feel the US would be better off governed by Christian biblical premises (see U.S. Taxpayers Party), never mind that whole first amendment thing and they appear to be succeeding in some places. The right also does identity politics but if your Nazi comment mean fascist movements in the US and worldwide are simply a figment of the left, I don't know what to tell you. You should really aim your intolerance comments at liberals and centrists though, they're far less likely to modify their views or listen to anything from the left or the right.

I think that sort of thing is crazy because I've struggled to discover a single "bible christianity" regardless of what any of the professedly "bible christians" have said about it, let alone anything at all which would suggest single policies with regard to the economy, domestic, foreign policy etc.

 

[Lark]

I was thinking of that but, I think that's largely due to the surrounding culture influencing the religion. Prosperity gospel is certainly a very odd interpretation of religious texts for a form of religion that is supposedly "fundamentalist." I wouldn't necessarily argue that religious texts don't contain anything off-putting to modern eyes, but they certainly don't say things like prosperity gospel, unless if read very selectively. It's a case of religious terminology being used to fuel the id, for sure. People naturally want more than they have, so they gravitate to something that says they can get those things just by believing. People figured out that it was a good way to get rich by selling them that. In that sense, prosperity gospel is definitely true, for the people who preach it.

I reckon the law of attraction, think and grow rich, positive thinking all of it springs from the same place as that sort of evangelism.

 

[Maou]

The right sees this exactly the same. Many on the right also feel the US would be better off governed by Christian biblical premises (see U.S. Taxpayers Party), never mind that whole first amendment thing and they appear to be succeeding in some places. The right also does identity politics but if your Nazi comment mean fascist movements in the US and worldwide are simply a figment of the left, I don't know what to tell you. You should really aim your intolerance comments at liberals and centrists though, they're far less likely to modify their views or listen to anything from the left or the right.

I never said they were not the same. My point was is that all people are the same, regardless of the side they are on. Religious, or not religious. The superficial lines we divide ourselves by, while prostraiting ourselves before our ideals, and throwing ourselves on the swords of our conviction, they are the same behaviors. They are human nature, and it is inescapable. A lot of people are aware of this, but few offer solutions. Then those solutions that are offered get caught up and contaminated by the same nature they are trying to prevent. I personally think society will collapse eventualky, while others think they are fighting for a utopia.

I once seen it said, that the real difference between the Right and the Left, is nomian philosophy. Or the belief in law. The Left are determined to deal case by case, the right want equal application by law. The left only like laws that agree with them, and rebel against those that do not. The right want enforcement and consistantsy in contrast.

 

[Polaris]

If religion wasn't human nature, then why did every early human culture have some form of religious practice at some point in their existence, regardless of outside influence? Why does spirituality exist as a concept so naturally?

Fire has been invented and utilized extensively by nearly every human culture. But fire is not intrinsic to human nature. It's just an easy thing to invent, and has a great deal of practical value. So it is with religion.

Why does the decrease in spirituality, always lead to an increase of nihilism and dissatisfaction with life?

It doesn't. I don't currently consider myself specifically non-religious, but when I became a strong atheist for a time, I felt greatly relieved because of it, continued to have as much of a value system as ever, and was not at all dissatisfied with life on its account.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I reckon the law of attraction, think and grow rich, positive thinking all of it springs from the same place as that sort of evangelism.

Oh, unquestionably.

 

[Coriolis]

Woah there, Hoss. I'm not 'making' any definitions. If you want to just turn a blind eye to the bulk of the word's potential meaning, that's on you. If a 1978 Lincoln Continental drives past and someone shots "Woah, look at that BOAT!" I'm not going to scan the horizon for water like some kind of cartoon caricature INTJ.

You acknowledged several posts back that you were not operating on the common definition of religion as involving a supreme/spiritual being/entity. You did the responsible thing by making that clear, but that doesn't change what it is.

 

[Maou]

Fire has been invented and utilized extensively by nearly every human culture. But fire is not intrinsic to human nature. It's just an easy thing to invent, and has a great deal of practical value. So it is with religion.

It doesn't. I don't currently consider myself specifically non-religious, but when I became a strong atheist for a time, I felt greatly relieved because of it, continued to have as much of a value system as ever, and was not at all dissatisfied with life on its account.

If only humans are doing it, it is human nature/instinct. No other animal utilizes fire as we do, same with written language and tools. Its literally what classifies us as human. So it is in conclusion, human nature.

Nihilism does not always equal misery, it's accepting that life is pointless. But, learning what to do with yourself afterwards, generally results in an attempt to create and stick to one's values and beliefs that they choose. Only to realize that they cannot always accomplish what they believe and those beliefs change frequently, because the more knowledge you gain about life. The more helpless you feel to actually do anything, and your values and beliefs begin to falter in the face of impermanence and futility. There is a reason atheism only makes up 1% of the population, and a lot of atheists convert back to some form of philosophy or religion. I would even say it is a cycle that every nihilist goes through eventually in their lifetime.

Perspective, is ultimately the source of true happiness. Not religion, not philosophy, not knowledge. It is how you see the world, how you want to act in it, and how you perceive how your actions affect the world. Go too far with knowledge and nihilism, and you no longer can perceive your actions mattering in any sense of the word. Go too far religious, and you eventually see God in everything, but also blind to reality. Humans have yet to find the perfect spot between.

This is a very human problem. We are the only creatures to have to face anything like it. So naturally we can assume that it is human nature, that creates human problems.

 

[anticlimatic]

You acknowledged several posts back that you were not operating on the common definition of religion as involving a supreme/spiritual being/entity. You did the responsible thing by making that clear, but that doesn't change what it is.

I acknowledged only that Christianity falls under the definition you're working with, which I'd consider 'common' only in a particular context- like, say, the first thing an average american would think of upon hearing the word. I don't consider the other definitions any less common objectively, for instance in frequency of use. All I am saying is that you can't accuse me of making up definitions simply because you (and others) were (I hope it's a were) ignorant to the fact that the personification of the ultimate subjective religious ideal is not a mandatory prerequisite for religion.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

A timely article: Why We Join Cults - Areo

.... charts the deep similarities between religious cults, political cults and cults of self-improvement.....

 

[Coriolis]

I acknowledged only that Christianity falls under the definition you're working with, which I'd consider 'common' only in a particular context- like, say, the first thing an average american would think of upon hearing the word. I don't consider the other definitions any less common objectively, for instance in frequency of use. All I am saying is that you can't accuse me of making up definitions simply because you (and others) were (I hope it's a were) ignorant to the fact that the personification of the ultimate subjective religious ideal is not a mandatory prerequisite for religion.

I observed (not accused) that you were using an alternative, less common definition (based on standard dictionaries), because you were. I explained my reasons.

 

[Polaris]

If only humans are doing it, it is human nature/instinct. No other animal utilizes fire as we do, same with written language and tools. Its literally what classifies us as human. So it is in conclusion, human nature.

Earlier you implied that you believed that an absence of spirituality goes against human nature. And yet, denying religion and spirituality is something that only humans do, which means that it's a part of human nature by your definition.

Nihilism does not always equal misery, it's accepting that life is pointless. But, learning what to do with yourself afterwards, generally results in an attempt to create and stick to one's values and beliefs that they choose. Only to realize that they cannot always accomplish what they believe and those beliefs change frequently, because the more knowledge you gain about life. The more helpless you feel to actually do anything, and your values and beliefs begin to falter in the face of impermanence and futility. There is a reason atheism only makes up 1% of the population, and a lot of atheists convert back to some form of philosophy or religion. I would even say it is a cycle that every nihilist goes through eventually in their lifetime.

Why are we talking about nihilism? A lack of religion or spirituality does not equal or necessarily bring about nihilism.

Perspective, is ultimately the source of true happiness. Not religion, not philosophy, not knowledge. It is how you see the world, how you want to act in it, and how you perceive how your actions affect the world. Go too far with knowledge and nihilism, and you no longer can perceive your actions mattering in any sense of the word. Go too far religious, and you eventually see God in everything, but also blind to reality. Humans have yet to find the perfect spot between.

I don't believe that anything, including brain chemicals, has inherent ability to bring happiness.

This is a very human problem. We are the only creatures to have to face anything like it.

This is true, although I think the problem only exists for some people.

 

[Maou]

Earlier you implied that you believed that an absence of spirituality goes against human nature. And yet, denying religion and spirituality is something that only humans do, which means that it's a part of human nature by your definition.

It is a cycle, and it is all human nature. People try to escape that cycle with knowledge, but it still comes back, in different forms. So yes, both denying spirituality, and needing spirituality is a human problem created by human nature.

Why are we talking about nihilism? A lack of religion or spirituality does not equal or necessarily bring about nihilism.

This is true. But the topic is talking about secular leftism. Which, in one of my posts, included a link to statistics that support this. Which measured 69% of atheists/agnostics identified as Democrat/Liberal.

I don't believe that anything, including brain chemicals, has inherent ability to bring happiness.

I agree that happiness isn't inherently due to brain chemicals, that is why I mentioned that perspective is. Do you imply that you do not believe in happiness at all?

The most happy people in the world that I have observed, tend to be those who are ignorant. "Ignorance is bliss" is a common phrase. Which coincides with my theory on perspective being the key to happiness, and that too much knowledge breeds nihilism and dissatisfaction with life. I would even conclude that Leftists are less happy people. Which is also supported by a study.

Conservatives Find Life More Meaningful Than Liberals - The Atlantic

 

[Polaris]

Which, in one of my posts, included a link to statistics that support this.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The only link I see that you've posted is one showing that most non-believers are liberals. That has nothing to do with nihilism, as far as I can tell.

Do you imply that you do not believe in happiness at all?

I believe there are things that we justifiably call happiness. We are justified in calling them happiness because doing so assists us in communicating.

I would even conclude that Leftists are less happy people. Which is also supported by a study.

The study you cited does not support the position that leftists are less happy than conservatives. It found that conservatives were more likely to report having a sense of purpose in life, which is something distinct from and sometimes even contrary to happiness.

 

[Lark]

Well that escalated quickly, from the left wing are a "religion" to a "cult", guess just further evidence that the US is polarised and getting worse.

Edit: (who benefits from that?)

 

[ceecee]

The most happy people in the world that I have observed, tend to be those who are ignorant. "Ignorance is bliss" is a common phrase.

I completely agree with this, it's been accurate for most of human history and I would also agree that conservative people tend to fall into the ignorance category more often. It's clear that education level and rural living go hand in hand much of the time but it's not too hard to convince yourself of a world view when you do nothing to expand beyond what you see every day all around you, isolated and remote.

Unfortunately that same ignorance opens people up to a slew of bullshit (example: QAnon and I really recommend seeing these believers up close at a Trump rally, which is what I had to do to observe the full scope of this issue. Prior, I assumed this was a very small amount of fringe people. It's not.)

But the most angry people, by far are informed, usually male conservatives that subscribe to a specific type of world view and when others don't abide by their formula, it's a problem for them. And it becomes a problem for everyone else too.

 

[Shadow Play]

So, people have called Atheism a religion, and now people call leftism a religion. Heh.

Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". Now, some could argue that communist dictatorships are religions due to the deification of the dear leader, and that would be a valid observation, but this accusation isn't applicable to social justice. The aim is the emancipation of the individual to improve their material well-being in this world, and with that the abandonment of traditions which trap people within their hierarchy. Social justice is the opposite of a religion in that it's steeped in humanist values - the attachment of value to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

You're appropriating a term to use as a snarl word, one which serves to create a false equivalence between one values system you don't like and a separate values system.