Primacy of Self (Secularism)

[Author's note: this was first published as part of an ebook which is available in full at atheism-analyzed.net]

Secularism and Illusion of Tolerance
For decades after the 1960’s, Americans have been taught that tolerance is more important than absolutism. In fact, absolutism is anti-tolerant and therefore cannot be tolerated. In her book, “Total Truth”, Nancy Pearcy traces the roots of dualism, the trend of placing transcendent truths in a separate space, isolated from materialism. She describes a two story house, where the secular space is on the ground floor with access to the outside world, and the transcendent, religious space is consigned to the upstairs, accessible only to the occupants of the house. The trend is traceable from Plato on, but only becomes a significant socio-political issue in the past century or so. It has become “intolerant” to express one’s religious views outside the door, in view of the secular world.

Americans are understandably proud of the religious tolerance that the US Constitution guarantees. So they were off guard when the meaning of tolerance changed imperceptibly, and then continued to change. Tolerance has expanded its meaning under the Atheist attack of “reform” groups such as the American Civil Liberty Union, and the Americans for Separation of Church and State, not to mention the various abortion sale groups, and now embryonic stem cell profiteers. Tolerance now means that it is a “hate” crime to question the validity of many Atheist activities. And yet tolerance of the original values establishing tolerance in the first place has disappeared from the nation’s lexicon, especially that of the media.

Secularism is equated with tolerance, and seems right and sensible to the casual thinker. Most Atheists probably have unexamined belief systems; after all, one needs only deny God, and thus declare for Atheism. So “unexamined” is the key word, except for the most virulent, radical Atheist attackers of the social system.

The first part of this work [prior chapters of the ebook] shows the folly of declaring that Atheism is rational. But it turns out that “rationality” is only a knee-jerk defense for many Atheists. They declare themselves “rational”, and depend on the word itself to provide safety from having to think it through. In the last part of this work we shall see that the opposite is true: Atheism is the pursuit of the irrational. And only the bravest of the Atheists will admit to their bottom line belief, a necessary belief as will be shown, that unexamined rationalism is just a cover for irrational belief systems.

Secularism, and thus untrammeled tolerance, then is the camouflage position for the true Atheist. Atheists will retreat to this position when they are challenged on either the Rational Position, or the Irrational Position.

So if rational thought is not the real reason for being a true Atheist, what are the reasons? In his book “Faith of the Fatherless”, Paul C. Vitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at NYU and Senior Scholar at The institute for the Psychological Sciences in Washington D.C., looks for common features in the lives of the great Atheists of the 19th and 20th centuries. His overwhelming conclusion is that defective fathers in the lives of young men lead to traumas that cause rebellions against father figures that culminate in the rejection of the ultimate father figure, God. These young men received no positive masculine input in their formative years, and were raised by women, leading them to search for their own masculine identity blindly and without guidance. Blind rebellion and search for their own strength can lead to rejection of all authority, including that of God.

This feature of Atheist philosophers is nearly 100% correlatable, as Vitz shows. He contrasts the fatherly and masculine inputs to major theists of the same period as a control group, showing that positive masculine input during a boy’s formative years produces a positive result.

Is the defective father the only reason to become an Atheist? Not in the least. Vitz outlines other reasons, many of which I can personally attest to.

Normal rebellion in teenagers, especially males, is due to the overwhelming conflict between the need to obey certain parental and social rules, and the need to assert one’s own emerging intellect and personal power. If one submits totally to outside rules, how is personal cowardice to be ignored? If one rebels, is it not a sign of courage, bravery and becoming? And if the rebelling mind goes off to college, what awaits it there?

Intellectualism
Part of the intrinsic psychological attraction of Atheism is the promise of becoming one of the “elite”. The intellectuals, as they think of themselves, reside in positions of prominence and power, primarily in the isolation of the university setting. It is there that young people first encounter the glory of intellectualism, and the primacy of the self. While the actual number of Atheists is very small, their influence is far beyond.

The 2001 ARIS Poll of the general population shows Atheists at 0.4%, Agnostics at 0.3%, Secularists at 0.02%, and Humanists at 0.02%. It also showed “No religion” at 13.2%. A Harris Interactive Poll in 2003 showed 9% Atheist, and 12% Agnostic. And a 2005 Gallup / Baylor Poll reported in USA Today showed 8.2% Atheist / Agnostics. So depending on how the question is presented, there might be just 0.7%, or there might be 21%, Atheist / Agnostics in the USA.

Whichever is the case, Atheism is a small percentage of the American population as a whole. However, polls taken of university professors show a different story. Fully 31% of professors claim to be Atheist / Agnostic, and another 33% have doubts about the existence of God. (64%). The percentage of biology and psychology professors who are Atheist is even higher at 61%. (www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/gross/religions.pdf)

And the ratio of “secularists” in the media is also well above the nation as a whole.

Because of this imbalance, the systems of education and information dissemination are controlled by secularism.

The “Self” in the Media: “I’m Worth It”.
The culture today is dominated by video and televised visual effects. The advertising world has acclimated to these technologies, and has used them to create an atmosphere of “want”. Unnecessary products must produce a want that will result in sales. The culture of Want is personified by the slogan, “I’m worth it”. New wants must be generated when the old wants start to flag. Dissatisfaction with the previous acquisition must be created. Advertising is not just all pervasive, it is an all out war to create Want. The war glorifies the “self” in every way. Clothing ads promise coolness and sex. As do car ads, shampoo ads, etc. Drug ads promise cures and happiness for yourself, notwithstanding your doctor’s input. The “self” is pumped and prodded in every conceivable way.

The “Self” in the Profession: Elitism.
Aside from the excessive acquisition of modern individuals, the value of the individual is determined by values that revolve around personal excellence. An individual is supposedly paid for “performance”. A person higher in the political structure has more value than those on the low rungs. Personal value is generated by striving. And striving for the pinnacle of intellectualism generates the most personal value of all. So it is understandable that those individuals who have wrung the most from the institutions of education demand the most respect. Such individuals might be prone to aloofness and condescension when confronted with lesser individuals. Nonetheless, they are the icons of the elite self in our culture.

The “Self” in Secular Culture: Narcissism.
Personal value is also found in appearances. Both men and women flock to cosmetic surgeons. Fad diet books flood bookstores. The image of youth and prosperity still drive the economy, as cars and houses become more statements of personal value than transportation and abodes. The drive for thinness has spawned eating disorder epidemics. The “Me generation” has reproduced itself.

Secular Paganism.
Worship might be defined as “commitment to pursuit of that which gives meaning to life”. Or, “Extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem.” What might these objects of esteem be? Current cultural pressures present many objects for us to “esteem”. And they are rapidly replaced with more, newer objects.

But there are other things that give meaning to the secularist, including personal rights such as the right to do anything whatsoever without judgment or repercussions of any type. These new “rights” are considered inviolable and part of a “living Constitution” which is to be interpreted by the Secular Pagans themselves. And it is therefore very clear to the Secular Pagan that any attempt to curtail or even speak against such “rights” constitutes a “hate crime”, which deserves more punishment than an ordinary crime.

Secular Pagans are as devoted to their religion as any other religious people, perhaps more. The Secular Pagans are investing vast sums to try to produce a Pagan Nation, devoid of any absolute values, and restrictive laws.

The Secular Pagans are Atheists by default only. Their pursuits and beliefs are outside the world of religion. They are the true narcissists, pursuing what pleases themselves.

Secularism as a Movement

Definitions of Secularism:
1. Without religion; without spirituality
2. Freedom of / from religion
3. Believe only based on evidence, not “superstitions”

The vogue definition for “secular” is that which is separate from religion. However, Secularism as a movement is not quite so bland. The term “Secularism” was first used by George Jacob Holyoake, in England around 1846. He first described it as an “opinion”, then as an action:

"Secularism is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life — which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible — which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service" (Principles of Secularism, 17).

"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" (English Secularism, 35).

Such a code of duty was, to say the least, imprecise, providing no evidence for accepting these as essential principles, and no evidence for determining that which might be thought to be “good”. Such loopholes notwithstanding, the Secularist movement has continued, and expanded into the realm of “humanism” (next chapter). The essential principles are founded on “considerations purely human”, and elevate the human to a level beyond theology (being inadequate). The Primacy of Self is clearly established.

In 1858, Charles Bradlaugh succeeded Holyoake as president of the National Secular Society in England. Bradlaugh was a voice against the Roman Catholic Church calling it a danger to “freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of action”. As with Voltaire, the egregious abuses in the ecclesiastical system were easy targets. However, Voltaire remained a theist; the secularists were self-supremacists.

Secular Humanism.
Humanist manifesto #1.
Declared officially as a religion, the original manifesto designated the capacity for human reasonability to be the guide for ethics, and rejected absolutist religious tenets. Thus the self is declared supreme as a religious tenet.

Secular Humanists in history: Hitler; Stalin; Mao; Pol Pot; Sadam Hussein. The grief produced by these tyrants - Hitler and Stalin - caused a rethinking of the manifesto, resulting in the Humanist Manifesto #2.

Humanist Manifesto #2.The second manifesto eliminated the reference to being a religion. It also removed the statist, fascist statements that had permeated the first Manifesto, and replaced them with more obscure statements. This was an admitted response to the disastrous humanist experiments of Russia and Germany in the first half of the 20th century. This was a transparent attempt at obscurantism.

Humanist Manifesto #3.
This statement of the Humanist position is even more general and obscure than the second Manifesto. However, the general underlying principles are not obviated by the lack of precision in stating them.