Is There A Difference Between A Secular And An Atheist Society?

[rug]

Posted on June 3, 2016
by Godless Mom

Satisfying my addiction to Reddit, I was perusing the Debate An Atheist subreddit, when I found a question I actually had never seen or been asked before. This is not a common occurrence amidst the chorus of “What if you’re wrong?”s and “Why do you hate God?”s. Usually, I login to Reddit, pop on over to DAA and within moments my eyes are rolling while I grumble, angrily, don’t they have anything new to ask? So, you can understand why I might have pinched myself to see if I was dreaming.

I wasn’t. Someone actually found a new question to ask atheists. That, however, didn’t stop OP from quickly offering a straw man as a potential answer. He or she said,

Difference Between A Secular Society And an Atheist Society? I mean I assume they would basically be the same thing right? At a functional level? Or does secular mean the religious people are all separate, like how the Amish are suuuper disconnected from everybody else and their business?

It’s obvious, with OP’s suggestion a secular society may be a new, fancy way to revisit segregation, that he or she is ill-informed. However, we have to respect his or her willingness to learn. The very act of posting this question to Reddit, where skinning people alive for sport is what the comments section is for, is an act of bravery. So, I thought I’d answer this in greater detail than has been done in the comments already.

The definition of secular as I use it most often is, very simply, the separation of church and state. It’s not the elimination of the church. It’s certainly not the separation of religious people and non-religious people. It’s just the separation of church and state.

http://godlessmom.com/difference-secular-atheist-society/

[Fumesucker]

1. Secular is what you do, atheist or theist is what you are*

* Agnostic too but so many of them are also either atheist or theist, for instance I'm an agnostic who also identifies as atheist.

[rug]

2. Except that what people do is often because they are atheist or theist.

[Fumesucker]

3. So?

Doesn't change things, if you are trying to inject religion into the means of government (and I'd put official atheism as a religion too) then you are working against secularism.

[rug]

4. So, your distinction doesn't work.

[Fumesucker]

5. Half the time we don't even know our own true motivations

I'm interested in motivations but they're not really important, actions are what counts.

DU is a real hall of mirrors for motivations, there is a significant percentage who just seem to like having a reason to be nasty to each other.

[rug]

6. That is true. Rarely, if ever, does one thing motivate what we do.

Which is why I criticize that distinction.

Not to claim immunity, I'll give you one of mine to pick at:

Motives are important but it's the actions others are left to clean up.

[DetlefK]

7. A whole bunch of seemingly non-religious traditions would disappear.

The traditions of our societies are deeply rooted in ancient religious concepts.
Why is a week 7 days? Astrology.
Why is a full circle 360 degrees? Astrology.
Why do we have Christmas-trees? Because trees were essential symbols of celtic/german/nordic religions.
Where does the idea come from that all laws of nature can be unified into one law of nature? The religious concept of the demiourgos.

A really atheist society would not only be different in our recent approach to the cosmological side of religion. They would also start challenging traditions and replacing them with other and more useful customs.

[edhopper]

8. maybe

but Dawkins likes Christmas.

[rug]

9. That didn't work well for the French.

[DetlefK]

10. There's a difference when the society was religious beforehand.

It's a cultural thing.

For example: Mexico.
It's a predominantly christian country but they are still deeply connected to aztec mythology and customs.

If the society used to be religious, it gets really hard to get rid of religious traditions because they become non-religious traditions.
However if the society never were religious before, then it would develop atheistic traditions organically.

[rug]

11. Every human society is religious.

And what on earth do you imagine "atheistic traditions" to be?

[DetlefK]

12. Some wild speculation:

Maybe a 5-day week, because of 5 fingers. Not a 7-day week because of 7 planets visible with the naked eye.

Maybe a different concept of learning and government. Not one person (shaman/priest/teacher) in charge of the group, but a more interactive process with several teachers/elders at once.

That's more agnostic than atheistic, but:
Maybe a stronger emphasis on proof/evidence/accountability in the relationship between ruler and ruled, because the society gives greater priority to criticism and doubt.

Maybe more of a profession-oriented caste-system, where talent decides about your role in society, not charisma. (Including the downsides of a caste-system.) Scientists are the final authority on scientific issues, physicians are the final authority on medical issues, economists are the final authority on economic issues...




And to "Every human society is religious." Some thoughts on that:

Does that mean every primitive society develops religion? Or did all non-religious societies die out in the Stone-Age?

Is religion typical for humans or would other intelligent species have religion as well? What about dogs, gorillas and dolphins? What about AI?
When the consciousness of a fresh and clean AI starts running, will its world-view develop into some kind of religion (if only briefly)?

[rug]

13. You're pouring a lot into a shallow cup.

Atheism is simply nonbelief, a negative. Any traditions arising in a nonreligious society would be simply nonreligious, arising from elsewhere. There have been examples sporadically through history. But I am unaware of any human society that has not developed religion.

[DetlefK]

14. I know. But atheism isn't the same as non-religious.

Atheism is a negation of theism. But "non-religious" is neither theist nor atheist, because it means having NO opinion on either claim.

Just as a theist tradition is based on the philosophic principle that gods exist, an atheist tradition would make a specific point that gods do not exist.
But a non-religious tradition would be indifferent to both sides.

[Jim__]

15. The Piraha may be a society without religion.

They also have no words for numbers or colors and apparently no recursive structures in their language.

There are about 30 minutes of videos on them:

[center]

[/center]

The other 3 videos in this series can be found here: youtu.be /pXegoZrxcVk (to go there you'd have to remove the space between tu.be and the /pXe...)

[rug]

16. That's fascinating. I'll check them out when I get home.

No words for color! I wonder how many other things exist that we don't have words for.