[extropy-chat] Secular worship

[Zero Powers]

Actually maybe "secular worship" is not the right lingo.  After all,
if it's truly secular, what is it that you're worshipping?  Worship
is, and should be, reserved for the divine.  In the thoroughly secular
world view, there is no divine, only the unknown.  So perhaps instead
of "secular worship" we should think (and talk) in terms of "secular
fellowship."

There is a church nearby where I live, Agape International Spiritual
Center, http://www.agapelive.com.  I am by no means a regular
attendee.  But on those rare occasions when I'm inclined toward group
meditation, communion and entertainment (the musical department is off
the hook!), that's where I head.  Unlike me, they are not a bunch of
atheists.  But their spirituality is broad enough to encompass just
about every belief.  There are roughly equal numbers of people from
Christian, Buddhist, Muslim and less main-stream spiritual
backgrounds.  There are even (I'm told) more than a few atheists
besides me who attend.  It is one of the VERY few churches I can
stomach because while it is heavy on the love, service and communion
of humanity it is very light on the religious dogma.

Of course I'd prefer to commune at a place that left all aspects of
fairy-tale belief out of the fellowship.  If I could find a place as
inviting, loving, entertaining and dedicated to meeting the needs of
the local and global community as they are at Agape, but felt no need
to encumber that sense of community with fairy tales, that would be my
idea of a perfect place of secular fellowship.

Secular worship?  I agree that's pretty much an oxymoron.  Secular
fellowship on the other hand I think could work.

Zero

> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:32:38 +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't think there can be a secular worship as these
> two concepts do not fit together but are radically opposed.
> I am reading a very interesting article on "weak theology":
> http://www.jcrt.org/archives/05.2/robbins.pdf
> On secularism as weakening of thought: "Weak thought is not a term of
> derision, but a positive term of praise that can be used as a tool for
> political emancipation and a more democratic philosophy. It produces
> "a desirable humility about our own moral intuitions and about the
> social institutions to which we have become accustomed. This humility
> will encourage tolerance for other intuitions, and a willingness to
> experiment with ways of refashioning or replacing institutions."
> Now if this is "weak thought", I am happy to be a weak thinker and I
> am sure many on this list will agreee. But why is it called weak?
> It is called weak in opposition to "strong thought": thought based on
> absolute truths, unity, totality, strong categories, ultimate
> foundations, aiming at providing absolute foundations for knowledge
> and action. These terms have neen often used by the contemporary
> philosoper Gianni Vattimo.
> Now, as weak thinkers, I am afraid we have to acknowledge that strong
> thought is, well, stronger than weak thought in terms of its immediate
> appeal to the majority of people.
> Secularism is weak, worship is strong. Rights are weak, duties are
> strong. Tolerance is weak, righteousness is strong. Thinkers are weak,
> warriors are strong. Negotiation is weak, attack is strong. Love is
> strong, hate is strong, but understanding is weak. In other words:
> reason is weak, religion is strong.
> According to the last political news: a fundamentalist elected US
> president, a fundamentalist kicked out of the European Commission,
> most Europeans are weak thinkers, and most Americans are strong
> thinkers. Perhaps this is because in Europe we have already fallen in
> love with strong ideologies in Germany and Italy before the second
> world war, and have seen the catastrophic consequences.
> But going back to religion, perhaps the reason why it is still an
> important factor after centuries of scientific advances is that it is
> strong thought, and this is what most people still want: absolute
> certainties and strong truths.
> Is transhumanist strong or weak? Well it is clearly weak: it is based
> on calm logical reasoning, tolerance for diversity, etc. This is also
> evident from our linguistic habits on this list: we say too often "I
> think that", "in my own opinion", "I understand your point but", ...
> these are all weak statements that do NOT appeal to those who want
> strong certainties.
> Face it, they want strong systems of belief and messianic leaders.
> My question: can transhumanism be presented as strong thought? And who
> wants to be a charismatic leader?
> G.
> 
> > Damien: Time for humanism and transhumanism to
> 
> 
> > start thinking seriously
> > once again (as Bertrand Russell and Wells and others
> > did nearly a century
> > ago, without getting anywhere) about some sort of
> > secular equivalent of
> > worship (ugh; whatever) and mutually supportive
> > emotionally enriched
> > fellowship.
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>