Boleo

I thought I was entering a secular period in my faith once before when I was studying Existentialism and reading Nietzsche. Then I started reading Kierkegaard and did an about face.

Then recovery took me into a new phase of of what I thought was secular with it's statements like; "When, therefore, we speak to you of God, we mean your own conception of God." I thought I was venturing even deeper into secular territory by studying Taoism and Zen.

However, after getting involved in a recent debate in another forum, I get the feeling that there are atheists out there who resent the fact that I believe in anything at all. I am beginning to wonder if I ever really understood what it means to be "secular"?

Rather than start a debate surrounding my definition of "secular", how about giving me your definition of "secular" so I can appreciate where others are coming from in the future.

awuh1

Dictionary.coms definition of secular … “of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal”.

Webster’s definition is “of or relating to the worldly or temporal”.

Note the last word in both definitions, ‘temporal’ (having to do with time). In other words if it exists in time, it is secular.

Please bear with me for a moment. Consider Einstein’s special theory of relativity. We know that time (like space) is relative. As a person moves faster, time moves more slowly (and space itself, shrinks). When the speed of light is reached, to quote Peter Russell, “Light experiences itself traveling no distance, in no time, (in other words) … Light does not exist in the world of space time and matter”. (Hence the interesting Rembrandt avatar to the left)

By definition then, it would seem that all things are considered secular with the exception of those that pertain to the religious spiritual, sacred ….or light itself.

Given the rather broad definition of the ‘religious’ that was proposed in the other forum that you alluded to Boleo, (one individual even included “the force of nature”) perhaps we should not be speaking at all.

Soberpotamus

The definition from the dictionary Awuh gave is pretty much what I think of as secular. Not spiritual, not religious, but worldly. Temporal.

Interesting about the light... wonder if the phenomenon of seeing bright light when close to death has anything to do with the spiritual, or if it really is just a mental (brain) phenomenon. Then, I see your Max Planck quote, Awuh... about the mind being the matrix

Threshold

This definition makes a lot of sense to me, but there is always the dictionary definition vs the way a culture or subculture (I think SR qualifies as a subculture) understands and uses the term.

And we have a mix of folks here, and the term is defined differently by different people. Just the the term religious is, so here we are with secular.

I follow a temporal religion. I believe that "spirit/soul" is a function of the brain, and when the brain dies, spirit/soul dies with it. Evolution gifted people with some brain function that most describe as "spiritual". I feel that the fact that a majority of humans for the majority of time that we have been able to examine human behavior, express behavior and beliefs that can be classified as spiritual. When I engage my spirituality, I feel like I am doing what comes naturally.

I have no hope or belief in life after death. The Universe is the Ultimate Reality. I worship the Sun, why? because when I see it the sense of awe, love, joy that wells up in me, unbidden is something I can only describe as worship. I don't have any notion that the Sun wants, needs, knows or cares that it brings forth this response in me. But this feeling of worship is awesome for me, I see no point in fighting it.

I see no point in denying myself any of the services that the spiritual aspects of my brain can provide me with.

So, my religion (Pantheism) is pretty much a temporal one. Like the rest of me, it sprang from nature, and will return to it. But due to it's nature (no pun intended) many other people who describe themselves as religions scoff at it. Interestingly few people who describe themselves as spiritual scoff at it.

I am considered religious by seculars and secular by religious. In practice, it makes no difference to me. I do my thing, it enhances my experience of life. but in certain circles the subject comes up, and in certain circles categorizing my beliefs seems to be an issue.

My take on it, as a Pantheist, is that dualism is a handy tool in many areas of life, but it's not reality. And at times, like any tool, it does us a disservice to use it. I think this is one area. I don't think it's a case of secular/religious and have to put a belief in one category or another. We are natural born taxonomists and we can create as many categories as we need to make our brain comfortable with the idea that it understands something.

Some people appear to be extremely uncomfortable with anything that does not fit into a category they have already created a space for in their minds. This is how the human brain operates. It is driven to categorize. A "narrow" mind is an apt description. I am not using that term as a judgement, but to describe a mind that has a difficult time creating new categories or holding an idea that their brain does not yet have a cubby hole for. And open mind, is one that is easily able to create a new cubby hole, or to hold an idea undefined or uncategorized for a period of time.

I believe that the variety of thinking patterns, talents, interests is also a "gift" of evolution. It DOES take all types to create a complex society, and to insure that when the zombie apocolypse or some other huge disaster takes place there will be some type of personality, talent, etc that will be able to step up, and keep the species going even if a huge % of humans perish. In other words, I think that we need both narrow and open minds. I think we need seculars and religious, and people like me who aren't really either. Just like we need mathematicians, artists, farmers, business people, etc etc.

To answer the question posited in the OP... I'm going with the dictionary definition.

wiscsober

First, it does not matter what other people think of your beliefs.

A part of my recovery is simply a willingness to believe that by working the 12steps and trying to help another addict/alcoholic...I will be released from the clutches of addiction.

As an agnostic I am full of beliefs...and do not think of myself as a non-believer.

For me, "non-believer" is a silly and meaningless word.

fini

secular is the temporal...the "religious", then, is the infinite. the beyond-time is-ness.

i've been wondering about the secular 12-step approach because it seems to me that that the general 12-step approach is to do with transcendence. and if that is so (and i don't claim it is, just that that's how i keep hearing it talked about mostly), then taking "the transcendent" OUT of doing the steps takes away the essential (as in essence).

this would turn secular 12-step into something entirely and fundamentally, qualitatively different from non-secular 12-step.

just something i've been thinking/wondering about for quite a while, though not in a concentrated way, but it seemed to at least tangentially fit into this conversation.

bigsombrero

I wrote something, edited it, then deleted it. I guess I prefer to stay out of the thread! Happy Labor Day all!

RobbyRobot

Its sweet to be alive!

And I've now edited my response since it was related to Big's post,

awuh1

Yes Jennie, The ‘aware’ study by Dr Parnia is quite interesting in this regard. AWARE Study

I suspect however that this is literally outside the boundaries of what is allowed for discussion in this forum.

Soberpotamus

Interesting stuff, Awuh. Thanks for the link. I'm going to read up on this some more.

Sent from my iPhone using SoberRecovery

soberhawk

There is a great book on this "A Secular age" by Charles Taylor.

We have lost our religious innocence centuries ago I think, even religious people will be arguing within secular logic to some extend.

soberlicious

Much of the time, it is accepted that "non-believer" refers to someone who does not believe in God...ie not a Christian. It doesn't make much sense if you use it in a strictly literal sense, but that's not generally how it's used. I'm a believer of many things, but none that have to do with other world spirits. I do believe in human connectedness. I do believe that my actions impact farther than I often understand, and I do believe that individuals and groups have great power for change, both positive and negative. I believe I can learn something from everyone I encounter. Since for me there is no afterlife, I believe in giving it all I've got every day...because this is it. I believe in the power of the mind and I believe in the power of love.

For me, secular simply means having no religious or spiritual basis. Some people are very religious, or very spiritual, but chose a secular recovery. Many very religious families send their children to be educated in secular public schools. It's more complicated than just secular vs religious or spiritual.

Mark75

I love that meaning of essential, as of it's essence. Beautiful. But it also means necessary.

12th step:

Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

So, fini, you don't have to claim anything, it's in there, in the steps themselves.

Which of course is why Boleo's thread... about what is secular... is, well, essential.

fini

yeah, that's just it. that's what makes me look at the whole concept of secular 12-step as an entirely different beast. by its very nature.

Zencat

Me too. Secular to me means accepting the world as it is, with its joys and sorrows. IMO, there is no evidence or even compelling studies of any 'grand design', God/HP or whatnot that will change my current worldview as a freethinker. I don't' need faith when I have experience. Then develop that experience into wisdom by knowing what I can and cannot change. I can make some predictions based on experience. To me this replaces the need for faith. Thus eliminating any desire to connect with a HP.

This quote rings true for me and looks secular:"Non-theism is relaxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves. ... Nontheism is finally realizing there is no babysitter you can count on."-Pema Chödrön

I'm for whatever floats your boat. A priest once said " the only conflict between religion and science is in ones own mind". Apply that to secular vs. spiritual.

LBrain

Since I just discovered this site today I have been all over the place.
Part of what got me here in the first place was trying to cypher the big book - ya know what I mean? Though it works for many I see no reason to discount it. But I have a difficult time with it, and many of the 'thumpers' just the same. I discovered AVRT? I think is what it's called. I am intrigued by that concept as well.
All over, I am intrigued by this thread - this area of discussion.
I had to 'look up' secular as I never thought much about myself in any of the ways of categorizing myself. I came upon this site (some pantheons r'us site) and took the two quizzes, one a multiple choice, the other a yes/no quiz. In the mc quiz I was labeled an "Atheist/Secular Humanist". In the y/n quiz I was determined to be a "Scientific Pantheist". When I saw the definition or description of pantheist I chuckled. No way do I fit the description at all. More likely then I am a humanist. Then I saw there are organizations and societies dedicated to these "beliefs". As for myself fitting the description of a "Humanist", I feel no need to associate myself with any kind of organization or society that identifies itself with any belief system what-so-ever. For the same reason I don't 'believe' in organized religion, it would hypocritical for me to 'believe' in any type or organized non-religion. That being said, I suppose that I fall into the secular group of people. I spent hours this week looking for agnostic, atheist or other interpretations of the zz mandate (suggestions).
I came upon several. However, having spent quite a bit of time 'researching' this I have come to the conclusion that I actually am looking for an answer or method to conquer this sobriety monster. Because for me it is difficult at best to "turn my life/will over to a power greater than me."
Note that I have been reading Chogyam Trungpa, Thich Nhat Hanh, and using the "Beyond Belief" step thing. There is a wonderful book/program, "Full Catastrophe Living" - Jon Kabat-Zinn, that I have been starting to study. I just need more time and discipline to get into action on it. I'd appreciate any feedback.