thewatcher wrote:


Your comparison is flawed. Whether or not the King is alive or dead is, as it were, a factual issue. My assertion that secularism is a myth is an interpretive one. I have argued, and I think shown, that religion is a pervasive social, intellectual and institutional force and that the conceit of secularism that a seperation from religion is possible is unrealistic. This particular interpretation is, at least in principle, subject to contestation, should you think it contestable and wish to contest it. Personally, if you have any arguments to bring to the fore in this regard, I would be happy to hear them, but I suppose I could hardly complain if you wished to concede the point.

And, once again, you speak your non-comprehension. You accuse me of claiming that every good thing in society is derived from religion. My question to you is, has been and shall remain "As opposed to what?" I am not merely taking a position contrary to your own on a particular question. Rather, I am questioning the coherence of the question itself.



How very old fashioned. When in doubt, resort to a definition of a term that was always vague to the point of meaninglessness.

But, if you are the poker playing sort.... I see Plato's definition of philosophy and raise you Deleuze's: Philosophy is concerned with exploring the limits of intellectual, social and conceptual possibility.

thewatcher wrote:


You are clouding the issue. No one is questioning what secularism means, but only whether or not the idea to which the word refers makes any sense. I am not redefining terms, I am merely evaluating concepts. Secularism makes the claim that a hard and fast distinction can be made between religious and secular segments of societies, institutions and so on. I have been evaluating this claim and I have found it wanting and, rather than offering any sort of defense, you merely treat secularism as assumed (for reasons that likewise remain a mystery to me).

Dictionary.com wrote:


Secularism

–noun 1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

thewatcher wrote:
I do not think of love and wisdom as vague to the point of meaninglessness, I find the definition of philosophy as "the love of wisdom" to be uselessly vague. What does such a definition mean? Are we philosophers if we just sit around loving wisdom, never discussing it or, indeed, knowing what it is? And are we to love wisdom in the abstract, or will particular instances of wisdom do? Or perhaps the sum of all wisdom should be the object of our fond regard? And what sort of love is at play here? To quote that philosophical masterwork The Simpsons "Are we talking about the love between a man and a woman or the love between a man and a fine Cuban cigar?" In a word, your "definition" sounds nice, but it has no functional meaning (and are you not the one claiming that such is the only meaning that matters?) and ignores the fact that, for better or worse, philosophy has developed into a diverse, codified methodological discipline.

thewatcher wrote:


Of course a distinction is being claimed! To endorse the seperation of religion from secular institutions et al one must correspondingly claim that a) religion is conceptually distinct from other areas of society and b) that a seperation of the religious parts of society from the "non-religious parts" (sic) is, in principle, possible. A secularist need not claim that secularism is capable of totally driving out religion from certain spheres of life, but the secularist nonetheless would claim that doing so is coherent and, in principle, possible (if not actualizable) and desirable. I have called these assertions into question and you have failed to offer a defense, hiding instead behind the misleading characterization of my arguments as linguistics or word-play.

Your definition of philosophy is meaningless in the context of this discussion, which takes place in a forum devoted to philosophy as a defined and rigorous academic discipline rather than some fuzzy headed sentiment about how we should "feel" about wisdom.

Tao Te Ching wrote:

Individuality

My words are easy to understand
And my actions are easy to perform
Yet no other can understand or perform them.
My words have meaning; my actions have reason;
Yet these cannot be known and I cannot be known.
We are each unique, and therefore valuable;
Though the sage wears coarse clothes, his heart is jade.

thewatcher wrote:


This sounds an awful lot like an argument from authority to me. Indeed, an appeal to the authority of the masses! And then, of course, in your next breath, you argue once again from authority, this time to the supposed authority of science. I should not need to point out to you that your supposedly scientific perspective as to the meaning of words is only one perspective among many on a widely contested issue. Linguists have been arguing for decades as to the nature of meaning and its relationship to signs and symbols and they will likely continue to do so.

The fact that large numbers of people are taken in by the myth of secularism doesnt make it less of a myth. I am not disputing that the term secularism refers to such and such a network of suppositions. What I am disputing is that the suppositions of secularism are false. You have, for your part, failed to address this claim.