|
From:
http://www.atheistlloyd.com/subweb/SecularWords.html
SML199
|
Secular Language
Why Don't we Have Our Own Words?
by Lloyd Harrison Whitling
 |
|
Lois asked a
question, and that's all it took to start me on a rant:
What is your opinion of
Keith Ellison who wants to take his oath of office on the Koran. Please
include your reasons for your position.
Lois
The enti re
notion is a strawman set up to keep citizens unaware that America (USA) is
a secular nation and that the Constitution, not any religious scriptures,
are what those who set out to govern are sworn to uphold. Keith Ellison is
only one player in that game, most likely unwittingly so, as most current
citizens have little cause (most citizens believe) to give such matters
much in-depth consideration. They are in error, and the likely end result
of this will be determined by the strawman arguments, and the real
facts will have little bearing on the final outcome.
In my opinion,
such missteps of injustice will continue for so long as secular people do
not feel impelled by any kinds of motivations to back their own ideals, or
to even recognize their own ideals in such a way that drives them to
strive for balance against the religious and political right in our
country. Even while falling apart, the right's recent impetus makes them a
continued threat to our rights and liberties simply because they have
learned so much about how to overwhelm their opposition with such
misrepresentations about the struggle between religion and
*truth
that it caricatures the truth about the American political system.
Mister Ellison, then, acts as a willing goat at which the rightwingers
shoot paper bullets while they work to bury the United States under the
casings of fascism. Why do so few people realize that?
To which Lois responded:
They do realize it, but they think it makes for a good argument
for a de facto established religion. |
|
So,
how about the people on our side of the "struggle". We laid back,
non-proactive secular atheists, agnostics and such have very few in our
ranks, it seems, that would stand up against such an argument, or to even
make an effort to study about it and come to truly secular conclusions.
Most of us seem to skate about on the surface of current events without
any real inklings about what represents our own worldview. We indulge in
platitudes and hopeful sighs about "the truth will win in the end" while
we have no sure road to walk toward that being a certainty.
The
Dark Ages only need for the Radical Religious to gain that de facto
established religion so they have control of the lights and can turn them
out. While they might be in momentary turmoil right now, they have not
quit the struggle. Obstacles only make them more determined, while we feel
too inclined to relax and tell ourselves, "We are winning one more time."
I am
slowly poring my way through THE GOD DELUSION. I hope Mister Dawkins
offers some utility-grade advice for atheists that goes beyond all that is
wrong with religion, and tells us how to take advantage of what is right
without it. It seems like we dwell on what is wrong with the other side
and have very little to say about what is right with ours. That looks like
a good tack we should try.
Lois: Yes, it is. I
hope we can succeed with it.
I am
acceptive enough of determinism to realize that the words we use are
important. In the USA we have been trained to use words of religious
origin, which forces secular people to talk about irreligious subjects in
religious terms (such as 'atheist', 'agnostic', 'apostasy' or, even,
'secular'). 'Secular' is, of course, of religious origin, but it means the
same on either side of the wall; it refers to the natural as opposed to
the religious, whether it be the origins of a thought, the basis of a
doctrine, or the nature of a law or philosophy. Other than that, we must
speak of atheistic interests while redefining our language in ways the
religious will not accept, and in ways that get us into arguments among
ourselves that unfocuses us, and so we have been futile in our efforts. I
have taken that up as a cause that I find extremely interesting.
Linguistics is a potent field. I believe the rightwingers are a half
century ahead of us at learning how to apply it to advance their own
interests. I am a rank amateur at it, with only knowledge and
understanding I can glean from the Internet and a couple of political
books to direct me. Still, I find that smidgeon to be very helpful to me.
I
remember writing to you about
colligion
[kul-LI'-jun] a while back. Your response was that it would complicate
things too much. I have been messing about with it ever since, and find
the opposite to be true, once one gets it into one's head exactly what it
is about.
EXAMPLE:
I have watched people (through their messages on the various groups)
wrestle obstacles to come to terms with atheism while they struggle to
adopt it, trying to define it relative to the broad range of interests
their religions covered. I noticed those mainly on the pantheist groups,
where people would go to seek out an atheistic religion rather than
acknowledge themselves outright as atheists, and then express wonderment
about what they could look for to "take the place of the emptiness left by
the absence of a god."
By understanding
what causes that emptiness, I realize the horrendous nature of that
pleading, and the awfulness of religions that banish all senses of
self from their members so that it can be usurped by the religion's god. I
would say that 90% of Americans have no real ideas about who they are,
what (if they could choose without repercussions) aspirations they would
follow if offered a chance, nor what would bring them really
satisfying joy that would be worth struggling for. Most of us, even raised
in atheistic households, have had those senses godded out of us by the
time we can sit up in our own chairs. Even when not a part of it, we are
all immersed in it by our awareness of the overwhelming presence of it.
Most of the words we use for fighting our way back out of that are
religious words that only reinforce religion's creeds and ideals. We have
no new words to learn at the everyday level to help us think new kinds of
thoughts and seek new ways of understanding life. New words can take what
seems complicated now, and build a more accurate picture of what is
actually simple but that prejudices supported by religious words make
impossible for novitiates to grasp.
Lois responded:
One of the words I try never to use is "believe" or "belief". I
find it to be unnecessary in all uses. I say I don't believe in anything.
I accept some things as certainly or probably true, but I don't believe.
That takes faith.
"Try never to use" is the key expression,
here. We all suffer from having the religious language and associations
drilled into us by social interaction. The problem is, we do believe the
things we have become convinced about, but saying so brings up images of
the ubiquitous religious process even to people who share the same slant
on our experiences, and who know the rigors that led to our convictions.
Words such as 'convinced' and 'convicted'
carry those rigors with them. We know we can believe anything with little
effort, and accepting that fact implies a similar passivity. To become
convinced implies the study that led to a conviction, and seems more
powerful, and such nuances are important to stay cognizant about. There is
a small list of synonyms in my American Heritage online thesaurus that can
be looked at, and the variations in passivity noticed: |
|
•
to convince, we
can:
• enroll
• argue into
• bring around
• get
• induce
• persuade
• prevail upon
• sell on
• talk into
• win over
• bias
• convert
• prejudice
• sway
• predispose
Notice the variations of passivity each choice implies; then:
for
believe:
• regard
• categorize
• appraise
• assess
• class
• consider
• count
• deem
• opine
• reckon
• see
• suppose
• think
• view
• esteem
• characterize as
• judge
• perceive
• rank
• rate
• estimate
2. (v.) To have confidence in the truthfulness of:
• credit
• trust
• count on
• take at one's word (idiom)
• rely on
• depend on
• be certain of
• put faith in
• hold
• place confidence in
for
belief:
(n.)
A condition in which one is free from doubt:
• certainty
• assurance
• assuredness
• certitude
• confidence
• conviction
• sureness
• surety
• positiveness
• conclusiveness
• trust
• faith
• presumption
• uncertainty (antonym)
• unsureness (antonym)
• skepticism (antonym)
• doubt (antonym)
2. (n.) Something one believes or accepts as true:
• conviction
• feeling
• mind
• opinion
• persuasion
• sentiment
• view
• faith
• tenet
• creed
• doctrine
3. (n.) Certainty in another's trustworthiness:
• trust
• confidence
• faith
• reliance
• credence
• certitude
• conviction
• dependence
• mistrust (antonym)
• doubt (antonym)
• disbelief (antonym)
4. (n.) Acceptance as true or valid:
• credence
• credit
• trust
• confidence
• assurance
• reliance
• certitude
• faith
for
accept:
1. (v.) To take
(something given or offered) willingly:
• embrace
• jump at
• leap at
• receive
• welcome
• adopt
• refuse (antonym)
• reject (antonym)
• decline (antonym)
• spurn (antonym)
2. (v.) To respond affirmatively:
• assent
• accede
• acquiesce in
• agree
• concur
• consent
• subscribe
3. (v.) To know and be tolerant or sympathetic toward:
• tolerate
• understand
• bear with
• endure
• allow
• put up with
4. (v.) To bear up resignedly or patiently:
• put up with (colloquial)
• endure
• submit
5. (v.) To regard as acceptable:
• tolerate
• rubber-stamp
• approve
• sanction
• oppose (antonym)
• disapprove (antonym)
6. (v.) To recognize or regard (often reluctantly) as being valid or
true:
• acknowledge
• realize
• come to terms with
• admit
• confess
• concede
• avow
• grant
• see
• allow
• own up
• accede
• yield
• assent
• disclaim (antonym)
• repudiate (antonym)
• reject (antonym)
• deny (antonym)
7. (v.) To take upon oneself:
• shoulder
• assume
• incur
• tackle
• take on
• undertake
• take over
• take up
• shirk (antonym)
• avoid (antonym)
• shun (antonym)
• dodge (antonym)
Although I prefer 'concede', accept is a better word choice than
believe, as most synonyms do imply an active stance toward the
'acceptance' or 'rejection' of some idea, and in a more tentative way
that atheists typically demonstrate. To claim, as theists do, that
atheists 'believe' or 'disbelieve' denies the activity that led us to
accredit or discredit those ideas about which we may offer our
convictions. That activity is a no-show in a group of people whose
gathering of information requires them mainly to sit in a pew with a
group of other passive listeners while most of their mental effort goes
toward trying not to fart. We, however, will proactively fart in the
midst of an argument just to give our points the hoped-for emphasis. We
may also 'concede' to show that, while we have given up the argument,
the other side cannot claim final victory. (Well, they will, but
everybody knows they lie!)
I
guess what I am getting at is what I have been taught to pay attention
to in my writing: that some words are better suited to fit certain
situations or contexts than others. "I will accept that idea" may be
perfect in one setting, whereas "I am now convinced of that" will imply
the amount of effort that was put toward the reaching of a conclusion.
It tells anyone in opposition they will have to work much harder to
convince you otherwise because you feel you have earned the right to
believe something, whereas mere acceptance still leaves you open to
argument (which may very well be what you want to say).
So,
atheists have three levels of belief:
(1)
Conviction: "I worked hard to see if this idea is correct, and can find
no reason at all to doubt it."
(2)
Acceptance: "I can see where this idea is going, and so far am willing
to give it a go."
(3)
Concession: "I can see both sides of this argument, and will concede
that you could be more correct than what I proposed, at least until more
information arrives."
So atheism, a philosophy without a
creed, gets complicated because a creed establishes a common bond of
language. Ours ought to be the language of science, and is in many ways,
but for the fact that the everyday person does not have the education
necessary for accreditation.
Beyond that, we must somehow become
aware of certain research going on in the field of linguistics, and come
to a full understanding about all the ways our words elicit an
unintended picture in theistical minds that causes our well-intentioned
defenses of atheism to backfire on us.
Good thinking, Lloyd. This is why we atheists, especially, need
to think about and analyze language if we are not to be swept up by the
vernacular, which is so heavily influenced by theism. We have to make
our points understood and that takes work and constant attention.
NOTES:_____________________
* Truth may correctly be regarded as
a synonym for reality. Return |
Copyright ©2005
by Lloyd Harrison Whitling. All rights reserved.
![[Visit Fat Boy]](../images/DMfatb.jpg)
"To deny a right to the experience of pleasure
is immoral unless that denial can be justified by a valid presentation of
how pain will result from that experience in an amount that would render
the expected pleasure regrettable; or, if it can be shown that pain will
be induced in others innocent of any involvement. The role of science in
moral issues should be to test that, predict that, and find harmless ways
to demonstrate that."
— L. H. Whitling in the eBook,
Secular Morality — |
This page last edited on
03/04/2008
|
