SECULAR BELIEFS - It's Certainty Or Bust.

On social media, on any day, probably at this very minute whilst you're struggling to read this on a train, people will be being attacked, often quite crudely and cruelly, by someone online who they don't know, for something they have posted or allegedly publicly said or done. 

It may say 'Comment' at the bottom, but boy do some folk go way way beyond that. Whether its left field or right field, it's still a field that someone stands in the middle of and bellows like a prize bull. It's hard to say how widespread intolerance of other people's opinions or behaviour has become. The voices, though assertive and loud, may actually be few in number. 

Harsh vitriol I tend to interpret as coming from a contemporary strain of puritanical, knee jerk authoritarian impulses. Its almost the default social media mode. These people sound murderous in there intensity. Though the individual writer might not think this is how they are being. They probably believe they're just saying it how it is. Being brutely honest. 

Though the volume or the honesty with which an opinion is expressed, does not necessarily make it true or right. They sound as if they are extremely certain about it, and about what needs to happen. That this person is wrong, they are the secular equivalent of the anti-christ and should die a horrible prolonged death. At the very least should have their entire career petulantly snatched away from them.

This demonstrates the modern penchant for a type of rough justice. A desire, in some at least, for moral and ethical lines to be harder, firmer, clearer, more black and white. They sense a moral vacuum and want it filled, leaving no wiggle room. With the degeneration of religious or political authority, it can be difficult to know how to respond to the apparent vague messiness of relativism and liberal permissive ethics. Instinctively folk reach for the clarity and security of holding firm to values and beliefs, drawing sharper lines and high defendable boundaries. 

However illusory those lines and that certainty may actually be, there is still no room for one scintilla of doubt. For if you doubt yourself, why this is so important to you, what your motivation is, why on earth does it matter, are you even exemplary in this area? Then the evangelical purity of your quest is fundamemtally undermined. 

The consequences of not pausing to doubt, are extremely unforgiving of human failings in others, conjuring the most prejudicial judgement about people they don't know personally.  Because this immovable strength of belief, so they feel, is what is required to put the world to rights. Beliefs have to be cast, not in iron, but stainless steel. Nothing must be allowed to rust, let alone be subject to doubt.

This messianic need for inflexible conviction has also infected our political sphere. Where everything from Brexit to the major fuck up that was the Truss government, are presented with an undeserved degree of certainty about what needed to happen. One that brooks no debate or disagreement, it demands ideology on steroids. There will be pain, but it will now be our pain, and hence will be good for us.

Beliefs then are, paradoxically, in our secular era, well, are not to be lightly or provisionally held. They have to be swung around with great zeal. Anything else is weakness. Execute with complete conviction, wholeheartedly and perfectly, nothing else is acceptable. If life and the world cannot be made perfect. If religions, or democracy for that matter, haven't made the world a totally better place after millennia, well. maybe they never will.  Why bother with them?  Lets go totally freelance on belief shall we? 

G K Chesterton famously quipped - 'when a man chooses not to believe in God, he doesn't then believe in nothing, he'll believe anything.' And in these days of internet conspiracy theories and the rise of the 21st century secular puritan, that quip has come to seem, sadly, quite prophetic. People express belief in a wide variety of untruths, wishful thinking and rot. It's the zeitgeist, the more righteously unhinged it is the better. Its the unvarnished truth no one will let you say. You need to be totally defiant in the midst of your wrongheadedness.

Whilst we all can walk away from actively practicing Christianity as a faith. This doesn't mean we stop passively practicing it's values and beliefs. Whether I want them to be there or not, so many of my underlying values and beliefs are infused with veins of Christianity Lite; of fairness; equality; mutual respect; supporting the unfortunate and weak in society; tolerance; charity; turning the other cheek etc. And these are not necessarily a bad thing, not even for a non aligned Buddhist to tag along with. Unless you are Ayn Rand of course. 

In these turbulent uneasy times, we seem frequently caught between the extremes of nihilistic fundamentalism and eternalistic fundamentalism. And though it is true that the world today is in a bit of an all out ethical mess. Retreating to the lofty mountains of pristine ideals, or dismissively sweeping aside ideals as impractical daydreams, helps no one. In Buddhist practice you always start from where you are, not from where you imagine you might want to be. Though it is good to have some inkling of what the latter provisionally may be. Because it helps to have faith in a horizon to head for.

To have faith, is a very different thing to the possession of dogmatic belief.. The nearest Buddhist word to faith is sraddha, which can be translated as 'what you place your heart upon'. That is not the same as 'what you put your mind to' which is more the mode for beliefs. Religious beliefs are like specific instructions, faith an impulse that's heading toward the general direction of 'the good'. 

Whatever is missing from our secular society, and whether we need a renewed social agreement on 'common values and ethics' or not. No system of secular values or ethics will have the power to move us unless we have faith that we are being led by them towards 'the good'. The collapse of confidence and trust in our institutions, is in essence a collapse of faith in those institutions themselves as being vehicles capable of bringing what is good into existence. Still more fundamentally, it has become the collapse of faith, in faith itself.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a religious faith, just a simple optimistic faith in humanities future, willing to 'put your heart upon' making that future a better place for everyone. Just so long as we collectively all decide to do something about it - together.

SECULAR VALUES - Where The Values Are

If we are not clear about what our ethics are, then we are also unclear what values* lie behind them, those you believe and instinctively uphold through your life. In these days when cynicism or apathy are our guiding stars - in what do we now put our faith?

The poet and thinker David Whyte believes there is a central dichotomy in modern society between two values, to be an independent individual and to belong. We want a sense of belonging to society, to families, to religions, to political or social groups. But find ourselves rebelling against any perceived restrictions, oppression, compromises and curtailing of individual liberty that belonging to any group may ask of us. Liberty and belonging are seen as in fundamental and oppositional loggerheads.

These days we lean towards individualism above collective loyalties, and tend to downplay the need for the latter. Once upon a time it was the reverse, that we valued the collective loyalties way above individual self expression to the point of actively suppressing the latter. Neither position seems to embody an entirely healthy or flexible attitude.

So, having turned partly away from devotedly adhering to our role as a dutiful civilian, we've turned them into a issue of personal choice. They are considered optional extras, or at least conditional ones, dependent upon whether they fulfill personal advantage or match our desires. The nobler task of committing oneself to higher ideals and values, ones that take us beyond solely feeding our personal benefit and gratification, are often being slandered as fruitless self denial. Individual liberty has been reinterpreted as the be all and end all of life in the pursuit of happiness.

If our society does require remedial work to restore the central strength of its ' common values and ethics' , what are they now? What is there left of our 'common values and ethics'? Can they be rebuilt or reformed?  Would we uphold them? Do we even recognise ourselves as having collective values? For values to be followed, we have to identify with them, aspire too them, on a personal, even instinctual, level. Once owned, values are not passive possessions, they need to be worn.

In the pursuit of values there is a fundamental question - What is good? And once having identified what is good, its followed by - how do I encourage what is good in myself and in others,? Religious teachers through out history, whatever their denomination, have essentially been asking that questions of us - What is good, and how do we encourage that in individuals and society at large? 

That there is a degree of ethical congruity across faiths indicates these values are broadly held in common across most human cultures, whether East or West. They are not just the sole preserve of one particular religion to define, uphold and impose. They are reflecting human values and basic needs for - liberty, loyalty, respect, tolerance, kindness, appreciation, the sanctity of life, etc.

There will always be people who will refuse to adhere to values for the common good, just because you can in a free society. Its what the law is for, to provide an ethical backstop for when people over step the mark. In general, I'd like to believe most people want to do good. Though we may often be mislead in the moment, by the strength our emotions, by the misjudgments we make and by pressures from aspects of society to act in a particular way, which may or may not be to the good. 

Values stimulate an ethical impulse in us to act, or not to act on them, to pursue them or abjure. But we do need to recognise we have them, that they're ingrained into the geology of our behaviour. The psychologist and philosopher Ian McGilchrist believes they emanate as a quality from the universe. All phenomena has intrinsic value, its not conferred upon phenomena by us.

Though the phrasing and emphasis might differ, religious ethics provide a context within which common themes of - what it is to do good - can be adopted. There can, however, be subtle differences in their purpose over - what is the doing good for? Lets look at a few examples around violence and killing. Its the primary precept in Buddhist ethics. This has both a negative and a positive version, what to discourage and what to encourage. It says:-

I undertake to abstain from taking life
With deeds of loving kindness, I purify my body.

In the Ten Commandments it says - Thou shall not kill, which is blunt and to the point. It doesn't sound very nuanced, but in actual practice it would have to be. Because the context within which something takes place is important; killing in war; killing under extreme duress; killing by accident; killing as a lesser but necessary form of good. Causes and volitions nuance the level of approbation, for where allowances would be made.

Buddhism asks you to consider ethics in relation to your thoughts, words and deeds. So its not just about bodily killing, its about the violence we do within our minds to ourselves and others, and what we say about ourselves and others. To work on transforming these into a loving and kinder response. Violence and anger do mutual damage to victim and perpetrator. So for Buddhism the purpose in our doing good, extends beyond a divine prohibition to not do anything bad. It is to purify and change ourselves so thoroughly that in a small incremental way we alter, not just our experience of reality, but reality itself. 

In Christianity it values not killing in order to prevent the suffering and hurt of another. Buddhism values 'abstaining from taking life' in order to prevent the suffering and hurt of both victim and perpetrator'. For in both, the not doing of something throws up huge challenges on an emotional and mental level. Not killing someone, no matter how murderous you are feeling, requires you to stop where you are, to adjust your perception, mind or feelings, and step away from wielding that axe. 

Hatred is a perception filter, a habit of an angry mind and stirred up emotion. So you have to tackle hatred on many levels. The Buddhist precepts provide a tool to cultivate 'loving kindness' towards yourself and the state you are in, and towards the person to whom you have ill feeling. It is not.necessarily, an easy or quick thing to turn around. So patience needs cultivating.

In both religions human life has intrinsic value, it is either God given and sacred, or a precious opportunity arising from fortunate circumstances that created your life, so it is wrong to rob anyone of it. All human and sentient life is inter-connected. Our inter-connectedness is a belief that has foundational importance in Buddhism. Though Christianity may not make interconnectedness that explicit, it is a quality arising from everything being of God's creation. We are doing good, but behind it lies a larger sacred purpose.

What is valued tends to be founded upon such underlying beliefs. Not taking life is a value, but we do so, because - we are all interconnected spiritually - are all Gods creations - all human life is sacred. These are foundational beliefs. For example - all life being interconnected underpins why not causing harm to others is deemed so vital. This is also a responsibility we hold not just individually, but collectively.

But there have been times when cultures don't value that interconnection. In many early ancient cultures where humankind was more stratified, prejudicial distinctions were made between the capabilities of men and women. Likewise different classes, slaves or races. It was considered of lesser consequence to kill a slave, because they"d already been bought and sold, and by virtue of being commodified were robbed of their humanity anyway. 

A similar thing happened to Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and people with mental problems. under the Nazis regime. Where it became OK to kill someone because they were considered dehumanised, subhuman, inferior or defective. This view is dependent upon holding a belief in your own superiority or that of your country, cast, race or gender. Then your values will emphasise your separateness and your inherent, even God given, sense of being superior. This meant even killing might be considered important for the greater good of mankind. Its not something I'd sign up for. But it demonstrates how the sort of values you hold can produce a different sense of what is right ethically, of what is to be considered good.  

The consequences of the first precept or commandment 'to not take life' roll out from them like a constantly evolving ethical river. Causing us to examine other forms of violence, through what we do, through what we say, through what we think, even through to what we eat. Murder is one hate filled action, it can take many forms, particularly in how we speak to ourselves and to others. If we hate ourselves then this tends to seep out in how we respond to the people we encounter in daily life. 

Values state an ideal, out of which emerges an ethical principle, but that ethical principle has to be acted upon if it is to have any value at all. Nothing theoretical has meaning or validity until its put to the test. We all hold a fundamental belief that these values, if they are put into action, would make the world a better place to live in, not just for yourself, but everyone.

That beliefs, values and ethics have previously been the sole preserve of religions, could make all this triumvirate of elements problematic. Because we want to see ourselves as moving beyond organised 'superstitious' religions. A secular form of ethics, however, cannot evolve out of nothing. Dissociating them from where they emerged first, doesn't necessarily help. 

Christianity's purpose has often been to act as societies conscience, the focus for social reform and ethical progress. We have to acknowledge, however begrudgingly, that we inherited a legacy from Christian ideals and ethics. Even though practicing Christians have not always been the best exemplars of them, for better or for worse.

If not our religious or political leaders, who else today will uphold our inheritance of these 'common values and ethics'? Who today has the authority to provide moral leadership?  Maybe it should not be down to one person or institution, not a top down dissemination, but an up-swelling from a grass roots desire for renewal.

* Values - underlying ideals, qualities and feelings we have given emotional investment to. Often referred to as core values, these feed into our ethics and the sort of society we aspire to have. Not, however to be confused with monetary values.

To follow

SECULAR BELIEFS - Its Certainty Or Bust

SECULAR ETHICS - Look at the State of It

The division of society into secular and religious, has a long history, and the separation has cultivated inconsistencies in the practices of both aspects. Secular life forms the ground for ethical practice ( spiritual or otherwise ) and ethical practice inevitably has its impact upon the secular functioning of society (spiritual or otherwise). But what is secular* ethics**?

The historian Tom Holland has suggested that 'the secular' as an idea originates from Christianity itself, created to demarcate the boundary between what was a priestly or a kingly domain of influence. Many democratic constitutions still erect such a boundary, at least in principle, in the hope of keeping religious and secular concerns fenced off.  And these still operate, in the US for example, as an excedingly leaky religious exclusion zone. The separation is an ideological one, and in everyday life and practice it does not really exist.

In the UK we live in a society that sees itself as predominantly secular. Religions exists as a choice, a private affair. Despite having an established church with a monarch who is the figurehead for both state and church. This is a formal symbolic deception. As the country at large operates outside any collectively held religious framework. Whenever an Archbishop pipes up about an unethical aspect of government policy, they are sternly told not to interfere in politics, to just hop back over the other side of the moral fence will you.

After millennia of top down religious impositions of godly power and disapproval. From the Reformation onward religious devotion, and ethical practice with it, has become more and more a private individuals concern. Though there has always been an understanding that society in general still held shared 'common values and ethics' that are Christianity Lite.  

Increased secularisation and individualism has left us with a Christian infused, but 'relative' form of values out of which some form of rough cut secular ethics flows. People now speak their 'truth', however contradictory that maybe to the facts of the matter or their ethical probity. Governments no longer uphold 'common values' nor hold themselves to a higher standard of ethics. Its all about what you can get away with, free of consequence. They say black is white, and say the exact opposite an hour later. Its all relative to place and who you are speaking to. To point out this ethical duplicity is mere nitpicking.

And into this secular ethical black hole has come a trenchant surge of secular puritanism, from both the left and the right, attempting to command the moral high ground, from where they can point the finger of shame. Social media is full to the brim with it.

I find myself dwelling on a question in the middle of this puritan rinse cycle -  is it actually possible to have 'common values and ethics' that are purely secular?  Isn't a prior historical religious context always lurking unacknowledged in the background? Ethics arise from values and values arise from core beliefs about human behaviour and metaphysics. Where else would the values for a secular ethics emerge from? Is simply to vaguely secularise our pre-existing Christian based values going to do? Because that appears to be what we are attempting. 

I started reflecting on this for three reasons. First, Five years ago I left a Buddhist Order. Since then I have remained Buddhist in essence with exploratory forays into the Christianity that in a sense had preceded it. My ethics have remained largely unchanged, still guided by the Ten Precepts that excited me early on in my spiritual life as a Buddhist. At the time I first heard them, they spoke deeply to my own innate ethical sense of the values I wanted my life to be guided and motivated by. Prior to that I'd had no conscious template, other than the Christian one I was brought up with, to frame that innate ethical sense within.

Why did I not feel the same about the ten commandments? Well they were commandments, from God, which were two large and problematic concepts for me. And I am not alone in finding them a troublesome obstacle. When we have values within such a context, we find ourselves framing our ethical views within a language of prohibitions. God's commandments are there to prevent us doing things, things we may still want to do, even though they are bad for us individually or for society. Commandments place hard boundaries to contain the worse instincts of our human nature, and assert compliance by anointing them with divine authority. That is one way to create 'common values and ethics' I guess.

The Ten Buddhist Precepts are couched in terms of being principles that you practice. There is no God punishing you to get you to practice them. When you inevitable fall short of them, the sense of shame you have arises from letting your better self down, that is seen as sufficient in itself. You move on, rededicate yourself to your continued,if faltering, practice. Buddhist ethical practice is always in the process of not quite becoming perfect. One's ethical sensitivity, at best, is constantly evolving and deepening over time. 

The second reason, was reading Tom Holland's book Dominion, in which he lays out a convincing case for Western Civilisation being entirely constructed on the revolutionary impact of values, ideals and ethics from Christianity. However secular we may try to be ethically, these remain fundamental underpinnings for how our society functions. They have their authority for existing, through there Christian origin and mindset, that they came from God. This raised the idea in my mind whether any ideal or ethical sense, cut off from the religious ethos that spawned them - well can that really work?

Third, I recalled a phrase from the late Buddhist teacher Sangharakshita, who being quite pragmatic, said that 'It was better to have a Christian sense of ethics, than no ethics at all'.  It's was a warning to Buddhists not be too partisan in their attitude to another religions ethical practice. Ethics from within a religious context, he considered were better than doing without. 

Though we all may have an individual ethical code, should that really be one we pick n mix to suit ourselves? There is a rigor in applying ourselves to an external code of ethics with a collective ethos behind it. This supports and brings confidence to the practitioner that they are applying themselves to doing the right thing. Is it important that an external spiritual framework exists behind any individual ethical practice, in order for it to be most effective? 

Can we trust ourselves not to be ethically self serving? There's always a public and a private face to our ethical practice. Ideally they ought to be the same, but they frequently are not. The tendency being to let ourselves off our ethical practice when we think we are not being seen. The 'ethics of the private moment' as the teacher Subhuti once called it. Its what feeds most scandals and moral outrages. People forget that social media is not a private moment, but a public one, and fall fowl of it being exposed.

When an apparently popular, even saintly, figure is revealed to have reprehensibly soiled feet. They may have performed a sin in private, and now its distasteful moral underbelly is there for all to see. We cannot bare the sight of other more famous people's moral flaws  inconsistencies and imperfections. This says a lot about how prudish we feel about our own. But also highlights how much our desire for moral exemplars still exists. But is our bar, in our secular age, always being set too high?

There is a sense still of there being a residual 'common values and ethics' but paradoxically, not ones entirely universally held. Nature, as they say, abhors a vacuum. So what we currently appear to have is the 21st century version of a witch trial, where social media platforms act as moral arbiters, like a modern, perhaps more rabid, version of the Inquisition. Virtually stoning, torturing and disemboweling the object of their opprobrium. It has all the ethical sensitivity and rectitude of a comic book superhero. There is little wisdom or compassion here. Just ethical cleansing.

Where do we go from here?

*   Secular - a part of society without overt religious affiliation. 

** Ethics - rules, codes of behaviour, ethos or principles by which one could live ones life.

To follow .

SECULAR VALUES - Where The Values Are