The Secular Value and Atheist Rejection of Sacred Texts

[wynn]

I don't understand the phrasing of the question.

What is what on his own?

First, calling the moral writings of people like Orwell, for instance, mere opinion is to greatly understate what it is he (and others) wrote. Secondly, the flaw in your logic is that if there is such a thing as objective morality and ethics, and this truth can be recognized and understood by man, then there is no reason why man himself cannot intuit it on his own.

Hence - What is that "on his own"?
How can a person intuit something "on his own"?

Some might, but I don't think most people give it much thought. In fact, I think most people go on knowing that what's right for them isn't always right for others, and get along just fine with that. Hence, being content with the subjective nature of their righteousness. In other words, Absolute Truth doesn't factor in for most people. For them, it's about what they believe is right at the time.

When directly confronted with a question like "Do you believe that you know The Absolute Truth?", few people would reply affirmatively, as this does seem a preposterous question, answering it affirmatively would be nothing less than the declaration of omniscience.

Nevertheless, for all practical intents and purposes, people do believe that their opinions aren't merely opinions, but The Absolute Truth itself; ie. that the way they see things really is "how things really are", and not just a reflection of their subjective preferences.

 

[wynn]

Looking for God is a task that always gives no inkling of hope, just frustration.

Then your experience is vastly different than mine.

Although I by no means can say that I have "found God", progressively, my search for God has effectively undone many of the frustrations I have had about God. I have also experienced some beautiful things along the way, things I have never thought possible before.

Satisfaction with, or accomplishment of undertakings in one's life. One goal or purpose may just be to attain satisfaction itself.

In that case, the problem may not be in the advice given in the scriptures.
Scriptures give advice for how to attain a particular goal; not just any goal.

 

[James R]

Nom-de-Plume,

There is a meme spreading across the Atheist, Agnostic and Anti-theist community: a vehement hate for any and all sacred texts, and disregard for any non-religious value they may hold.
Being Atheist, or even Anti-theist, doesn't mean you need to dismiss or hate the Bible, the Qur'an, or any other holy book completely.

If such a meme exists, I'm not aware of it. Certainly, the atheist community does not believe that the Bible, the Qu'ran or any other book is "holy" or inspired by any deity. Atheists believe that all such texts were written by human beings.

In my experience, many atheists know the bible better than many Christians. So, they know it isn't a "perfect" book, or even a Good book (in the moral sense). The bible is a mixed bag. That's not to underestimate its huge impact on our civilisation, as you say:

The Bible -- despite all of the terrible teachings it does hold -- is a text of colossal literary influence. It is the root of many analogies, phrases, and concepts common today. It's an important milestone in Philosophy and human ethics and morals. Its shortcomings are found in its outdated views, but its didactic stories cannot be deemed ignorable, as their impact and longevity are unprecedented.

The Bible, in its context, was in some aspects an extremely progressive text. Being a multifarious collection of writings, I am careful about making generalisations, but it's fair to say that it did, in fact, challenge many 'bad' views and philosophies of the time. It can be studied in a secular fashion, particularly the New Testament, as a manifesto covering pacifism, plutocracies, political science, dictatorships, imperialism, and much more. Not to say that all, or even some of it is 'relevant' today, but that when in terms of literature history and study, the bible and other sacred texts are not to be overlooked. Forward thinking doesn't mean rejecting the past completely.

I agree with you.

1) Do you believe sacred texts should be completely ignored, if one is Atheist?​

It would be silly to try to ignore texts of such obvious influence, such as the bible and the Qur'an. Particular if you want to understand religion and religious people.

2) Do you believe sacred texts can have secular value?​

As literary works, poetry, philosophy - certainly. They also embody a particular worldview, or perhaps several worldviews that explain a lot of history.

3) Do you believe that sacred texts are only retrogressive, or that historically, they have at times propagated progressive views and messages?​

It's a mixed bag. For example, some of the laws in the Qur'an were quite progressive at the time they were written, yet the same laws are seen to be wanting in the light of modern political and social ideas.