A secular Camino?

[VNwalking]

And perhaps it is only someone with a belief in god that can take the broader view you suggest

Hmmm. I don't to the first part and easily do the second.

Those that don't might acknowledge others views about the sacredness of the places on the camino and the activities of pilgrimage, but I cannot see them taking that view themselves.

Well, yes, that's true. Sacredness isn't implicit. It's a concept created by people, and applied to specific objects and places. My sacred may be someone else's tourist attraction and vice versa. But that doesn't mean that the sacred doesn't exist, or that someone else's sacred doesn't affect me. It does, because of the very fact that people relate and have related to it that way.

think I would find it difficult to think of it as a little bit sacred and a little bit secular.

Actually, I'm thinking of something a bit more subtle than that. Because we can experience the camino as be completely sacred one moment and utterly secular 10 minutes later. For example, a pilgrim's mass and the pinxos in the bar afterwards...both are completely valid and true experiences.

 

[NathansMom29]

Preface:
Moderators: I absolutely respect the rules of this forum - which I consider essential - and if this post, or reactions to it, go in the wrong direction, I ask you to delete it.
I don't want to discuss religion and faith, I'm just interested to know why other "non-believers" walk a "secular Camino" and if they had any problems; but especially if there are needs and wishes to do so. But let’s keep nastiness and spitefulness out of it, p-l-e-a-s-e.

After six long Camino walks, I still wonder: is there a secular Camino?
I love to hike, and I enjoy the conversations and camaraderie as much as the days of solitude and reflection on the Camino. In doing so, however, I by no means want to be categorized as a mundane hiker. As an agnostic/atheist, it fascinates me to watch the religious rituals, they are part of an occidental culture; for example, I never fail to stop at the small chapel in Rabanal with the Gregorian chants of the monks there; and attend Mass in SdC at the end for me is a respectful reference to those who make the Camino possible. I have a lot of admiration and gratitude for the faithful pilgrims who never - or very rarely - let me feel that I do not belong.

On the other hand, it strikes me, how many of my fellow Pilgrims spontaneously admit stress that they go on pilgrimage "not for religious reasons". Thus I know that I am by no means the only one, possibly I even belong to a large group; if there were one, it would be a very silent one. I hope that respectful reports of experiences and opinions on this subject will be possible in this forum.

I love your post and the respect you have for others and the Camino itself. That is exactly what the Camino is about in my mind. I was born and raised Catholic. I am still a practicing Catholic. I learned about the Camino from the Movie “I’ll Push You.”. I always thought it would be a great thing to do for fun. Last February, my son died. Since then, I’ve felt the calliing as a way to heal, but especially to honor my Nathan. His life was tough yet he always wanted to do “something big.” My religion may help me along the way but my son is my reason.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

@NathansMom29, So very sorry to hear of the huge loss of your son a year ago. I hope your Camino and the planning of it will bring some comfort to you as you reflect on his life.
I saw the movie "I'll Push You" when it was shown at a local theater and was moved to tears. It was disappointing to me that there was only a handful in attendance as it is indeed very special and uplifting story.

 

[pepi]

@VNwalking, @dougfitz
Following your exchange with great interest.
A large and rapidly growing group of people falls into what I refer to as the category of "skeptical believers." These individuals are the only ones with whom meaningful debates can take place, as discussions with those who hold firm beliefs or non-beliefs would be unproductive.

I concur with @VNwalking. It can be challenging to understand why these individuals would criticize religious dogmas, illogical tales, and positions, yet still maintain a belief in a higher entity. Nevertheless, after centuries of ignorance and indoctrination, it is not easy to reach the conclusion that such a higher entity does not exist. Hence, these "skeptical believers" might choose to keep their options open by retaining a residual belief.

The topic under discussion is whether a true secular Camino can still exist for "skeptical believers" or for firm non-beliefers. The responses in this thread appear to give a clear "yes" answer, as the Camino is, at its core, a deeply spiritual and cultural journey that can exist without religious aspects. While the Catholic Church supports it for its own benefit, I believe that the Camino would still attract people of all beliefs, also without.

 

[pepi]

I love your post and the respect you have for others and the Camino itself. That is exactly what the Camino is about in my mind. I was born and raised Catholic. I am still a practicing Catholic. I learned about the Camino from the Movie “I’ll Push You.”. I always thought it would be a great thing to do for fun. Last February, my son died. Since then, I’ve felt the calliing as a way to heal, but especially to honor my Nathan. His life was tough yet he always wanted to do “something big.” My religion may help me along the way but my son is my reason.

After losing my youngest daughter to cancer two years ago, I understand your feelings so well and share in your grief.

 

[Bad Pilgrim]

So .... why do people (not pilgrims if not Catholics, for obvious reasons) walk the Camino? Why do those same people often walk it again and again? If they wanted a long walk they could walk round their nearest park each day, or go to their nearest long trail and walk that - but they don't, do they? they come to Camino ... for some year after year .. and all those returning "non religious" people will tell you over a bottle of Rioja that they are there because they like to walk, or like the scenery, or like the meeting with other pilgrims ... but, to me? they are called ... and they surrender and they go ... you may ask "called by whom?" and I would answer ... " look deep and silently and answer that for yourself". and read religious texts, of any religion, experientially, not as some sort of history.

I do understand aetheism, agnosticism, I do ... but throughout our history we can see that humans seem to be designed to seek "other", and that, I believe, is what they/we all do ... and, again, to me they/we are called and so often it is found on our Camino - I leave this there

Sounds like too simple of an explanation, given the diversity of people walking the Camino. But then again, I don't have a degree in religions and theology, so what do I know?

 

[Kirkie]

I discovered the word polysemy in an article where it is used nearly a dozen times. It is Who Is Interested in Developing the Way of Saint James? The Pilgrimage from Faith to Tourism by Rossella Moscarelli, Lucrezia Lopez and Rubén Camilo Lois González, see link. The abstract starts with these lines:

Abstract​

​

The Way of St. James in Spain is the main European pilgrimage route. Currently, it is a cultural, tourist, monumental, spiritual, and sports route. For this reason, the paper aims to discuss the concept of the “Polysemy of The Way”, by analysing how the new pilgrims’ motivations are creating an inclusive and complex space, which is making a shift from religious space to a multifaceted tourism reality.​

The article offers a wide context for understanding the multi-faceted Way of Saint James. It does not try to condense in a few sentences the history and significance of the Way of Saint James. It has 21 pages, so no shortcuts, plenty of opportunities to expand on the Polysemy of the Way. I am still unsure of the way to use the word polysemy, but the article per se was well worth getting, so thank you once more for the link. I am so glad the forum offers nuggets of discovery in the sharing of knowledge and information by members such as yourself, @Kathar1na.

edit: I repeat also my gratitude to @pepi for opening the thread. As you have said yourself - it is indeed amazing that the tone has remained wide open!

 

[dougfitz]

The article offers a wide context for understanding the multi-faceted Way of Saint James. It does not try to condense in a few sentences the history and significance of the Way of Saint James.

I was doing some other reading this morning, and found this short description from another forum member compelling:

Camino translates - Spanish to English - as: Way; Path; Road; Journey; Course; Trail, and a few more. So Camino is both a physical and metaphysical thing - a road and the journey along it. For me when I make my Way along the Northern and French routes to Muxia and our broken boat or to Finis Terre I am en camino and also on Pilgrimage. I am making a journey to a place sacred in my tradition.

If I walk to Santiago, if I undertake Camino de Santiago, by any of the thousand ways I am making pilgrimage to the remains of one who may have touched the divine. If I walk the "Frances" or the Vasco or any of the others that coincide I will always pause and give thanks to Santo Domingo, the road-builder, at his shrine. Not so much pilgrimage but with heartfelt thanks. I'll brush my hand through the nettles of the Montes de Oca, a nod to San Juan and another builder of "the Way".

Its post #90 at this link.

 

[pepi]

In another thread, moderator Dick Bird posted a fascinating documentation of the University of Chicago titled "Revival of the Pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela", which I recommend that every Peregrino should read; I am posting the link here because the (rather heavy-) text fits perfectly into this thread too.

It deals with the numerous myths about St. James, his relics, and the history of the Camino, describing how religious myths are created and used in conjunction with [the Catholic] Church and politics, both, regional and national. While the study confirms the Camino's undisputed relation with the Catholic Church, it also underscores its ecumenical character.

I go one step further. The development of religious myths is, in my opinion, smokescreens serving to distract from the fundamental question "is there a God". And because proof of this is impossible, myths were produced over the entire human history, leading to an ultimately diffuse religious belief, whose framework is cemented up by means of dogmas.

With the continuing enlightenment and scientific knowledge it becomes more and more clear that religions ultimately contradict themselves and that they can only be maintained with mysticism and stubborn dogma. It is a matter of time before atheism will become generally accepted and it is, therefore, all the more important to strengthen a humanitarian, moral guide and support indispensable for a social world order.
This includes, in particular, secular spirituality and, for example, a secular Camino. If today's religious institutions had an interest in evolving and taking their followers along with them, rather than digressing into fringe sects, they would join these efforts to promote secular spirituality.

Sorry, I realize that all this is very remote from questions like "how to get from Pamplona to SJPdP" or "where do I find the best boccadillos" and it may therefore interest only a very few people in this forum.

 

[David]

This is all both entertaining and somewhat fascinating but ...
Spiritual vs religious is a modern concept and it comes from the cult of the ego and public education that relies only on the literal and historical rather than including the experiential.

What it really means is being the same as a member of a religion but without subscribing to any doctrine.

Spiritual simple means being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things .... but think about that - if there is no 'other' which religious name God, then this a purely random physical manifest universe that carries on purely through cause and effect ... but .. if there is no 'other' then there is no reality outside of the material .. therefore no spirit, no soul, and also no quest.... to go further, to take that 'Other' (however you may think of it) out of the equation also means that there is no good and evil, no morality, no ethics ...
it also means that there can be no sacred spaces, opposed to profane, there is only this random universe with no meaning .....

So, you can do a secular Camino but you cannot do a secular pilgrimage - obvious really - Buen Camino

 

[trecile]

So, you can do a secular Camino but you cannot do a secular pilgrimage - obvious really - Buen Camino

I suppose that depends on your definition of pilgrimage.
I like the definition on Wikipedia.

A pilgrimage is a journey, often into an unknown or foreign place, where a person goes in search of new or expanded meaning about their self, others, nature, or a higher good through the experience. It can lead to a personal transformation, after which the pilgrim returns to their daily life.

 

[David Tallan]

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’​

Lewis Carroll, or rather Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, was a very insightful man and you could say he anticipated most of the precepts of Applied Linguistics some 50 or more years before they were formulated. There is no essential link between a symbol and what it represents and the same symbol can represent a number of meanings or concepts. Having said that, there has to be a considerable level of agreement within a culture over what symbols represent which concepts, otherwise communication via language would break down. That still leaves a lot of fuzziness and room for a lot of miscommunication.

As you point out, the same symbol can represent a number of meanings and concepts. A glance at my trusty OED shows me that this is frequently the case in English, even with our most commonly used words. Often, we can use context to tell which meaning is intended. It isn't that hard to tell when I am using "leaves" to mean the plural of "leaf" or someone departing. But in plenty of places it isn't clear. The cultural agreement has associated multiple concepts to the same symbol and context isn't enough to distinguish them. The fuzziness may be intentional (I want you to be aware of and consider the multiple meanings) or unintentional, leaving room for miscommunication.

Interestingly, I remember learning in linguistics classes many decades ago, when one studies pidgins and creoles one discovers that languages evolve towards greater ambiguity rather than greater clarity, is if humans value the former for communication more than the latter.

 

[Former member 92300]

.

Not sure where I fall into this. I was raised a Lutheran, and not only is half of my family Catholic (including my father), I also married a Catholic. In fact - my husband was raised in Jesuit Catholic private schools from pre-school through university - even living in Catholic boarding schools for much of his later education years. My husband and I still consider ourselves to be "Christian", but we are definitely not "practicing" Christians. My husband and I joke that I am more Catholic than him because I have attended service and received a "blessing" from the Pope at the Vatican and I have now completed to Catholic pilgrimages and am planning the first half of the Via Francigena for this summer. (Obviously - this doesn't really make me a Catholic - it is just our musings - so please don't take that as anything more than husband and I kidding around when we say that). Our kids were baptized, but have not been raised with religion. We have introduced MANY religions to them, but have not raised them to be believers. Not necessarily a conscious choice - but in their younger years we moved a lot and didn't settle into a church and never did once we got settled in our current location. Now they are adults and can make their own choices. That said - I do not consider myself an atheist or agnostic, but I do think my kids consider themselves to be.

For me - I have an appreciation for Catholicism and it's history. And I love wandering through old Cathedrals and churches. When I walk, I do attend a few masses. I have even taken communion (don't shoot me - I was always given communion when attending other churches growing up - so it is just how I was raised, even a few Catholic priests who knew I was raised Lutheran have knowingly given it to me since my Confirmation in the Lutheran Church). Anyhow - I walk for more spiritual reasons as opposed to religious reasons - while still appreciating the religious background and history of the Camino. I also do it for physical and emotional health. And I love that some people are devoutly religious - and don't mind "talking" religion - as long as someone isn't lecturing me without me seeking a lecture. What I mean by that is if I want a sermon - I will go to a church and listen or I will seek it out. I do not however like when someone tries to push their beliefs on me. I find that a turnoff. And while I walked with some devoutly Catholic folks, most were somewhere in the middle. Some agnostic/atheist, many were "Christians" who are not active with any church. We all discussed reasons for the hike, and I would say more of us did it for broad spirituality vs specific religious reasons and a few did it "just because" it sounded like a fun hike.

 

[David Tallan]

It can be challenging to understand why these individuals would criticize religious dogmas, illogical tales, and positions, yet still maintain a belief in a higher entity. Nevertheless, after centuries of ignorance and indoctrination, it is not easy to reach the conclusion that such a higher entity does not exist.

I'm going to suggest that ignorance and indoctrination are not the only reasons to reach conclude that a "higher entity" exists. It can also be experience. Some see the existence all around them.

It is like beauty. There are some things that many people see beauty in. There are some that few people see beauty in. There is lots of room where people can and do disagree. It is conceivable that someone could not perceive beauty at all. They may be able to reason out where people are likely to see beauty without experiencing it themselves. We cannot find a "beauty particle". It may be something that comes from us and our perception. But I cannot help but believe that beauty exists. There is something I am experiencing and applying the label to.

I would never say that it is only centuries of ignorance and indoctrination that cause me to say that beauty exists. The Divine may exist in the same way that beauty does. Something we (some of us, at least) recognize in the universe around us that is manifested in the universe we see.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[Former member 92300]

Yes I totally agree. I’m not religious at all but to miss the history, heritage and so on does seem sad (whilst acknowledging it’s each to their own). I find it unimaginable, to visit the Middle East, SE Asia, South Asia and so on and not visit temples, mosques, and hear the stories and traditions. Belief systems are so fundamental in many countries (admittedly not so much in the countries that populate this forum), it almost like ignoring the key part of the country’s’ culture!

Agreed - if you are going to visit any region of the world it is a good idea to learn a little about the people who live within that region - and learning a little about their religion is an important part of that learning process. I know for some - it is unthinkable to attend a service/mass/temple/whatever it is called in that religion because they don't believe the same things you believe. I was fortunate enough to have a pastor growing up who encouraged us to explore other religions. He would say "You want to go to temple with your friend? You should! I hope you enjoy it and I hope you come back to our church". But yes - religion is definitely a key aspect to most cultures, and learning about it helps you understand the people in that particular culture.

 

[David Tallan]

they [religions] can only be maintained with mysticism and stubborn dogma

You say that like mysticism (the direct experience of the Divine) is a bad thing.

 

[pepi]

You say that like mysticism (the direct experience of the Divine) is a bad thing.

I am not saying this at all!

 

[ivar]

I realize we don't talk about these topics a lot on the forum, mostly because it ends badly... I will leave this open for now, but might close it if it goes "overboard"

 

[David Tallan]

I am not saying this at all!

I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[dougfitz]

This is all both entertaining and somewhat fascinating but ...
Spiritual vs religious is a modern concept and it comes from the cult of the ego and public education that relies only on the literal and historical rather than including the experiential.

What it really means is being the same as a member of a religion but without subscribing to any doctrine.

Spiritual simple means being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things .... but think about that - if there is no 'other' which religious name God, then this a purely random physical manifest universe that carries on purely through cause and effect ... but .. if there is no 'other' then there is no reality outside of the material .. therefore no spirit, no soul, and also no quest.... to go further, to take that 'Other' (however you may think of it) out of the equation also means that there is no good and evil, no morality, no ethics ...
it also means that there can be no sacred spaces, opposed to profane, there is only this random universe with no meaning .....

So, you can do a secular Camino but you cannot do a secular pilgrimage - obvious really - Buen Camino

@David, I find two things about this difficult.

The first is in the history of the English word 'spiritual' which the OED I use suggests was first used around 1660, and was tightly, but not exclusively coupled, to the concept of a deity. Over the next century it loses this exclusivity to develop a meaning more associated with the working of the human mind. We might debate whether this was a shift in its meaning arising from 'the cult of the ego', but I think that development of its meaning well predates the development of concepts around the ego, and seems firmly settled by the mid 18th Century.

My second concern arises from your tight coupling of sprititual to being a member of a religion but without a doctrine. I am not sure what the full ramifications of such a statement are to you, but I do not see that as a necessary condition. If anything, I see the reverse, ie to be a member of a religion, it is necessary to believe in a spiritual dimension to our lives. More, the development of the word's meaning indicates that it quickly loses that link. So at least in its early usage, it seems to me that it was being used without the linkage to a deity and associated religion that you appear to be relying on here.

 

[David]

@David, I find several things about this difficult.

The first is in the history of the English word 'spiritual' which the OED I use suggests was first used around 1660, and was tightly, but not exclusively coupled, to the concept of a deity. Over the next century it loses this exclusivity to develop a meaning more associated with working of the human mind. We might debate whether this was a shift in its meaning arising from 'the cult of the ego', but I think that development of its meaning well predates the development of concepts around the ego, and seems firmly settled by the mid 18th Century.

My second concern arises from your tight coupling of sprititual to being a member of a religion but without a doctrine. I am not sure what the full ramifications of such a statement are to you, but I do not see that as a necessary condition. If anything, I see the reverse, ie to be a member of a religion, it is necessary to believe in a spiritual dimension to our lives. More, the development of the word's meaning indicates that it quickly loses that link. So at least in its early usage, it seems to me that it was being used without the linkage to a deity and associated religion that you appear to be relying on here.

Ah, perhaps (probably) I didn't explain well. The cult of the ego, the prominence of the "I" began in the late 1500s, early 1600s in Europe and led the the exploration of the world for riches, capitalism, and then the founding of empires, all selfish acts ... nowadays it seems to have reached its peak where people address issues from the standpoint of their personal desires and wants rather than abstractly about a subject in itself.

The context of spiritual and religious and secular in the post thread is specifically to do with those on Camino, moving towards Santiago. What I failed to write correctly was my 'spiritual' thing ...I didn't mean to suggest that someone who self defines as spiritual is somehow a member of a religion but a discarder of the books and doctrines. I was attempting to say that all humans are spiritual but those who are members of a religion are then named religious rather than spiritual - and the most spiritual people in global history were members of religions.

Also what I was trying to say was that one cannot be 'spiritual' unless one accepts an "Other", something greater than our physical universe for without that there is no soul, no spirit, no search/quest, no right or wrong, no good or evil, no morality, no ethics except that invented by individual humans (again the cult of the ego, the me me me) ... because all of these came into being through the concept of deity ... without the deity they all disappear ...

 

[dougfitz]

Also what I was trying to say was that one cannot be 'spiritual' unless one accepts an "other", something greater than out physical universe for without that there is no soul, no spirit, no search/quest, no right or wrong, no good or evil, no morality, no ethics except that invented by individual humans (again the cult of the ego, the me me me) ... because all of these came into being through the concept of deity ... without the deity they all disappear ...

@David, thank you for that explanation. Unfortunately, it seems remarkably similar to the arguments for belief mounted by the priests, brothers and nuns of my childhood, founded in their own conviction that it is impossible to explain the world without a deity.

I believe that to be spiritual one only needs to acknowledge that there is more than can be explained by rational means. Extending that to suggest there is an 'other' is, for me, to descend into mysticism and I am not interested in doing that.

Edit: I should clarify that I am not challenging the experiences of mystics, but that seeking an explanation for realities beyond our perceptual or intellectual understanding has to be to be explained by the existence of a deity.

 

[David]

@David, thank you for that explanation. Unfortunately, it seems remarkably similar to the arguments for belief mounted by the priests, brothers and nuns of my childhood, founded in their own conviction that it is impossible to explain the world without a deity.

I believe that to be spiritual one only needs to acknowledge that there is more than can be explained by rational means. Extending that to suggest there is an 'other' is, for me, to descend into mysticism and I am not interested in doing that.

Sorry Doug but I don't understand, apologies. My point is that if there is only a physical reality, universe, that appeared randomly and is merely physical laws and cause and effect then there is no soul or spirit to be spiritual with as there is only this.

P.s. we So have to sit without time restraints somewhere on Camino with a couple of bottles of rioja. The conversation we could have!

 

[pepi]

Sorry Doug but I don't understand, apologies. My point is that if there is only a physical reality, universe, that appeared randomly and is merely physical laws and cause and effect then there is no soul or spirit to be spiritual with as there is only this.

P.s. we So have to sit without time restraints somewhere on Camino with a couple of bottles of rioja. The conversation we could have!

"....discussions between those holding firm beliefs with non-believers tend to be unproductive."

 

[David Tallan]

without that [a deity] there is no soul, no spirit, no search/quest, no right or wrong, no good or evil, no morality, no ethics except that invented by individual humans (again the cult of the ego, the me me me) ... because all of these came into being through the concept of deity ... without the deity they all disappear ...

My own beliefs about Deity aside, I don't think belief in a deity is a prerequisite for ethics and the perception of right or wrong, good or evil. It is a common assumption of theists, but not one that is borne out by my experience. We may have initially recognize these concepts in association with a belief in a deity, but correlation is not causation and I have known many atheists with powerful and effective systems of ethics and excellent judgement in recognizing right and wrong, good and evil.

That's just my experience. YMMV.

 

[dougfitz]

Sorry Doug but I don't understand, apologies. My point is that if there is only a physical reality, universe, that appeared randomly and is merely physical laws and cause and effect then there is no soul or spirit to be spiritual with as there is only this.

That is at the core for me, and I think it is fundamental to the question.

 

[Purky]

I tried something similar to @pepi a while ago, regarding secular caminos. But as with a camino, that online journey turned out to be much more interesting than the end result. In terms of results, I'm still not really impressed with my own conclusions. Perhaps because it has more to do with semantics, rather than celebration. In retrospect, I was probably looking for a clever point, a good reason or an intellectual argument to simply honour the earth-shattering and life-changing experience that my camino turned out to be for me. Which, as far as honouring goes, is likely the wrong approach.

So I gave up looking for a secular Grand Camino Theory of Everything. Instead, I have accepted that my camino has meaning because it means something to me, and as such may be celebrated and viewed with awe (by me). But that doesn't mean it has to have a point or even a purpose, secular or otherwise. The fact that meaning exists, because we as humans were able to think and will it into existence, is enough for me now. Points and purposes are now nothing more than some fun afterthought, trying to make sense of it all. Or maybe they are grips to be able to turn it into a sensible story with a beginning, a middle and an end. But it has little to do with the experience itself.

I'm in no way trying to invalidate this thread. On the contrary, I like reading it. But having walked three weeks last summer I can't remember thinking about these matters during that camino. These questions weren't relevant while on the road. Echoing @VNwalking: "Walking clarifies everything, and these distinctions begin to matter less."

 

[Bad Pilgrim]

if there is no 'other' which religious name God, then this a purely random physical manifest universe that carries on purely through cause and effect ... but .. if there is no 'other' then there is no reality outside of the material .. therefore no spirit, no soul, and also no quest.... to go further, to take that 'Other' (however you may think of it) out of the equation also means that there is no good and evil, no morality, no ethics ...

Not true. Think of existentialists such as Sartre and de Beauvoir. They were atheists, and held firm beliefs about good and evil, ethics and morality.

 

[David]

"....discussions between those holding firm beliefs with non-believers tend to be unproductive."

Pepi, you totally misunderstand, it isn't about beliefs in any form, it is about looking at the universe as is rather than with beliefs or opinions - it is a Plato viewing of the manifest as what "is".

 

[David]

My own beliefs about Deity aside, I don't think belief in a deity is a prerequisite for ethics and the perception of right or wrong, good or evil. It is a common assumption of theists, but not one that is borne out by my experience. We may have initially recognize these concepts in association with a belief in a deity, but correlation is not causation and I have known many atheists with powerful and effective systems of ethics and excellent judgement in recognizing right and wrong, good and evil.

That's just my experience. YMMV.

David, you are talking about opinions, that people choose certain things, I am talking in the abstract, almost mathematical equations .... Plato always spent the first section of a dialogue explaining what each term meant so that the conversation could be without faults ... it is a no-brainer that if this universe is mechanical and random and has no meaning then morality, ethics, spirituality etc are non existent, just invented in a mind to make a belief system, a belief system as strong as with a deist person.

Crikey, I might as well drop all this ... think I will take up herding cats instead ....

 

[David Tallan]

David, you are talking about opinions, that people choose certain things, I am talking in the abstract, almost mathematical equations .... Plato always spent the first section of a dialogue explaining what each term meant so that the conversation could be without faults ... it is a no-brainer that if this universe is mechanical and random and has no meaning then morality, ethics, spirituality etc are non existent, just invented in a mind to make a belief system.

I don't believe it is a no brainer, because I think meaning could be a property of the universe whether or not there is a deity. You are making a binary proposition where I believe there are more than two options.

Edited to add:
I'll be a little more explicit. You are creating a syllogism, but you are missing several parts. The logical argument I think you are trying to make is as follows. If I get any of it wrong, let me know. I'm making some leaps here in my efforts to understand where you are coming from.

Assumption: If the universe has no deity then it is mechanical and random and has no meaning.
Assumption: Meaning in the universe is required as a basis for the existence of morality, ethics, spirituality, etc. If they are just the products of people's minds they are invented and not real.
From those two assumptions it logically follows that if this universe is mechanical and random, therefore it has no meaning and therefor morality , ethics, and spirituality are non existent.

I don't necessarily agree with either of those assumptions and therefore the logical conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. I think that meaning could be something that the universe just has, whether or not there is a deity. You talk about Plato above, but I may be a bit more Platonist than you here.

I also don't necessarily agree that the products of people's minds lack real existence and should be considered non-existent or less real. There are a lot of products of people's minds I find very real and meaningful.

I'm not saying your conclusion is definitely wrong, or that your assumptions are definitely wrong (although I am more doubtful about the second). Just that they are not proven and require more evidence. What you take as self-evident isn't necessarily so.

 

[Bad Pilgrim]

it is a no-brainer that if this universe is mechanical and random and has no meaning then morality, ethics, spirituality etc are non existent, just invented in a mind to make a belief system.

Some philosophers would argue against that, so I don't consider it a no-brainer.

 

[David]

Not true. Think of existentialists such as Sartre and de Beauvoir. They were atheists, and held firm beliefs about good and evil, ethics and morality.

exactly, beliefs, inventions of the mind. In a random mechanical universe there is no good and evil, no morality, no ethics - all inventions of the mind.

 

[dougfitz]

it is a no-brainer that if this universe is mechanical and random and has no meaning then morality, ethics, spirituality etc are non existent, just invented in a mind to make a belief system.

I'm reminded of Terry Prachett's novels, and the idea that gods only exist because someone believes in them. I find that an appealing approach.

 

[David]

I'm reminded of Terry Prachett's novels, and the idea that gods only exist because someone believes in them. I find that an appealing approach.

Good point, mathematically equations can be transposed, so what if it is the other way around??????

 

[Bad Pilgrim]

If one

Good point, mathematically equations can be transposed, so what if it is the other way around??????

Aren't we straying a bit too far from the OP's question?

I believe there are as many Caminos as there are people walking them. Why not a secular camino, and a secular pilgrimage?

 

[Bad Pilgrim]

Plato always spent the first section of a dialogue explaining what each term meant so that the conversation could be without faults

Did he decide himself what the terms meant?! No wonder it was without faults

 

[David]

If one


Aren't we straying a bit too far from the OP's question?

I believe there are as many Caminos as there are people walking them. Why not a secular camino, and pilgrimage?

Because you can have a secular Camino but not a secular Pilgrimage. The clues are in the words.

Look guys the moderators have been very kind, but we are becoming exceedingly close to discussing the God thing, which is not allowed for some reason, but I am happy to continue any discussions via messages. Please do pm me if you want to.

 

[trecile]

Because you can have a secular Camino but not a secular Pilgrimage. The clues are in the words.

As I said before, it depends on your definition of the words. I think that it's quite possible to have a secular pilgrimage.

 

[pepi]

As I said before, it depends on your definition of the words. I think that it's quite possible to have a secular pilgrimage.

I know, there is.

 

[David]

As I said before, it depends on your definition of the words. I think that it's quite possible to have a secular pilgrimage.

No. You can't.

 

[dougfitz]

No. You can't.

I defer to the words of the Pilgrim Office here, which I have raised before in this thread. To get the compostela, the accreditation they provide for completing The Pilgrimage to Santiago, they say:

To get the “Compostela” you must:​

• Make the pilgrimage for religious or spiritual reasons, or at least an attitude of search.

Clearly this contemplates that there are spiritual reasons that are not religious, and the possibility that there can be a non-religious, ie a secular pilgrimage.

 

[Bad Pilgrim]

No. You can't.

Is this the conversation one would have with someone over a bottle of Rioja? Sorry, but it sounds kind of dogmatic

Still: watch me go this summer!

 

[VNwalking]

Also what I was trying to say was that one cannot be 'spiritual' unless one accepts an "Other", something greater than our physical universe for without that there is no soul, no spirit, no search/quest, no right or wrong, no good or evil, no morality, no ethics except that invented by individual humans (again the cult of the ego, the me me me) ... because all of these came into being through the concept of deity ... without the deity they all disappear

Tell all this to millions of people who have a very well developed ethical practice without belief in any deity at all. Right and wrong need no deity to exist and be cultivated. "Thou shalt not.." from above is only one way to relate to ethics, but there are others that require none of that.

No. You can't.

Sure you can.
To pay homage to something and to seek connection with what one reveres is all that counts. Lots of people make pilgrimages to secular places - like Finisterre, Yosemite, Graceland, Down House, Stratford on Avon. Just as one possibility, someone with a keen interest in European history, a camino could be a completely secular pilgrimage.

To posit that only theists have ethics or a sense of reverence is to deny my experience and that of millions of others.

 

[Bob Howard]

Tell all this to millions of people who have a very well developed ethical practice without belief in any deity at all. Right and wrong need no deity to exist and be cultivated. "Thou shalt not.." from above is only one way to relate to ethics, but there are others that require none of that.


Sure you can.
To pay homage to something and to seek connection with what one reveres is all that counts. Lots of people make pilgrimages to secular places - like Graceland, Down House, Stratford on Avon. For someone with a keen interest in European history, a camino could be a completely secular pilgrimage.

To posit that only theists have ethics or a sense of reverence is to deny my experience and that of millions of others.

Billions of others.

 

[VNwalking]

Billions of others.

Sorry, yes, you're probably right. I stand corrected.

 

[David]

I defer to the words of the Pilgrim Office here, which I have raised before in this thread. To get the compostela, the accreditation they provide for completing The Pilgrimage to Santiago, they say:

Clearly this contemplates that there are spiritual reasons that are not religious, and the possibility that there can be a non-religious, ie a secular pilgrimage.

But

Tell all this to millions of people who have a very well developed ethical practice without belief in any deity at all. Right and wrong need no deity to exist and be cultivated. "Thou shalt not.." from above is only one way to relate to ethics, but there are others that require none of that.


Sure you can.
To pay homage to something and to seek connection with what one reveres is all that counts. Lots of people make pilgrimages to secular places - like Finisterre, Yosemite, Graceland, Down House, Stratford on Avon. Just as one possibility, someone with a keen interest in European history, a camino could be a completely secular pilgrimage.

To posit that only theists have ethics or a sense of reverence is to deny my experience and that of millions of others.

Total nonsense.

 

[David]

Is this the conversation one would have with someone over a bottle of Rioja? Sorry, but it sounds kind of dogmatic

Still: watch me go this summer!

I would rather not, but thank you for the offer.

 

[Tincatinker]

Tell all this to millions of people who have a very well developed ethical practice without belief in any deity at all. Right and wrong need no deity to exist and be cultivated. "Thou shalt not.." from above is only one way to relate to ethics, but there are others that require none of that.


Sure you can.
To pay homage to something and to seek connection with what one reveres is all that counts. Lots of people make pilgrimages to secular places - like Yosemite, Graceland, Down House, Stratford on Avon. For someone with a keen interest in European history, a camino could be a completely secular pilgrimage.

To posit that only theists have ethics or a sense of reverence is to deny my experience and that of millions of others.

Thank you Amiga. Thank you.
And while my Old Guys are chuckling to themselves and while the universe carries on unfolding as it should - we, here, can, with effort, and respect, can look into each other’s eyes and remember that it wasn’t supposed to be a fight. It was supposed to be a party

 

[David]

I defer to the words of the Pilgrim Office here, which I have raised before in this thread. To get the compostela, the accreditation they provide for completing The Pilgrimage to Santiago, they say:

Clearly this contemplates that there are spiritual reasons that are not religious, and the possibility that there can be a non-religious, ie a secular pilgrimage.

Doug, please. They say that from within their Catholic religious belief system, not your invented external personal one. Why is this taking place on forum? If you want true discussion rather than points scoring then move it to pm me.

 

[Tincatinker]

@David; @dougfitz are you both determined to get this thread shut down or could you be persuaded to take it to PM and leave the rest of us to wallow in our ignorance?

That a secular Camino exists is as irrefutable as the transubstantiation. Now there’s the rub

 

[David]

Look, let us not be silly on this thread
If any of you want a real discussion about the nature of reality them pm me.

 

[VNwalking]

Total nonsense.

Not for those of us who are outside the box you are drawing around awe, reverence, and basic sense of right and wrong.

 

[David]

Not for those of us who are outside the box you are drawing around awe, reverence, and basic sense of right and wrong.

But there can be no awe, reverence, and basic sense of right and wrong in a mechanistic random universe, how could there be?

 

[pepi]

Look, let us not be silly on this thread
If any of you want a real discussion about the nature of reality them pm me.

You made your position amply clear and this is your right. As OP, I very much regret though, that the good intentions of this thread are compromised. I'd be surprised if you get much response on pm.

 

[David]

Oh dang, I'm out. Not surprised that no one has accepted the invitation to have real pm discussion with me rather than this glib points scoring.
I'm out.

 

[Kanga]

I think we are reaching the point where the discussion is becoming point scoring and nothing more.

I am reminded of a discussion I had with another mourner at the funeral of a good friend. It was a full-on religious funeral, with all the rites. I said: "I thought she was an avowed atheist". My friend replied: "She was. She just believed in taking out insurance".

I will close the thread.

 

[dick bird]

Doug, please. They say that from within their Catholic religious belief system, not your invented external personal one.

You have your beliefs. Many of us obviously don't agree with your beliefs but we respect them. We have ours. If you say that there is no such thing as a secular pilgrimage, this entails the conclusion that all pilgrimages are religious, otherwise they are not pilgrimages. This depends on your definition of 'pilgrimage', Many people (e.g. VNwalking above) would say something on the lines of 'a pilgrimage is a visit to a place of special significance, often though not necessarily involving a journey'. Thus a non-religious pilgrimage is possible to places of personal, historical or cultural importance. Doug's belief system may be invented, but then so is everybody's: a belief system is a human artefact, unless you claim that a particular belief system was handed down by a supreme, supernatural being, in which case we are in serious trouble because there are a lot of different versions of belief systems supposedly handed down by different supreme, supernatural beings and they tend to get into very nasty conflicts with each other.

I accept that to call yourself 'spiritual' must also include the belief in some kind of 'Other' or metaphysical reality, but to claim that people with no religious beliefs cannot have any ethics is utterly mistaken on any definition of the word 'ethics'.