Patrice Yoyo
The Meaning of Life
Jack H. Bayne
2-11-15
The article “Building Better Scularists”, written by David Brooks argues between the forms of secularism and religion. To begin with, David Brooks begins his article by stating how secularism shouldn’t been seen as a lack of faith, but as a positive creed (Brooks, 1). In other words, atheism doesn’t correspond with faith, instead it is viewed as a positive ideological way of life. Then, Phil Zuckerman claims that secular morality is built around individual reason, individual choice, and individual responsibility (Zuckerman, 1). In my opinion, I think that secular people don’t believe in faith nor do they have any. Therefore, how can secularism be seen as a positive creed, if in order to have creed, you must have faith.
As Brooks continues his article, he also mentions the several tasks a person would have to perform to live secularism. First, he says that secular people build their own moral philosophies. I believe that if secular people build their own philosophies, then that alone gives them their meaning to life. I think that people that believe in God do find their meaning of life through God’s purpose and plan for their life. Whereas atheist search for their meaning of life by exploring different theories. This is connected to the next point that Brooks mentions in his article. He says that “secular people have to choose their own communities and come up with their own practices to make them meaningful” (Brooks, 2). Meanwhile, I agree with the claim that Brooks makes when he states that religious people are motivated by their love for God and their desire to please him. Secularists have to come up with their own purpose that will enforce sacrifice. I agree because people of religion find peace, purpose, and their meaning to life from God, and therefore are motivated. Secularist must come up with their own purposes to life because if they don’t, life then has no meaning or fulfillment. Finally, when Brooks says “Secularism has to do for non-believers what religion does for believers, arouse the higher emotions, and exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action (Brooks, 3). I think that Brooks makes a valid and interesting point. If secularists don’t stir up high emotions with other non-believers, then with whom can they find their motivation? For example, when I was dealing with a difficult situation I realized that my motivation didn’t just come from God’s will, but from the support and love from other Christians who reminded me that I will make it through each situation. I think Brook’s article raises an interesting question, whether or not secularism stirs up higher emotion, and if that comes from their nonbelief in any part of religion.
In the editors response to David Brooks article “Building Better Secularists”, he responds to brooks claim about secularist building their own philosophies by stating that they don’t have to build anything, they simply choose moral philosophies from what already been tested. If this is true, then do secularists get their ideas from other people? In my opinion, I think if you can create your own moral ideas from what has been tested, then who can say that religion is unethical? Finally, another claim the editor makes is is that secularists have no need for the love of any imaginary being, since there’s a bunch of things to love such as freedom, peace, music, art, science, nature, etc. In response to this claim, I think the world is more than just believing in an item or “thing”. Whether you believe in God or not, you must find your motivation and purpose from other aspects of life. For example, you may find your motivation from your family, friends, or even from the goals you have for yourself. It’s more than just believing in an idea of just “peace, or music”, but mainly pertains to the purpose of your life.