Religion

We love polls; we always end up discussing religion. So I just thought...


Cheers,

 

Eek! Please forgive the "Baha'/i" typo; I have no idea how that happened.


Cheers,

 

Don't worry about it. At least your mistake was an innocent typo. I doubt if I would have gotten that close if I had the dictionary with me
In fact, though I am a missionary and have served as a minister for several years, I still type "chruch" rather than "church" about half the time....
oh well,

clint

 

I do notice however, that Zoroastrianism wasn't listed. (I really don't know if that is spelled correctly, either). Was the ommission because there are so few of them running around or because it hard to spell??? lol

clint

 

1. You neglected a category for "none."

2. "Secular humanism" is one of those perjorative words meant to convey a message, rather than simply label a group. And it is not a religion.

 

Oh No! Here we go again! Rich and I agree to disagree!

According to American Heritage Dictionary, one definition for religion is a cause or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This definition is separate and apart from belief in the supernatural--which some believe is the only way to define religion.

1. Secular humanism is a cause.
2. Advocates of secular humanism pursue their agenda with zeal and conscientious devotion. At times with more vigor and zeal than advocates of organized religion.

It would appear, then, that secular humanism does qualify as a religion--at least according to this technical definition.

Some are so opposed to any semblance of religious orientation, they fail to recognize their own ardent zeal for a specific cause.

 

I agree with Russell, and was wondering when someone would wade in on this
I also appreciate your thoughts and explanations Russell. I would think that everyone has a religion, whether spiritual or non-spiritual (for lack of a better word). Everyone has a driving force of some sort, whether self, money, God, or whatever.

clint

 

I hesitated about what to put for myself.

Secular humanist? Close, but I associate that term with militant atheists and CSICOP-style debunkers. No.

Buddhist? I haven't taken refuge, and I feel free to disagree with parts of it. I lack the personal commitment that's necessary. Close, but still No.

Hindu? I kind of like advaita, but Hinduism is a culture as much as it is a religion. No.

I could even see Christianity (RC/Orthodox I guess), if you allow that to include some of the mystics and the negative theology of people like Erigena and the pseudo-Dionysius. But belief in the Bible as divine revelation? Christ as my savior? No.

So I went with 'Something else entirely'.

I'm a religious agnostic, I guess. I think that there's a lot more to the universe (and to ourselves) than we currently understand. Or probably than humanity *can ever* understand. I believe very strongly in the transcendant. We can feel it. Perhaps we actually are it or manifest it in some way. But whatever it is, it seems to me to be thoroughly non-cognitive. You don't approach it with beliefs, concepts or creeds.

(I like the Buddhist idea of skillful means. Perhaps religious teachings are kind of like tools used to make inner changes. Once the tool has served its purpose, you return it to the toolbox. Sometimes different people require different tools.)

I don't think that any of the established religions have privileged access, but all of them have hints and are sniffing after something in their historically bound and totally human way. They remind me of that parable of the blind men and the elephant.

 

I would offer that the religions listed above share, for the most part, an effort to describe the supernatural, a part of which typically includes a creation myth. "Secular humanist" doesn't really fit with the others, and is being offered merely to spark debate. Technical definition or no, the only ones describing it as a religion are those who are against it. Its adherents don't seem to regard it as one, and isn't that what matters? Or is the opposite true, in which case I can define what is and isn't a Christian?

 

*shrug* I knew somebody wouldn't like my categories, but I figured putting "Secular Humanism" up there instead of "Atheism and Agnosticism" (when Buddhists can be atheists or agnostics) or "None" (when that includes unitarian freethinkers and anyone else who doesn't carry a religious membership card, including myself) was the least offensive possibility. If you don't consider secular humanism a religion, fine; I classified it as one for simplicity's sake, since I only had ten fields to work with. The only way one could not be a secular humanist, to my way of thinking, is if one is either not secular (i.e., if one is religious) or if one is not a humanist; I'd taken you to be both, but if you don't think the label fits, that's what "Something Else Entirely" is for.


Cheers,

 

The former. I've never actually met a Zoroastrian, so I figured it was small enough to be classified under "Something Else Entirely," presumably along with whatever belief system one has if one isn't religious but isn't a humanist either.


Cheers,

 

Speaking of technical definitions, this one from Merriam-Webster Online:

Secular:

1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration

Humanism:

1 a : devotion to the humanities : literary culture b : the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance
2 : HUMANITARIANISM
3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

Religion:

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

(Note that Russell's usage is the 4th definition here, not the 3rd, and certainly not the 1st, which is the most significant.)

Religious:

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS

Again, note that it is the 3rd definition that fits Russell's use. The first, and most prominent, is distinctly supernatural. Secular humanism is definitely NOT supernatural.

Using the most prominent definitions of these words, one draws a completely different "technical" description of secular humanism and religion. Secular humanism is no more a religion than is rotisserie baseball (which also has zealous adherents).

It is manipulative and argumentative to lump secular humanism in with religions. It is also very self-serving of those who wish to diminish the pursuits of secular humanists by bringing them down to religion's level.

The pursuit of knowledge absent mysticism and the supernatural is called science. Religion is the reliance on faith, often coupled with the belief in the supernatural. I don't question anyone's faith, but I'd rather not see others who do not subscribe to it be dismissed with a "Well, it's (secular religion, agnosticism, skepticism, atheism, whatever) a religion, too." That is cynical and intellectually dishonest.

 

Most dictionaries actually hold that religion involves "a belief in God," which excludes Buddhism; I was using "religion" in the sense of religio, or binding principles. Unless you have reason to believe that I'm a sinister bigot, I wish you'd assume that I'm using the broadest definition of "religion."

I also question whether the so-called "religious" or mystical instinct really isn't universally present; Richard Dawkins is fond of saying that science fulfills religious needs, for example, not that religious needs can simply be done away with.

As far as bringing secular humanism "down to religion's level," I think your concern is ill-founded. If one is religious, defining secular humanism as a religion doesn't bring it down; it brings it up. If one isn't religious, using a broad definition of religion encourages a sense of community with people who are.

At any rate, as I posted earlier, I had no illusions of being able to please everyone. I thought you'd be happy with the "secular humanism" label, since nearly every secular humanist I've ever met considers it adequate for census and polling purposes (and I've met quite a few--bear in mind that I did spend six months attending a UU church). Barry Manilow was once on Larry King Live and was asked if his Judaism was important to him; he said "No, but my humanism is." In that situation, he was obviously using humanism in a religious sense--as something that replaced Judaism for him.

My advice would be to calm down and stop seeing hostility when none exists. I have no interest in converting you to my way of thinking. (Why would I? What could I possibly have to gain?)


Cheers,

 

I would also add that it would be a very bad strategic move for me to encourage secular humanists to feel excluded, since I'm not that far to the "right" of secular humanism myself. If you weren't welcome here, I probably wouldn't be, either. Thank goodness that all of the regulars here are tolerant, enlightened folk who don't expect everyone to agree with them on religious matters.


Cheers,

 

And if people would keep their religious beliefs to themselves, we wouldn't have these discussions, would we?

 

No--and then we'd know a great deal less about each other, and the basic principles that guide our lives. I feel like I know you a little better in discovering that you're a secular religious naturalist. I also feel like I know Cory a little better in discovering that he enjoys Jurgen Moltmann's theology. I feel like I know Nosborne a little better in discovering that he's a Reform Jew. I feel like I know John a little better in discovering that he enjoys Richard Dawkins. (My appreciation for Dawkins's philosophy comes and goes, but I've always enjoyed his work on evolutionary biology and psychology.) I feel like I now Bill Dayson a little better in discovering that he's an agnostic quasi-Buddhist. Do these conversations make you uncomfortable? If so, why? You're among friends. Nobody here is going to add you to their ignore filter just because you don't believe in God. Lighten up.


Cheers,

 

Ahh, Rich. Ever the crusading areligious evangelist. And if one kept all DL opinions/beliefs to one's self, there would be no need for DegreeInfo.com.

Tom posted a poll clearly identified with the term Religion. Anyone who reads the thread title understands what the subject matter is, at which time they choose to either enter the thread or pass. It is also posted in the Off Topic forum, separated from the mainstream DL forum. It is a thread like all other off topic threads, e.g., "How many DL students are from above average income households?" The best approach is that if one is disturbed by religion/religious topics---then don't read them!

Now as to the order of technical definitions, my definition was listed as number two in the American Heritage Dictionary. However, it is irrelevant whether it is two or twenty-two, religion is defined as a "cause or activity pursued with zeal." So within the paradigm of this broad definition (I think tolerance is the word most employed by secularists. Although they speak of tolerance, most are intolerant of orthodox Christianity--which is puzzling indeed), secular humanism finds a very secure position.

 

I guess it can all be summed up by this quote:

"I believe most people are more important than their opinions."
-- Jorge Luis Borges

I'm not offended by the fact that you're a secular humanist or that Russell is a Baptist. Russell's not offended by the fact that you're a secular humanist or that I'm a unitarian. But you seem to be offended by the fact that either of us believe in God. It's a religion poll, Rich. If you thought my terms were a little fuzzy or inaccurate, it would have been enough to just say so. In the immortal words of Monty Python, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.


Cheers,

 

On this subject, off the current discussion

Last night I was privileged to attend a forum of local Christian leaders. A local university had a panel, composed of various pastors, priests, etc who were allowed to give a brief description of their denominations, and then answer various questions. There were a few stock questions (abortion, homosexuals, death penalty, Communion/Eucharist, baptism), as well as questions from the audience.
Representatives from the Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran (Missouri Synod), Presbyterian, Church of Christ, and MCC (a rather new denomination that serves the homosexual community) denominations were there. (I am not sure why no other groups were represented).
My friend, a campus minister for Churches of Christ was the COC representative. Though my heritage is in COC, I was very impressed with the thoughtful, careful and appropriate answers given by the others, especially the Catholic and Episcopal clergy. They actually gave me much to chew on and think about.

It all reminds me that I don't have it all figured out, even though I do disagree with some of the theology of the participants. I definitely appreciate the other's viewpoints a little more now. They may even change my mind on some of the issues, after I have a chance to study, pray, etc.
All in all, it was a fantastic opportunity and I am glad that I was able to attend. I encourage anyone with a similar opportunity to take advantage of it and get to know your religious neighbors...

my thoughts,

clint

 

It sounds like a wonderful experience, Clint; there's a surprising amount of that here in Mississippi, too. I subscribe to the Mississippi Catholic newsletter, and one recent issue had a cover photo of our bishop receiving an award from a Mississippi religious leadership organization. The fellow giving him the award looked very familiar, so I looked at the caption, and derned if it wasn't the local Reform rabbi. It was a very encouraging thing to see, a Reform rabbi giving a Catholic bishop a leadership award that was probably voted in largely by Baptists and Methodists.


Cheers,