I don’t see how one can live without religion, in the sense that I’ve defined it. Everyone needs a sense of orientation, which is what religion provides. My guess, EOC, is that we’re talking past each other.
We're talking past each other. I view religion in its broader dimensions, as whatever brings life's concerns together into a coherent whole as best we can. I don't assume that religion is theistic.And what brings life's concerns into a coherent whole. A coherent Book of secular values, just like the bible is a coherent (?) book on the same values, except for the addition of the Word "God" instead of the Word "Secular". The problem is that people do not like to lose that which they have relied on for so long, without replacing it with something they can refer to in everyday life Not just a book. It has to be lived.
I don’t see how one can live without religion, in the sense that I’ve defined it. Everyone needs a sense of orientation, which is what religion provides.So do any number of secular organizations. I don't think we're talking past each other so much as you're assuming that for some social functions that religion is the only game in town. The fact is, it's not. Lois cited a number of examples in her earlier post.
We're talking past each other. I view religion in its broader dimensions, as whatever brings life's concerns together into a coherent whole as best we can. I don't assume that religion is theistic.And what brings life's concerns into a coherent whole. A coherent Book of secular values, just like the bible is a coherent (?) book on the same values, except for the addition of the Word "God" instead of the Word "Secular". The problem is that people do not like to lose that which they have relied on for so long, without replacing it with something they can refer to in everyday life Not just a book. It has to be lived. Sorry PC but that is a straw man. The bible IS just a book and we have historical evidence how it has been "lived". The Bill of Rights (edit) is a secular document and yet it is the foundation of our society and a source of great pride. Would the BOR (edited) suffer by removing the phrase "endowed by our creator" and replace it with "endowed by our common humanity" (or something like that)? IMO, we can live humanely by recognizing the humanity of all humans and the responsibility we each have to honor that moral tenet. But we need a single book that teaches what humanity is and the responsibilities it brings, rather than a library of books by great philosophers. Consistency in teaching is the key and religions are expert at that.
We're talking past each other. I view religion in its broader dimensions, as whatever brings life's concerns together into a coherent whole as best we can. I don't assume that religion is theistic.And what brings life's concerns into a coherent whole. A coherent Book of secular values, just like the bible is a coherent (?) book on the same values, except for the addition of the Word "God" instead of the Word "Secular". The problem is that people do not like to lose that which they have relied on for so long, without replacing it with something they can refer to in everyday life Not just a book. It has to be lived. Sorry PC but that is a straw man. The bible IS just a book and we have historical evidence how it has been "lived". The Constitution is a secular document and yet it is the foundation of our society and a source of great pride. Would the Constitution suffer by removing the phrase "endowed by our maker" and replace it with "endowed by our common humanity" (or something like that)? IMO, we can live humanely by recognizing the humanity of all humans and the responsibility we each have to honor that moral tenet. But we need a single book that teaches what humanity is and the responsibilities it brings, rather than a library of books by great philosophers. Consistency in teaching is the key and religions are expert at that. The phrase is "endowed by their creator," and it's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. I agree with you that the Declaration would have been a better document without it. I also agree with you (if I understand you correctly) that we would do well to systematize Humanism but I don't understand your point about trying to put it all into one book. We could collect all the great writings, I suppose, or try. But what would it matter whether the entire collection was considered one thing or not?
We're talking past each other. I view religion in its broader dimensions, as whatever brings life's concerns together into a coherent whole as best we can. I don't assume that religion is theistic.And what brings life's concerns into a coherent whole? A coherent Book of secular values, just like the bible is a coherent (?) book on the same values, except for the addition of the Word "God" instead of the Word "Secular". The problem is that people do not like to lose that which they have relied on for so long, without replacing it with something they can refer to in everyday life Not just a book. It has to be lived. Sorry PC but that is a straw man. The bible IS just a book and we have historical evidence how it has been "lived". The Constitution is a secular document and yet it is the foundation of our society and a source of great pride. Would the Constitution suffer by removing the phrase "endowed by our maker" and replace it with "endowed by our common humanity" (or something like that)? IMO, we can live humanely by recognizing the humanity of all humans and the responsibility we each have to honor that moral tenet. But we need a single book that teaches what humanity is and the responsibilities it brings, rather than a library of books by great philosophers. Consistency in teaching is the key and religions are expert at that. The phrase is "endowed by their creator," and it's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. I agree with you that the Declaration would have been a better document without it. I also agree with you (if I understand you correctly) that we would do well to systematize Humanism but I don't understand your point about trying to put it all into one book. We could collect all the great writings, I suppose, or try. But what would it matter whether the entire collection was considered one thing or not? Sorry about my misquote in haste (now corrected), but I am glad you responded to the thrust of the argument. Oh yes, IMO, it makes an enormous difference. Consistency in the biblical messages is the major advantage religions have over secular messages and teachings if they are widely dispersed among many volumes of great thinkers. Let's not forget that the bible itself is a compendium of many documents by many writers (prophets or disciples) into a single book (well 2 books, OT and NT). Today, when confronted with uncertainty most theists find comfort by "consulting" their bible. I would rather have them consult a book that can be applied worldwide and is not specific to any belief in a deity. But imagine a secular convention on the topic of what it is to be a human where supporting documents must be produced in support of a specific argument. What single book would you bring to find references to a host of great philosophical questions about humanity? There is none. And that is the point. Every Sunday a church is filled with people who are required only to bring a single reference book, the bible, from which they can follow the presentation. What is the first thing a preacher (pastor) asks of his congregation. "please open your bible to Jeremiah, chapter 42, verse 3". And all people present will be on the "same page" and read the same thing. An single accredited book has much more power than 15 presentations by experts in human philosophy who cite passages from 15 different books on human philosophical questions. Do you bring a suitcase full of books, so that you can literally follow the writings and understand the logical discussion that may follow a single (but important) statement from a book. We know that humans have very poor retention when subjected to a range of topics. It would be a handy reference to the average person. A "handbook" of secular human values that can be carried easily and used for consultation anytime a pertinent question arises. And last but not least, a secular book of values can be taught in schools as it would not be subject to the 'separation clause"
I think you mean the Establishment Clause but again I get your point. I’ve tried to systematize Humanism. Check out my website at www.thisisourstory.net. It’s very much a work in progress and not ready for primetime but the basic idea is there.
We're talking past each other. I view religion in its broader dimensions, as whatever brings life's concerns together into a coherent whole as best we can. I don't assume that religion is theistic.It isn't, but the vast majority of people define it that way. I find it easier to accept that it has become a theistic word. It makes life easier. When I use it I mean theistic religion. Lois
We're talking past each other. I view religion in its broader dimensions, as whatever brings life's concerns together into a coherent whole as best we can. I don't assume that religion is theistic.And what brings life's concerns into a coherent whole. A coherent Book of secular values, just like the bible is a coherent (?) book on the same values, except for the addition of the Word "God" instead of the Word "Secular". The problem is that people do not like to lose that which they have relied on for so long, without replacing it with something they can refer to in everyday life Not just a book. It has to be lived. Sorry PC but that is a straw man. The bible IS just a book and we have historical evidence how it has been "lived". The Constitution is a secular document and yet it is the foundation of our society and a source of great pride. Would the Constitution suffer by removing the phrase "endowed by our maker" and replace it with "endowed by our common humanity" (or something like that)? IMO, we can live humanely by recognizing the humanity of all humans and the responsibility we each have to honor that moral tenet. But we need a single book that teaches what humanity is and the responsibilities it brings, rather than a library of books by great philosophers. Consistency in teaching is the key and religions are expert at that. The phrase is "endowed by their creator," and it's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. I agree with you that the Declaration would have been a better document without it. I also agree with you (if I understand you correctly) that we would do well to systematize Humanism but I don't understand your point about trying to put it all into one book. We could collect all the great writings, I suppose, or try. But what would it matter whether the entire collection was considered one thing or not? A book would become absolutist, like the bible. We don't need an absolutist screed. Lois
I think you mean the Establishment Clause but again I get your point. I've tried to systematize Humanism. Check out my website at www.thisisourstory.net. It's very much a work in progress and not ready for primetime but the basic idea is there.:red: ...I always have to look up what belongs where between the Constitution (and it's Amendments) and Bill of Rights. In my Dutch mind, I see those brilliant philosophies as testaments combined into a single governing document (The Constitution), somewhat like the OT and NT in the Bible. In fact, with minor modifications of theistic expressions, those documents would command a prominent place in a book of secular values. Your website looks very promising, the Home page sets an immediate atmosphere of tranquility and introspection, and the Topics invite serious thought. It has the potential of becoming an important book. (added it to favs)
Lois, A book would become absolutist, like the bible. We don’t need an absolutist screed.No, the beauty is that, unlike the bible, it can be amended along with knowledge and new philosophical insights. By necessity it would not be possible to be absolute (as is the bible). Do you consider the Constitution and B.O.R. as absolute? We have already amended it several times and we call it "a work in progress". But it is the law of the land and theoretically, if you act against someone's constitutional rights you can be sued for satisfaction. But you cannot kill a person (an eye for an eye) or issue a fatwa (contract) to extract satisfaction. That is an absolute no. But I am not speaking of a communist carrying his little red book. I see a moral guide based on secular humanist values, which can be taught in school to introduce a secular humanistic view of the world, rather than the Sunday religious indoctrinations of what God has told the preacher on the previous Saturday night (while having a glass of wine). As there are Universal constants and functions that have produced our world, so do I believe there are secular humanist constants which (in principle) can produce a peaceful world. Compilation and distribution in book form (essential to people without access to computes) is the real problem. But you can find a bible almost everywhere around the world. Theists had 2000 years to accomplish that considerable feat.
Lois probably has no clue at all how ironic her comment is.Lois, A book would become absolutist, like the bible. We don’t need an absolutist screed.No, the beauty is that, unlike the bible, it can be amended along with knowledge and new philosophical insights. By necessity it would not be possible to be absolute (as is the bible). Do you consider the Constitution and B.O.R. as absolute? We have already amended it several times and we call it "a work in progress". But it is the law of the land and theoretically, if you act against someone's constitutional rights you can be sued for satisfaction. But you cannot kill a person (an eye for an eye) or issue a fatwa (contract) to extract satisfaction. That is an absolute no. But I am not speaking of a communist carrying his little red book. I see a moral guide based on secular humanist values, which can be taught in school to introduce a secular humanistic view of the world, rather than the Sunday religious indoctrinations of what God has told the preacher on the previous Saturday night (while having a glass of wine). As there are Universal constants and functions that have produced our world, so do I believe there are secular humanist constants which (in principle) can produce a peaceful world. Compilation and distribution in book form (essential to people without access to computes) is the real problem. But you can find a bible almost everywhere around the world. Theists had 2000 years to accomplish that considerable feat.