Go troll somebody else's thread. You are the King of messing with definitions. I already quoted you on several occasions saying religion is whatever anyone wants it to be. You prefer undefining or clarification.I'm not trolling, that's not what I wrote, and I didn't force you to engage me in a dialogue. Put me on ignore if you don't want to read what I write. I wrote that people can define terms however they like BUT there has to be a core of meaning for effective communication to occur. That is why I called you on it when you truncated my post. You’ve said several things along the lines "religion is what you want it to be", here’s one of them, “we could say that it is a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns" That is way too broad of a definition to be useful in this discussion. This discussion is about how to organize and build community. This is what you said AFTER you said we need a core meaning. You gave us a personal history, not a meaning. You said religion could be positive and that it matters, but not much else. What I mean by trolling is either deliberately or through laziness making posts that don’t attempt to further the conversation. Lamentations of how many times religion has been bashed for instance, would be off topic. Claiming I truncated your definition because I prefer not to quote entire texts is another example. Repeated claims of knowing a better way without describing that way. Accusing others of not defining their terms instead of seeking agreement on a definition. In other words, take your own advice: “Presumably, you have a set of images in your mind when you write that. If I could know what those images look like to you, then I could evaluate your statement. If the rabbit is real, and there really is a trail, then it had to get down the rabbit trail somehow. So if you have the inclination, time and patience, perhaps you can spell out what you are saying. Flesh out x, y, and z for me, and explain as though I was a six-year
You seem to be saying that if a group of people come together and form an organization, they will behave differently if the group is labeled a religion than they will if it isn’t. To test that proposition with the rigor of a good social scientist, which I hope is our standard, we would have to control for variables as best we could.
A different population may well be attracted to an organization that called itself a religion than to one that did not. Many of the people who are posting here would be unlikely to join anything called a religion. On the other hand, I knew people at some of the Ethical Culture societies who did not like the label “religion" and wanted to omit it. And occasionally I’ve run into people who thought of their avowedly non-religious organizations as their religion and lobbied for a change of stated identity. That does not address the question. It only reflects the approach to religion, or perhaps to the mere word, that people brought into the group with them.
The question is whether calling the group a religion changes things; and if so, how? You’ve made a claim. Where is the evidence to support it? I don’t see any.
So I’ll take the discussion back to the beginning. What is the argument about? It seems to be about whether the label “religion" or “religious" is to be avoided, put down, squashed, obliterated, vaporized and atomized under any and all conditions. Correct me if I’m wrong. You guys are saying that the very use of the term will lead to a bad result. I am saying that if people see themselves as religious, and want to be a part of a religion, we’re damned fools to say that is antithetical or adverse to Humanism. All you do, taking that approach, is tell people that they aren’t welcome.
It’s as though you think that social evolution from theism to non-theism always happens with a grand leap. We know that evolution does not happen that way. Many people, perhaps most people, move from one world view to another gradually. You want to eliminate all the intermediary steps and proclaim that it’s all or nothing. That’s like expecting a fish to turn into a gorilla, which we know is not how evolution works. We need to be open to the intermediate steps that people can use, and do use, to move in our direction gradually. You’re arguing to close them all down. Put aside for a moment whether that would be a desirable outcome. You can’t achieve it. You’re not going to close anything down. People are going to do it anyway, and you’re not going to stop them. But you will cut yourself off from being any part of the process. Tell me, and show me, with evidence, how your approach leads to any other result.
And if you can’t, then for Bertrand’s sake, stop this incessant and categorical religion-bashing. It isn’t even about the thing; it’s about the mere word. If we do that, we just look silly.
If a given group of people (x) come up with an objective and positive humanity-fostering-worldview, and espouse that to the world as a new "religion" (y), the very identification of the worldview as a "religion", is likely to carry with it, trappings that are elemental to most of the world's religions (e.g., dogmatic thinking, rituals that support the dogma without regard to objectivity), and lead to behavior that is grounded in simply deciding to believe in that worldview, without regard to its initial objective groundwork (z).I disagree. Having been a member of an Ethical Culture Society, I know for a fact that conditions x and y can be met without leading to z. I've seen it. It depends on clarity, commitment and other things that people bring to the group when they join it. So I'll ask the seminal question again: on what basis? Based on the evidence that the world's great religions, and the history of religions is fraught with dogma, rituals that support the dogma, and followers who blindly believe, and behave in some accordance with whatever their particular (objectively unfounded) beliefs turn out to be. If you have an "Ethical Culture Society", why not be content to call it that? Why must it be, in your opinion, a "religion"? Your personal evidence of x and y not leading to z, is based on what I must assume is a rather limited time frame relative to the potential lifetime of a "religion". BTW, rabbit trails, are no doubt functional for rabbits, but they are likely to get a human who is lost in the woods, even more lost.
Based on the evidence that the world's great religions, and the history of religions is fraught with dogma, rituals that support the dogma, and followers who blindly believe, and behave in some accordance with whatever their particular (objectively unfounded) beliefs turn out to be.Right. But most of those religions are theistic. They arose before we had scientific method, in primitive times, when people could only wonder whether thunder was an expression of God's anger. We live in a changed world, where other avenues are open to us.
If you have an "Ethical Culture Society", why not be content to call it that? Why must it be, in your opinion, a "religion"?Because we see it as our religion, and that is what we choose to call it. Why do you care? And why on earth would you want to create this division between yourself and the people in Ethical Culture, who mainly agree with you? In other words, you're saying that everyone should see religion as you do. We are saying no, there are other ways of looking at it, fully consistent with the scientific naturalism that informs Humanism.
PlaClair, In response to your post #61.
- Social evolution does not work exactly the same way as biological evolution. Extraordinary cultural changes can and do sometimes occur within an individual’s lifetime.
- Personally, I am all for religious persons who are also humanists, even if I think their religious beliefs are a load of crap. (e.g., I have great respect for Francis’s use of the Papacy, so far.)
- It is natural for persons who recognize the falsities (that most religions present as ultimate truth) to speak out against those Big Lies.
- I have not (as you seem to have) taken on the role of trying to bring religiously prone persons into the fold of humanism.
- If a religious person who is also a humanist, joins a group of humanists who are primarily atheists, and brings up religious topics, they should be prepared for their beliefs to be challenged. Don’t you think?
- I think that many atheists have probably come to their ultimate recognition of the falsities of religion despite a human inclination to be religious, but more importantly, despite the ubiquitous social and environmental influences to be “religious”. I think that the influences in our world, to be religious, vastly outweigh the influences to see the world as it is, and not through “religious” coated lenses. So if those atheists want to speak out against the falsities of religion, I say more power to them.
Correct me if I’m wrong.You're wrong. And I find it hard to believe that you don't know you are wrong. This is not about labels. Everybody else here is attempting to define the two types and discuss the differences except you. Labeling would actually be something that goes against the values I'm supporting. Defining would be much better. The reason I think you know what I'm talking about is that you continue to use the example of a society that began well past the establishment of enlightenment principles. It is precisely those principles that the Ethical Culture Society promotes that I am also advocating for. I could give a rats patut if they use the term "religion" or not.
1) Social evolution does not work exactly the same way as biological evolution. Extraordinary cultural changes can and do sometimes occur within an individual's lifetime.Absolutely right. People can change their world views rapidly, usually with a sudden insight. It happened to me. Kuhn describes the process in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. However, social and personal evolutionary changes can and often do occur gradually. I want us to be open to that, not shut it down.
2) Personally, I am all for religious persons who are also humanists, even if I think their religious beliefs are a load of crap. (e.g., I have great respect for Francis's use of the Papacy, so far.)Of course but what "religious beliefs" do you oppose? I oppose theism and other forms of supernaturalism. That is not the whole of religion.
3) It is natural for persons who recognize the falsities (that most religions present as ultimate truth) to speak out against those Big Lies.We should always speak out against falsities. That's why I challenge the notion that religion is necessarily antithetical to Humanism.
5) If a religious person who is also a humanist, joins a group of humanists who are primarily atheists, and brings up religious topics, they should be prepared for their beliefs to be challenged. Don't you think?I already answered that question in response # 32, where I present a mini-thesis of sorts and invited people to challenge it. Everyone who joins a Humanist group should be prepared to have his beliefs challenged. There's no reason to single out people who bring up religious topics. It should apply to everyone. Furthermore, you're writing that as though outsiders are the only ones bringing up religious topics. The title of this forum is "Religion and Secularism." That title came from people at CFI. You guys bring up religious topics all the time. Maybe that's not quite what you meant but if that is not what you meant, then what did you mean?
6) I think that many atheists have probably come to their ultimate recognition of the falsities of religion despite a human inclination to be religious, but more importantly, despite the ubiquitous social and environmental influences to be "religious". I think that the influences in our world, to be religious, vastly outweigh the influences to see the world as it is, and not through "religious" coated lenses. So if those atheists want to speak out against the falsities of religion, I say more power to them.I say more power to anyone who speaks out against falsities of any kind. But you seem to be begging the question with a presumed definition. When you use the words "religion" and "religious," what do you mean? I'd like to propose a challenge, to me and to all of you. I would like for you, Tim, Lois, Lausten, Occam and anyone else who cares to join in, to pose five to ten tough questions to me apropos of this discussion. Pick the hardest questions you can think of. Private-message each other if you like. Put your heads together and ask me the toughest questions you can think of that bear directly on this discussion. I'm going to stay away from this page for the remainder of the evening, after I respond briefly to a post from Lausten. I'll check this page on Sunday morning, and by noon I will have answered all of your questions directly and without difficulty. For your part, I would like you to scroll through my posts so far, and see whether I've asked any questions that have not been addressed. If you do that, I am quite certain this is what will happen: you will see questions, from me, that you did not process when you read my post the first time. The reason for that is, you're blocking most of what I am writing. How do I know? A few days ago, Lois asked who raised a particular subject. When I pointed out to her that she had been discussing that very subject for two days by then, she didn't comment, that I recall. She didn't acknowledge that it happened. Nothing. It was as though it had never happened. A day or two ago, Lausten asked me who had used a phrase, "religion or theology," I think, or something like that. When I pointed out to him that he had used that phrase, he acknowledged that he had been "busted" but then he picked himself up, and without missing a beat said that it didn't matter and he was right anyway. Guys, I know you don't believe me but you're not even processing most of what I am writing. You're blocking it. I've been telling you on this topic, and on other topics, that you're doing this. Test yourself. Without going back to read them, ask how many questions I've put to you, and how many of them have been answered. Then go over my posts again, and look for the questions. If you find yourself reacting to them emotionally, stop and force yourself to forget about your distaste for me, step back and read the question on its own terms. Then ask yourself if you can answer it. And if you can, then do it. Seems arrogant of me, right? Maybe so. Or maybe I'm right. Let's find out.
If it's not about labels, then why do you keep objecting to calling any form of humanism a religion?Correct me if I’m wrong.You're wrong. And I find it hard to believe that you don't know you are wrong. This is not about labels. Everybody else here is attempting to define the two types and discuss the differences except you. Labeling would actually be something that goes against the values I'm supporting. Defining would be much better. The reason I think you know what I'm talking about is that you continue to use the example of a society that began well past the establishment of enlightenment principles. It is precisely those principles that the Ethical Culture Society promotes that I am also advocating for. I could give a rats patut if they use the term "religion" or not.
If it's not about labels, then why do you keep objecting to calling any form of humanism a religion? You are having a conversation with yourself. I never made that objection.Correct me if I’m wrong.You're wrong. And I find it hard to believe that you don't know you are wrong. This is not about labels. Everybody else here is attempting to define the two types and discuss the differences except you. Labeling would actually be something that goes against the values I'm supporting. Defining would be much better. The reason I think you know what I'm talking about is that you continue to use the example of a society that began well past the establishment of enlightenment principles. It is precisely those principles that the Ethical Culture Society promotes that I am also advocating for. I could give a rats patut if they use the term "religion" or not.
So many words,
I’ve tried going through this thread a few times now and keep getting lost in the forest of words.
And this might seem way left field… but not to me…
Two basic weltanschauung At the heart of one is an appreciation that our Earth is a living organism, one that has taken four and a half billion years, evolving one day at a time, to arrive at the beautiful cornucopia that awaited a restless inquisitive human species. The other mindset sees our planet through the lens of ancient texts and tribal dogmas. To this group of humanity our life sustaining planet, Earth, isn't any more "real" than the Hollywood movie on the other side of the screen. It's only function is to fuel our economy.Can anyone do anything with this?
That's not true for me or a lot of other people I know. Getting together with people and having good social connections is, but it doesn't have to be a religious gathering. It's far better of it isn't. If you are using "religion" in its most benign and unspecific definition, then it's hardly worth using it at all. If a term has no actual definition, it can mean anything, in the end it means nothing, which is why I don't use it. LoisRight, but "science" doesn't provide the social connections, or emotional fulfillment that "religion" does.(I mean religion in the traditional sense). For most people, that is.
That's not true for me or a lot of other people I know. Getting together with people and having good social connections is, but it doesn't have to be a religious gathering. It's far better of it isn't. If you are using "religion" in its most benign and unspecific definition, then it's hardly worth using it at all. If a term has no actual definition, it can mean anything, in the end it means nothing, which is why I don't use it. LoisRight, but "science" doesn't provide the social connections, or emotional fulfillment that "religion" does.(I mean religion in the traditional sense). For most people, that is. The way most people define and understand religion leads me to avoid the word and the concept. There is too much confusion in it. Forming social connections and getting emotional fulfillment is possible without calling the process religion. I wasn't saying that science provides that. It doesn't. But forming social groups does not have to be considered religion, which carries too much negative baggage for my taste. I prefer to consider most religion in the theistic and destructive sense, even if a case can be made for some religion being non-theistic and not destructive. Most people don't see it as non-theistic, so why add to the confusion? Calling all social groups religion is often used to lessen the recognition of the damage theistic religion has done throughout history by claiming that everyone who joins a social group is religious. That way everyone and no one is responsible for the damage. It has the effect of letting theistic religion off the hook. I don't care to do that. Lois
The way most people define and understand religion leads me to avoid the word and the concept. There is too much confusion in it. ...... That way everyone and no one is responsible for the damage. It has the effect of letting theistic religion off the hook. I don't care to do that. LoisWell put Lois. Use the word in a way that most people will understand it, makes sense. And, as you say, if you describe something people do regularly and with passion, some will say it’s LIKE a religion. I can understand the comparison, but making it equal to theistic religion is problematic. However if people got together for some hobby and said they did it because of a sense of awe and they were interested in other opinions, no one would say it’s like science. Despite the similarities. Even just going out for tea, I’ve had people preach to me about some internet movie they just saw. I wouldn’t mind them doing that if they let me get a word in and if they kept the conversation reasonable. These are everyday applications of the philosophies that led us out of the age when religious tests were applied not just to leaders but to everyone all the time. It is completely natural to us now that we don’t apply those tests. Those who do isolate themselves into their religious communities. But it’s the scientific/naturalistic approach to the world that brought us the openness, the freedom to have any belief without it automatically starting a fight.
Right, but "science" doesn't provide the social connections, or emotional fulfillment that "religion" does.(I mean religion in the traditional sense). For most people, that is.I think it does in the sense that it allows all voices to be heard. You can be heard in church, as long as you are singing from the hymnal (metaphorically or otherwise). We build connections by listening to each other, and the scientific method demands that.
PLaClair,
I got into this thread by challenging the truly inadequate definition of “religion”. You basically defined a worldview as being “religion”.
(Also, I detest being given assignments by my fellow posters, but when you gave me one, you asked nicely, and I believe your intentions are good, so I complied. Don’t push it by giving more assignments.)
Your basic thesis seems to be that religions don’t HAVE TO embody all of the negative aspects that most religions actually HAVE embodied though-out Humankind’s history. Okay, I agree that they don’t HAVE TO. But in practice THEY GENERALLY DO. That seems to me to me, to be the main source of contention that I have with your apparent self-imposed mission. I don’t have a problem, at all, with your intent, which seems to me to be to promote humanism. I don’t have a problem with your appeal to posters to be less audaciously confrontive with posters who might be religiously inclined.
When you ask my definitions of religion, I suspect that you are being rhetorical and urging me and others to accept your benign worldview definition as to what religion is.
I caqn only wonder what advantage there is to calling every human group interaction a religion? Why the big guns? I see no advantage in it. If we drop the word from Humanistic endeavors are we any worse off? I would much prefer to leave the concept of religion to theists, which is how most people define the word. We are better off without the confusion, IMO. Don’t we freethinkers have enough confusion and misunderstanding to deal with without adding fuel to the fire? Refusing to refer to what non-believers do as religion has no down side, in my view. Calling what non-believers do a religion is destructive. it looks like a no-brainer to me.
Lois
This sounds like extreme wishful thinking.Right, but "science" doesn't provide the social connections, or emotional fulfillment that "religion" does.(I mean religion in the traditional sense). For most people, that is.I think it does in the sense that it allows all voices to be heard. You can be heard in church, as long as you are singing from the hymnal (metaphorically or otherwise). We build connections by listening to each other, and the scientific method demands that.
This sounds like extreme wishful thinking. Really, isn't that basically democracy? Not that the American experiment is going that well at the moment, but democracy seems to be the trend, inclusiveness seems to be the trend.Right, but "science" doesn't provide the social connections, or emotional fulfillment that "religion" does.(I mean religion in the traditional sense). For most people, that is.I think it does in the sense that it allows all voices to be heard. You can be heard in church, as long as you are singing from the hymnal (metaphorically or otherwise). We build connections by listening to each other, and the scientific method demands that.
Part 1: So no one took me up on it, except Tim. I invited challenging questions, and there weren’t any. I’ve been on this forum long enough to know that when people here get into an extended back-and-forth discussion – in this case, 77 posts in six days – and someone challenges them, they pounce. If a fundie came here and invited us to ask him tough questions, we’d flatten him with questions he couldn’t answer. I do it. It’s one of our guilty pleasures, smacking down people who make arguments they can’t defend. And it would have happened here if you thought you could do it.
Part 2: Probably, I should have explained this before. This issue is personal to me, and I want you all to understand why. Please, as a courtesy to me, read this carefully.
I am a religious humanist. There are many of us. You may not understand our view but if we are to work together, you must respect it.
I have earned my stripes in this movement, putting myself and my family at risk to oppose a theistic proselytizer in a public high school, in a community that reacted strongly against us. I see the dangers of theism, and have acted to oppose them. Your causes are my causes, and I have proved it. There is a personal story beyond that, which I share only rarely. Suffice it to say that I am a through-and-through opponent of theism. So I am making a personal request to each of you to acknowledge and honor your fellow humanists – religious humanists – who see humanism as our religion, by using the word “theism" when that is what you mean; in short, I request that you stop lumping us with theists. It is insulting to us as a group, and to me personally.
Tim has my respect when he points out that most people conflate religion and theism. But then my question is: so what. They may do that, it doesn’t mean that we should. Since when do we humanists appease theists in their misunderstanding of terms and ideas? Every time you do it, you help our adversaries blur a distinction, and you disrespect me, and religious humanists generally, dumbing down your own language and acceding to a commonly held misperception, which our adversaries created. I could understand if it clarified your remarks; it doesn’t. “Theism" is a clearer and more specific term than “religion," which has many aspects and many definitions. There is no reason for any of you not to use it.
I wish to fight the battles we need to fight, along with you. Not all humanists are activists but some of us are. None of us likes it but we live in a culture that opposes and misunderstands us. We need an activist presence. If you divide us by suggesting with your choice of words that there is no difference between us religious humanists and theists, you will further divide our community; that will impede our pursuit of our common causes. As Neil Tyson puts it in another context, if you continue to do that, then we’re gonna fight. I will not be disrespected by my fellow humanists, and remain silent about it. So I ask you to stop. I do not ask you to see humanism as your religion, only to acknowledge and honor that we who are religious humanists see it as ours, and to respect that. Kindly do not tell me that mine is barely a religion. It is my religion. It is more of a religion to me that Catholicism ever was. I’ve already explained this in response #32. Kindly do not trivialize it. It may not mean anything to you but it means something to me.
I do not expect you to process this immediately. You’ve probably held your current view for years. I will answer any respectful question you care to ask. I promise you, I won’t have any difficulty answering it.
Kindly use the word “theism" when that is what you mean. That is the only thing this lengthy discussion has been about. It is the only request I have made here on this topic, and the sole point that prompted me to comment on this topic at all. It is a perfectly good word, one we use regularly. I ask you to use it when you are criticizing theistic religion, not the broader term “religion," which overlooks any distinction between a theist and a religious humanist. There is a difference, which I ask each of you to acknowledge with your words. It’s not much to ask.
PLaClair, I got into this thread by challenging the truly inadequate definition of "religion". You basically defined a worldview as being "religion". (Also, I detest being given assignments by my fellow posters, but when you gave me one, you asked nicely, and I believe your intentions are good, so I complied. Don't push it by giving more assignments.) Your basic thesis seems to be that religions don't HAVE TO embody all of the negative aspects that most religions actually HAVE embodied though-out Humankind's history. Okay, I agree that they don't HAVE TO. But in practice THEY GENERALLY DO. That seems to me to me, to be the main source of contention that I have with your apparent self-imposed mission. I don't have a problem, at all, with your intent, which seems to me to be to promote humanism. I don't have a problem with your appeal to posters to be less audaciously confrontive with posters who might be religiously inclined. When you ask my definitions of religion, I suspect that you are being rhetorical and urging me and others to accept your benign worldview definition as to what religion is.Tim, thank you for responding, even though it’s not quite what I asked for. It’s OK, I got enough from what you wrote. When I asked for your definition of religion, it was because I truly did not know. I’ve seen quite a few of them, and could not put your statement into its proper context without knowing what you meant. I still don’t know. Religion as “whatever pulls together and addresses life’s central concerns" is not original with me. That precise language may be mine, as I was writing it extemporaneously, but the idea is well established. Frankly, I don’t see what is inadequate about it, as a reduction of religion to its core. It omits the various dimensions, or elements, of religion, to be sure, but those are not common to all religions. The concept is only meant as a reduction to the core. Thousands of years ago, a primitive farmer was worried that his family would not survive the coming winter because rainfall had been sparse, and the vegetation was not growing well. He was aware that rain came from the blue canopy over his head, when it turned white or gray or black, and wondered what made the rain. Being human, he personified the inanimate and imagined someone was up there making it happen. He decided that he could do certain things to please the god or gods, and because we humans are prone to confirmation biases, he came to believe that his thoughts, prayers and practices helped get him and his family through the winter. Of course, those who did not make it were not available for later comment. We could look at that from the perspective of the explanation. I propose to look at it from the perspective of the motivation, or concern. The poor SOB was just trying to survive, and figure out some organizing principles to help him do it. It’s one way of looking at religion. There are others, but that one cuts most deeply to the core of desire, so if I had to encapsulate religion into one thing, that would be it, because that appears to be what drives it: the desire to understand what the hell this life-thing is all about, and navigate our way through it. If you want to call it a worldview, that’s OK with me, except that our central concerns are not generally thought of as being quite as central to a worldview as they are to religion; and in addition, a religion is about how we address those concerns, as well as it is about how we pull them together so we can understand them. The latter element is the worldview, in my opinion. The combination creates religion. Religious scholars like Ninian Smart (seven dimensions of religion) have spent their lives examining religion. The finest minds who have addressed this subject have done so from varying perspectives, identified different elements, and drawn different conclusions. But two things they haven’t said – because they are demonstrably false – are that belief is the whole of religion, and that all religions are theistic. It’s just not true, so we should not conflate the terms. That has been my point here from the beginning. And there’s no reason for us to say that religion is inherently irredeemable, when we have a mountain of evidence that it is highly redeemable, in a variety of ways. It’s all in how each person sees it, and how each person chooses to approach and characterize it. We may not be satisfied with a liberal church but when the churches are doing more to help the poor than we are, we should be very cautious with our critiques, making only the critiques we can support and defend; unless we’re only interested in having our own little echo chamber. When we try to put all religion into a bag, tie a rock to it and dump in the East River, we insult all the religious humanists, who make up a significant part of our non-theistic population. We also turn off moderate theists who may be thinking about jumping ship – they are not as likely to come on board if we are standing by the side-rail with a club and a snarl, than if we offer them a helping hand and a smile. We live in a transformed world. More than a century ago, Nietzsche thought God was dead. That has not happened but it could happen. The movement is too slow for our tastes but it is palpable. We will not speed it along by coming across as angry and intemperate; that will only impede progress, and keep us outside the action. You don’t have to be an activist on these issues but I am. I fully concur in your point about what religion has become – how it has usually been expressed. In our culture at least, theism is the dominant form of religion, by far. But here’s my only question to you: so what? We can focus on that point, categorically bad-mouth religion – and what will we accomplish? That’s the question that, if you would, I invite you to think about and address. I won’t berate you if you don’t. Another question, which I’ll offer for your consideration only – of course, you’re free to address it if you like – is the one I posed about Ethical Culture. If 300 million Americans decided tomorrow to become members of Ethical Culture, because they suddenly realized that a non-theistic religion was the best approach for them and for the world, wouldn’t you count that as a major step forward? I would. Of course, we have to be wary of any group growing too large, and becoming too dominant. But I think you get the import of my musings. What if the majority of Americans came to see religion not as being about a god but as being about human concerns? That would represent a world-changing shift in worldviews. Make it ten million, or fifty million if you’re uncomfortable with cultural dominance; make it enough to elect a Humanist president. Imagine that, then think about what we can do, each of us, to help get there. Of course, we can whine and complain and insist that we religious humanists are just like the theists, even though plainly we are not; and again, to what end? I strongly disagree with your conclusion on the point at hand, as I’ve expressed in another post, and hope to change your mind. Meanwhile, I, thank you for a thoughtful response.
Placlair wrote:
Religion as “whatever pulls together and addresses life’s central concerns"
Make it that broad and it means nothing andeverything. That’s the problem with the word and the concept.
Lois