That sounds like a very liberal Christian Church indeed. What is a typical sermon like or about?Our minister recently finished a series on the 'Bad Girls of the Bible', women like Jezebel and Mary Magdalene. It was quite interesting, including what is known historically, what the bible actually says and where various aspects not mentioned in the bible came into the picture. She's married to an atheist. The associate minister is a gay man in a long-time relationship. His significant other sings in the choir. It's a very cool place that I was pretty blown away to discover in my home town in the middle of the bible belt.
That sounds like a very liberal Christian Church indeed. What is a typical sermon like or about?Our minister recently finished a series on the 'Bad Girls of the Bible', women like Jezebel and Mary Magdalene. It was quite interesting, including what is known historically, what the bible actually says and where various aspects not mentioned in the bible came into the picture. She's married to an atheist. The associate minister is a gay man in a long-time relationship. His significant other sings in the choir. It's a very cool place that I was pretty blown away to discover in my home town in the middle of the bible belt. That does sound cool. Does the minister's husband attend?
I stumbled on this thread earlier today and joined the forum. I wanted to agree with what PLaClair said early on about gradual change both for individuals and society. I joined a very liberal Christian church a few years ago after being apostate for many years. I'll try to post more later about why and what I get from it. But it doesn't require me to have any dogma or supernatural beliefs at all. They are very accepting of atheists and agnostics as well as all other religions. Religion is indeed evolving and helps fill very common human needsWelcome, Beth. I am glad to see someone of your perspective here, and hope that you will find this forum inviting and your time here productive. I left the Catholic Church at age 21, joined an Ethical Culture Society at around age 40, then in my late forties attended a Unity Church in Manhattan for a year or two. I left the Ethical Culture Society because the meetings were not satisfying and I did not think I was accomplishing anything. The Unity Church provided my best community experience in religion by far but despite the church's claim that they did not believe in a literal god, the credibility of that statement wore thin after - oh - about the fiftieth mention of God during each weekly service. The church was populated by New York theatre people, so every week we had some terrific singers. Ben Vereen sang for us one week. Quite apart from that, the place had a great feel. So although I knew I did not share the group's formally stated philosophy, I came away from each meeting with something useful, and a terrific feeling of community and fellowship to boot. After a year or two, the quasi-theology that supposedly wasn't a theology became too much for me and I stopped attending. But I would still recommend the place to someone who wants that experience. Of course, I have attended other humanist meetings here and there but those usually aren't much fun. I'll look forward to hearing about your experiences.
I stumbled on this thread earlier today and joined the forum. I wanted to agree with what PLaClair said early on about gradual change both for individuals and society. I joined a very liberal Christian church a few years ago after being apostate for many years. I'll try to post more later about why and what I get from it. But it doesn't require me to have any dogma or supernatural beliefs at all. They are very accepting of atheists and agnostics as well as all other religions. Religion is indeed evolving and helps fill very common human needsHow do you consider yourself to be Christian? If the church doesn't require you to have any dogma or superstitious beliefs.
Beth can speak for herself but I do note that she didn’t say she was a Christian. She said she joined a Christian church.
PlaClair, "a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns" as a definition, seems to me to refer to an individual's personal paradigm or worldview. It does not define what I think of as the world's religions. If one's worldview excludes dogma, that seems to me to be a good thing, but most of the world's predominate religions embody dogma.I did a search on "the fundamental concept of religion" and came up with this.
There are many different religions. The fundamental premise of religion is a prescribed set of beliefs practiced by an organized communal group. The basic tenets of religion is worship of the divine, the development of a personal relationship between human beings and divinity, as well as salvation and spiritual enlightenment through the following of a moral code, faith and prayer.http://www.essortment.com/religion-109360.html Assuming that is a correct definition of religion, it seems to me that without a god or deity to worship, communal activities are philosophical worldviews or political activities, not religious ritual.
PlaClair, "a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns" as a definition, seems to me to refer to an individual's personal paradigm or worldview. It does not define what I think of as the world's religions. If one's worldview excludes dogma, that seems to me to be a good thing, but most of the world's predominate religions embody dogma.I did a search on "the fundamental concept of religion" and came up with this.
There are many different religions. The fundamental premise of religion is a prescribed set of beliefs practiced by an organized communal group. The basic tenets of religion is worship of the divine, the development of a personal relationship between human beings and divinity, as well as salvation and spiritual enlightenment through the following of a moral code, faith and prayer.http://www.essortment.com/religion-109360.html Assuming that is a correct definition of religion, it seems to me that without a god or deity to worship, communal activities are philosophical worldviews or political activities, not religious ritual. That is dogmatic, entirely useless and in complete disregard of a wealth of scholarship from religious historians. Where does it get you? How is it useful?
I Googled “fundamental concept of religion" just for schmidts and giggles, and came up with the following:
A statement from Paul Tillich, quoted in a book on Kierkegaard: “The fundamental concept of religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, by an infinite interest, by something that one takes unconditionally seriously." Tillich wrote a book expressing the same idea several ways. Here it is in Tillich’s own book, Morality and Beyond. Like me, apparently, he couldn’t neatly fit it into a pat statement without qualifying it.
In an article from The Princeton Theological Review in 1909, the author used the phrase to insist that a fundamental concept of religion necessarily includes a concept of god but then broadens the meaning of that to “a superior spiritual Other," which could easily be interpreted to mean all those other people besides the self.
In this book, the phrase appears in an esoteric exposition on Machiavelli’s cosmology. The author of this book states that “the supernatural world and its relationship to man, and man’s relationship to it was the fundamental concept of religion" in Thomas Aquinas’ theology.
This link, apparently to a syllabus for a college-level religion course, leads to the following quotations:
•A religion is a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members of that group an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which an individual may judge the personal and social consequences of his or her actions; and a frame of reference by which an individual may relate oneself to one’s group and one’s universe.
–New Columbia Encyclopedia
•A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single community all those who adhere to them."
–Emile Durkheim
Religion is a set of symbolic forms and acts that relate [humanity] to the ultimate conditions of [its] existence.
–Robert Bellah
•A religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish a powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men [and women] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.
–Clifford Geertz
• “I shall define ‘religion’ as an institution consisting of culturally patterned interaction with culturally postulated superhuman beings."
–Milford Spiro
• “Religious systems are dynamic configurations of symbolism and ritual."
–Robert Muthnow
• “The fundamental concept of religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, by an infinite interest, by something one takes unconditionally seriously. Religion is a particular expression, in symbols of thought and action, of such ultimate concern within a social group."
–Paul Tillich
• “Religion is the experience of the Holy."
–Rudolph Otto
• “Religion is the inmost voice of the human heart that under the yoke of a seemingly finite existence groans and travails in pain."
–D.T. Suzuki
In other words, most of the definitions of religion do not imply belief in a god or gods. It’s pretty much what I said it was.
“essortment.com" and its unidentified author may convey a popular misconception about religion but it does not carry any scholarly authority. We cannot draw sound conclusions about what is or is not an aspect of religion from that. Sorry, I know I’m posting a lot but every time I read something like this, I’m a little stunned. Without meaning to be insulting, this does not reflect the commitment to scholarship and study that I would expect from a group of humanists at CFI.
(The links didn’t work but Google the phrase yourself. You’ll see them all on the first page of the results list.)
That sounds like a very liberal Christian Church indeed. What is a typical sermon like or about?Our minister recently finished a series on the 'Bad Girls of the Bible', women like Jezebel and Mary Magdalene. It was quite interesting, including what is known historically, what the bible actually says and where various aspects not mentioned in the bible came into the picture. She's married to an atheist. The associate minister is a gay man in a long-time relationship. His significant other sings in the choir. It's a very cool place that I was pretty blown away to discover in my home town in the middle of the bible belt. I looked at the marketing material for that. It looked fun, but nothing new in the message. I was already pretty cynical about religion by then. Also my pastor would pretend to be interested in the things I was looking into to, until it came time for him to approve actually purchasing something, then suddenly I would have to go through committee.
I didn’t read this long article, but the first sentence tells where the 5 fundamentals came from (which is the modern use of the term for Christians) and they are listed in bold if you page down once or twice.
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/5doctrines.htmlThe real question is, did they get it right? The list matches up to what the early Roman Catholic Church decided, which of course leaves out all the Bishops from that time that were declared anathema. But the winners of that argument burned many of the losers books, so for us to figure out just what the original authors and leaders intended is nearly impossible.
How do you consider yourself to be Christian? If the church doesn't require you to have any dogma or superstitious beliefs.I have given up worrying about such labels. My personal preference is for agnostic as I am not only uncertain about what, if anything, lies outside (beyond?) our material universe but I'm militantly agnostic in that I believe that no one else can know with certainty either. Some people consider that an atheist. I was raised in a literalist fundamentalist church and grew up being taught that not only didn't Catholics count as Christian, but Baptists and Methodists and all other sects but ours were destined to go to hell. Now my aging parents are happy that I go to a progressive church occasionally. The church I belong to is Congregationalist. It is what is termed a 'creedless' church - i.e. no dogma. Since there is an entire category for such churches, while they may be a minority, I do not think they are a new phenomenon. Congregationalists were founded a few hundred years ago on the precept that a person's beliefs about god were a matter between him or her and the creator and no one else's business. In the particular church I belong to, there is no issue if I choose to take the Bible as a collection of ancient myths that helped that society learn to exist and thrive in their world. I'm not alone in that take; it is a sizable minority within the congregation. Others in the church believe in various of supernatural aspects as they choose. There is a covenant that members agree to about finding the bible the best way to connect with the divine, but as I was raised Christian and can consider the divine as whatever I choose, I have no problem with that for myself. I don't have to believe it's best for everyone. There's also a part about working to have peace, brotherhood and justice prevail in our world. I'm more than willing to sign up to that and happy to have found a community of people with similar ideas about what that means and that it is a worthy objective for society.
That sounds like a very liberal Christian Church indeed. What is a typical sermon like or about?Our minister recently finished a series on the 'Bad Girls of the Bible', women like Jezebel and Mary Magdalene. It was quite interesting, including what is known historically, what the bible actually says and where various aspects not mentioned in the bible came into the picture. She's married to an atheist. The associate minister is a gay man in a long-time relationship. His significant other sings in the choir. It's a very cool place that I was pretty blown away to discover in my home town in the middle of the bible belt. That does sound cool. Does the minister's husband attend? He rarely comes to services. He does attend many of the social events.
advocatus: I’ll preface my answer with an observation, not to be confrontational but just to point something out. You seem to have responded to my answers before I gave them, suggesting that you assume what my answers must be.Not entirely. It's just that I have been trying to follow this conversation as it wound about through half a dozen separate topics. In the process I have been left hopelessly confused about what you mean by religion. I would have just written it off as something I'll never understand, except that in one topic you accused us of having some kind irrational FEAR of "religious terms", which is simply not true! I myself make free use of such terms as "belief" and "spiritual", even "faith", because I think these word are useful (although not all Humanists would agree, obviously). I wouldn't mind thinking of myself as "religious", I would just rather not be converted to religion simply because someone changed the definition on me.
Like Dewey, though not in precisely the same ways, I distinguish a bit between “religion" the noun and “religious" the adjective, the former referring to the whole of religion in all domains of Being (thought, emotion and action), and the letter referring to a person’s attitude. (I omit for the time being the further dynamic of religion as a form of social organization.) William James also wrote of “the religious attitude of the soul." Einstein expressed a (perhaps the) pivotal difference between the religious attitude and the non-religious attitude with this statement (paraphrased): “There are two ways of looking at things. One is that nothing is a miracle. The other is that everything is."But that really doesn't tell me: What IS a "religious attitude" as opposed to a "secular attitude"? You really can't say, can you? So to my way of thinking, any distinction is pointless. And now, after having read your explanations, parts one, two and three, I am more confused than ever. You waver between about a dozen different definitions, depending upon what point you want to make at any one time. Sometimes religion is a belief system centered around some "object of devotion" (which seems reasonable since it would also include Buddhism), sometimes a set of rituals, sometimes a sense of community engendered by those rituals, sometimes this, that or the other. The most common definition you used before was "ultimate concern". I'm sorry. I don't have any objection to you calling yourself religious if you want to, but I still don't see any usefullness in redefining it to point that it means everything and nothing.
advocatus, I apologize if I overlooked your presence but I do not recall your being involved in the previous discussions where I wrote about the irrational reaction to religion that I do see here and in other non-theistic groups; so I don’t understand why you assumed that I was applying that to you. If I did, please point me back to the topic, and the post if you can, so I can perhaps learn something from the exchange and my not remembering it.
Regarding the religious attitude, I quoted Einstein and referred to William James. Read James’ book The Varieties of Religious Experience, and his other writings where he describes and chronicles this at length. See also the statements in post #107 from New Columbia Encyclopedia, Tillich and Suzuki. Perhaps I am being unclear or perhaps you are blocking this. I don’t know that but I remember when I used to throw up a wall to these same words, so I know what it’s like to do it. I appreciate that you use other words that throw some non-theists into a tizzy but maybe you block on religion in particular. I don’t know. I’d be clearer if I could but the best you can do, probably, is read James and other writers who have discussed this. I do wonder, though, do you really not appreciate what Einstein was saying? It’s abundantly clear to me. So say it leaves you flat if you like but kindly don’t say it means nothing, when many people do appreciate what it means.
I told you why I use many definitions: the word has many definitions, depending in large part on what perspective you approach “religion” from. You can look at it as a personal set of practices, a way of living, a worldview, an organization, a set of community practices and many others. Again, see Ninian Smart’s seven dimensions of religion, and that’s just for starters. There are many definitions of the word. I discussed that, too. It’s a fact. What would you like me to do about it?
Your final line is the one that troubles me and makes me think you have an aversion - an emotional reaction - to this particular word. How do you justify a statement like that? I am not redefining religion. Mine is a standard definition, as demonstrated in the writings of several religious historians and definitions in standard dictionaries, all of which I’ve supplied in previous posts. I explained the usefulness at length in responses ## 98 and 99. Did you read those posts; if so, how carefully? The explanation is clearly there. I could understand your saying you don’t agree with it but not the phrase “redefining it to the point that it means everything and nothing” when I’ve already explained what I mean by it, and to many others. At the very least, you might have given me some indication that you processed what I wrote by taking issue with one or more specific comments. What would you like me to do with your statement, in effect, “I don’t agree with you.” Why not?
But that really doesn't tell me: What IS a "religious attitude" as opposed to a "secular attitude"? You really can't say, can you? So to my way of thinking, any distinction is pointless.I find it an interesting conundrum that some categories simply have fuzzy boundaries. There is no definition or 'bright line' to distinguish music from random noise. In fact, 'it's a horrible noise' is a complaint that old people have been making about young people's music as long as I've been alive. Now it's me making that complaint about my son's preferred music. Is making a distinction between them pointless? What constitutes 'music' is in the ear of the beholder. A religious attitude is in the mind of the beholder. I think the question is better phrased as is there sufficient commonality of tastes within our culture that would allow us to distinguish them for the majority of cases?
There is a covenant that members agree to about finding the bible the best way to connect with the divine, but as I was raised Christian and can consider the divine as whatever I choose, I have no problem with that for myself. I don't have to believe it's best for everyone. There's also a part about working to have peace, brotherhood and justice prevail in our world. I'm more than willing to sign up to that and happy to have found a community of people with similar ideas about what that means and that it is a worthy objective for society.Sounds like a great place to explore one's beliefs. I had a similar experience, although I was a generation removed from the family that thought everyone else was going to hell. Some of my cousins went that direction, but not my mother. When I was baptized into the United Methodist church, I told them all about it in my Christmas letter and was surprised no one said a word when I saw them at the family reunion. I guess UM wasn't good enough for them. That church had similar peace and justice creeds and it was fine. When I realized it wasn't for me was when I started looking into moving up in the organization. I went to lay speaker training and was surprised at the fundamentalist attitude of the teacher. I found out I was isolated in a little liberal corner of the larger org. Our state Bishop seemed more liberal, but when I wrote and asked if this trainer was doing his job correctly, she didn't even bother to write back. That's not the only story. My point is, these kind of churches can be found in neighborhoods around the world, but they aren't game changers. There is a movement in that direction, but it is slow. I had to make a choice of trying to change something from the inside, or doing the kind of work I wanted to do on the outside.
PlaClair, "a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns" as a definition, seems to me to refer to an individual's personal paradigm or worldview. It does not define what I think of as the world's religions. If one's worldview excludes dogma, that seems to me to be a good thing, but most of the world's predominate religions embody dogma.I did a search on "the fundamental concept of religion" and came up with this.
There are many different religions. The fundamental premise of religion is a prescribed set of beliefs practiced by an organized communal group. The basic tenets of religion is worship of the divine, the development of a personal relationship between human beings and divinity, as well as salvation and spiritual enlightenment through the following of a moral code, faith and prayer.http://www.essortment.com/religion-109360.html Assuming that is a correct definition of religion, it seems to me that without a god or deity to worship, communal activities are philosophical worldviews or political activities, not religious ritual. That is dogmatic, entirely useless and in complete disregard of a wealth of scholarship from religious historians. Where does it get you? How is it useful? I completely agree with you, no matter how you define them, all religions are completely dogmatic and symbolic. The variety is found only in the variety of the dogma, which almost always proclaim exclusivity and alienates all who live by a different dogma. Religion offers no useful wealth of knowledge (except perhaps in coercive psychology) and it does not get you anywhere. In religion any finding of truth which contradicts the religion is banned and/or burned. It took the Catholic Church centuries to admit that evolution is true. And again I refer to Hypatia, which I believe demonstrates the quintessential behavior resulting from religious dogma and fervor. As they say; "one man's religion (or scientific knowledge) is another man's witchcraft. And here is your proof. http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm . I would argue that participation in the Boy Scouts is more useful than participation in religious activity. Religion does not provide any labor or value that cannot be performed or achieved by secular means.The time spent in worship could be used to help a neighbor. OTOH, objective introspection, reflection, philosophic contemplation and just plain old scientific inquiry are very useful. This where we find the great wealth of verifiable scholarship. Religion is MYTH, and any truth that may be found in religion are secular truths which can be found everywhere. Name me one singular achievement beneficial to mankind which is demonstrably exclusive to religion except fear and guilt, oh and self induced ecstasy.
I completely agree with you, no matter how you define them, all religions are completely dogmatic and symbolic. . . . Name me one singular achievement beneficial to mankind which is demonstrably exclusive to religion except fear and guilt, oh and self induced ecstasy.Sadly, I was more on target than I realized. Those remarks are not humanistic at all. They are indefensible and ridiculous, on more fronts than I care to address, and an affront to religious humanists in Ethical Culture, UU and perhaps other religions that are not dogmatic. And an organization doesn't have to do something exclusively to make a contribution. What the hell is going on here?
I understand your dismay for the turnabout of interpreting the subject under discussion, but you did not answer the question.
What is the singular property or achievement of religion or theism that makes it indispensable to human civilization, that could not be achieved by secular philosophy, art, or science?
There has to be something mentionable? With respect, I challenge anyone to come up with an answer.
The problem does not lie with me. I have no prejudices of any kind and I respect all people regardless of belief. It is the religious types that do not respect my atheism. And how shall I reconcile with that? Am I the dog in dogmatic here?
I thought we criticized theists for being illogical like that. You framed your question to assume things that are not true, which is why I didn’t answer it. One could as easily ask what singular contribution you have made to the world. If you haven’t, that doesn’t mean that you haven’t made a contribution.
If you weren’t so blinded by your obvious distaste for any and all religion, you might have framed your question properly. Perhaps you mean to ask what contribution theistic religions have made because they promoted belief in a god. The answer, in my opinion, is: none. We should be on the same side, but I can’t side with you when you make ridiculous statements, engage in outrageous over-claims and don’t even understand what our arguments are about.