The Religion for Everyone

[Avi1001]

Thank you, Lewis....I will return to my discussion with Bill when we are ready to begin my psychoanalysis...

Avi, I know you're just joking, but Bill is new enough to the site that you might be confusing him.

Bill, a DIR is a 'Discuss Individual Religion' forum, with it's basic intent being that only people from within that religious group actively participate in discussions there. Outsiders are allowed to ask questions in a respectful manner (only) and they are generally more strictly moderated than other areas.

Some non-religious DIR areas were added in the last year, mostly focused on broad political positions, such as Feminism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc.

Whilst it's possible to request a new DIR to be created, it is not possible for any member (including staff) to simply go and create a DIR area.
Equally, DIR areas are moderated by the same staff as all other areas of the system...there aren't staff members who are particular to certain sections of the board. Due to our own backgrounds, interests, and understandings, you will sometimes see staff members more active in some areas that others.

For example, it is sometimes difficult for me to moderate in the Hinduism DIR, since I have trouble following some of the discussion there.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

If I could interject a reference to something George-ananda said earlier, details are indeed important.
Humananity's REUP sounds alright, though it is in some sense derived from Jesus' golden rule.
Therefore, whatever you want others to do for you, do also the same for them—this is the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 7:12 (HCSB)

Humananity seems to be about an ethical maxim only (as evidenced by the appeal to adherents from all religions).
Religion is man's reaching for Transcendence, for God.
In that sense, it does not seem that Humananity can be properly called a religion nor is it even unique as an ethical maxim.
Culturally, Westerners have a guilt-innocence orientation to understanding right and wrong which is due in no small part to the Christian heritage of Western society. As such, it seems the author of the webpage for Humananity is borrowing moral capital (and without even citing his sources! Boy, his English professor would be ticked! )

That is not to say that one cannot reason one's way to morality. If something is truly beneficial and the "right" way to live, you'd expect that it would bring about the best results in a verifiable way.
However, the source for one's understanding of right and wrong must have grounding, answering the "why" question as well as integrating a complete "wholistic" worldview to understand this thing we call life. If there is no absolute moral "ought," why should being nice to people make the world a better place? (I say this by way of argumentation only)

I think it'd be interesting to pursue this idea a little, if y'all don't mind:
As with the example of humananity (i.e. ethical maxim adaptable to any religion)...
Should morality be separated from one's beliefs about the rest of reality? Why?

Your concept of Religion is somewhat different from mine. Regarding "Should morality be separated from one's beliefs about the rest of reality?" I think it is helpful to distinguish existential beliefs from ethical beliefs, as I have described above in this thread.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

First time I've heard Aztec sacrifice and 'secular religion' linked. Any reason you went that route?

Secular in the sense of non-biblically religious, or of the world, worldly. What they did Jesus would not have considered as religiously sacred.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Secular in the sense of non-biblically religious, or of the world, worldly. What they did Jesus would not have considered as religiously sacred.

Yeah, that's kinda what I figured you meant. Why define it that way though? Why the need to declare it 'secularly-religious'?
The Aztecs themselves would have seen it as religious. I understand you see it as false religion, but since when did false-religion equate to secular?

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I don't see a reason to start another DIR.

 

[idea]

it appears to be too aligned with atheistic-materialism. One quick example I'll paste:

As you probably know, I do not think that I am being watched by an entity who may or may not alter the laws of nature in my behalf (if I am good), nor do I believe I will continue to exist after death. And I do not believe in spirits, good or evil.

I agree, in order to have a spiritual / material balance, you have to acknowledge the spiritual side of life.


quick skim

• ...does not require others having done their part.
• There is no individual, and there never has been, who knows how to make anything you see around you.
• Without others doing their part, you and I die.
• The more people do their part, the more everyone benefits.

What I see above, is the philosophy of a victim - who believes others control their life... I am a strong advocate for individual responsibility & accountability.

• The best way to increase the accuracy of our beliefs is through friendly debate, an extremely difficult skill.

Sorry, but the best way to gain knowledge and wisdom is through experience, through testing it out. "By their fruit ye shall know them". You try something out, and then see what types of fruit it yields.

 

[Walk_Like_Enoch]

I like what idea said about experience.
Having a split between existential and ethical beliefs became popular with Kant. That does not make it true.
Humanity Books' Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion (by William Reese) defines "religion" as typically referring to
"an institution with a recognized body of communicants who gather together regularly for worship, and accept a set of doctrines offering some means of relating the individual to what is taken to be the ultimate nature of reality." (645)

Human opinion, by the experience of history, has been proven fickle and changing.
How then can a person expect to arrive at ultimate truth by democratic vote? Wasn't that the rule by the mob which Plato warned about?
(see Plato and the Disaster of Democracy

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I agree, in order to have a spiritual / material balance, you have to acknowledge the spiritual side of life.


quick skim

What I see above, is the philosophy of a victim - who believes others control their life... I am a strong advocate for individual responsibility & accountability.



Sorry, but the best way to gain knowledge and wisdom is through experience, through testing it out. "By their fruit ye shall know them". You try something out, and then see what types of fruit it yields.

Yes, we do have different beliefs. But I have trouble understanding yours. There are many, many, many things I would not do because, by virtue of what I have learned from others, doing so would likely cause PSDED (pain, suffering, disability, and/or early death). I rely very strongly upon what I have learned from others. And I don't understand how you derive your idea about "philosophy of a victim" from what you have quoted. I think the problem is the "quick skim."

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I like what idea said about experience.
Having a split between existential and ethical beliefs became popular with Kant. That does not make it true.
Humanity Books' Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion (by William Reese) defines "religion" as typically referring to
"an institution with a recognized body of communicants who gather together regularly for worship, and accept a set of doctrines offering some means of relating the individual to what is taken to be the ultimate nature of reality." (645)

Human opinion, by the experience of history, has been proven fickle and changing.
How then can a person expect to arrive at ultimate truth by democratic vote? Wasn't that the rule by the mob which Plato warned about?
(see Plato and the Disaster of Democracy

I don't agree with that definition of Religion. I base my idea about Religion on observation of what we call Religion and what all those things called Religion do. I agree that human opinion changes. That's why we need Religion that accommodates such change and helps us to change in the direction spoken of in the REUEP.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yeah, that's kinda what I figured you meant. Why define it that way though? Why the need to declare it 'secularly-religious'?
The Aztecs themselves would have seen it as religious. I understand you see it as false religion, but since when did false-religion equate to secular?

I see your above point and apparently I did Not read enough into my choice of wording.
How about that some people make human science as a religion? [ secular religion]
Misapplying scientific knowledge in using science as a ' tool ' making it into their Idol.
Idol because it holds no one accountable, and can't lead men in biblical morality.

 

[Walk_Like_Enoch]

I don't agree with that definition of Religion. I base my idea about Religion on observation of what we call Religion and what all those things called Religion do. I agree that human opinion changes. That's why we need Religion that accommodates such change and helps us to change in the direction spoken of in the REUEP.

So, if I am understanding you correctly, do you mean that you're making up the definition of religion by means of your own opinion of what religious faith should be? Even Jesus didn't do that... (see Matthew 5:17)

 

[Walk_Like_Enoch]

Not meaning to be snarky about it, just meaning to be clear about what it is and is not that you (and Humananity) are advocating for.
Telling people how to live is a task that bears great responsibility... more than an individual's personal reason can bear...

 

[Thruve]

I'm not sure that applies to Humanism, at least as a criticism. To the extent that it may, what do you propose as an alternative?

Not sacrificing freedoms, no matter the consequence.
That and not trading one utopia for another -.-

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

So, if I am understanding you correctly, do you mean that you're making up the definition of religion by means of your own opinion of what religious faith should be? Even Jesus didn't do that... (see Matthew 5:17)

No, that is not what I said. If you look at everything that we have called Religion, in order to find the most common and therefore defining characteristic, it appears to be the adult study of how best to live our lives. Religious organizations do carry out other functions also, such as promotion of optimism, helping of others, and sense of belonging, but those functions are carried out by other things not considered Religion. Ask anyone where adults have always gone to study how best to live life, how to be a good person, and what will be the first thing that comes to their minds? What else comes to mind?

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Not meaning to be snarky about it, just meaning to be clear about what it is and is not that you (and Humananity) are advocating for.
Telling people how to live is a task that bears great responsibility... more than an individual's personal reason can bear...

And I am not telling people how to live, nor is Humanianity. Humanianity is the commitment to figuring out how to live life that will most promote not only the survival of our species but also as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible, for everyone, now and in the future. And my belief is that that is accomplished by people sharing and comparing their beliefs respectfully in order to improve wisdom and arrive at increasing agreement with regard to a basic ethical philosophy for our species. And we have a long, long way to go.

 

[Walk_Like_Enoch]

Bill,
Thank you for your reply and your clarification.

I would caution that simply because people turn to religious teaching for their ethics does not merit creating a religious philosophy of one's own (or borrowing from a shopping cart of different philosophies, as the proposed belief discussions would bring about).

When I look at religions, I see a myriad of belief structures that can be understood via 4 basic questions (related to metaphysics in philosophy):
Where did we come from?
Where did evil come from (or does it exist)?
Is there any hope?
What will the future hold?

Historically, religion has not been concerned with pragmatic ethics only (though ethics are hugely important!). Especially in the Christian tradition (of which I am most comfortable speaking), religion has been about understanding and responding to what is really real, specifically the Creator who made this universe. The Christians I know are pursuing ethical living, but they're pursuing a lot more than that: knowledge of God. And that personal relationship with Him through the Bible and prayer prompts ethical desires and personal repentance from sin. Thus, from a Christian perspective, orthopraxy is a result of orthodoxy.

I agree with you that humanity as a whole ought to work together toward our common ethical good (and boy, wouldn't it be nice if the terrorists put down their guns and learned a thing or two about not being a bully? ).

Yet, I still sympathize with Plato:
how can pure democratic reasoning arrive at what's best for mankind?
And who gets to decide when the majority has arrived at truth?
(Remember, even the terrorists following Qutbism think they're actually pursuing the best thing for humanity by freeing them from the tyranny of non-Koranic governments... thus bringing peace and freeing all men to joyfully and contentedly adhere to Allah... what if they were a majority?)

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Bill,
Thank you for your reply and your clarification.

I would caution that simply because people turn to religious teaching for their ethics does not merit creating a religious philosophy of one's own (or borrowing from a shopping cart of different philosophies, as the proposed belief discussions would bring about).

When I look at religions, I see a myriad of belief structures that can be understood via 4 basic questions (related to metaphysics in philosophy):
Where did we come from?
Where did evil come from (or does it exist)?
Is there any hope?
What will the future hold?

Historically, religion has not been concerned with pragmatic ethics only (though ethics are hugely important!). Especially in the Christian tradition (of which I am most comfortable speaking), religion has been about understanding and responding to what is really real, specifically the Creator who made this universe. The Christians I know are pursuing ethical living, but they're pursuing a lot more than that: knowledge of God. And that personal relationship with Him through the Bible and prayer prompts ethical desires and personal repentance from sin. Thus, from a Christian perspective, orthopraxy is a result of orthodoxy.

I agree with you that humanity as a whole ought to work together toward our common ethical good (and boy, wouldn't it be nice if the terrorists put down their guns and learned a thing or two about not being a bully? ).

Yet, I still sympathize with Plato:
how can pure democratic reasoning arrive at what's best for mankind?
And who gets to decide when the majority has arrived at truth?
(Remember, even the terrorists following Qutbism think they're actually pursuing the best thing for humanity by freeing them from the tyranny of non-Koranic governments... thus bringing peace and freeing all men to joyfully and contentedly adhere to Allah... what if they were a majority?)

There is much to respond to. Yes, historically religions have advocated for some existential beliefs. And as we have progressed in our understanding of the universe, some of those beliefs have become outdated. And the tendency for religions to require belief as an act of obedience has made such progress quite painful and difficult. Humanianity does not require belief as an act of obedience, unless it can be demonstrated that not requiring it causes increased pain, suffering, disability, and/or early death. My personal belief is that it is the other way around, but I am open to being shown how I'm wrong about this.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Bill,
Thank you for your reply and your clarification.

I would caution that simply because people turn to religious teaching for their ethics does not merit creating a religious philosophy of one's own (or borrowing from a shopping cart of different philosophies, as the proposed belief discussions would bring about).

When I look at religions, I see a myriad of belief structures that can be understood via 4 basic questions (related to metaphysics in philosophy):
Where did we come from?
Where did evil come from (or does it exist)?
Is there any hope?
What will the future hold?

Historically, religion has not been concerned with pragmatic ethics only (though ethics are hugely important!). Especially in the Christian tradition (of which I am most comfortable speaking), religion has been about understanding and responding to what is really real, specifically the Creator who made this universe. The Christians I know are pursuing ethical living, but they're pursuing a lot more than that: knowledge of God. And that personal relationship with Him through the Bible and prayer prompts ethical desires and personal repentance from sin. Thus, from a Christian perspective, orthopraxy is a result of orthodoxy.

I agree with you that humanity as a whole ought to work together toward our common ethical good (and boy, wouldn't it be nice if the terrorists put down their guns and learned a thing or two about not being a bully? ).

Yet, I still sympathize with Plato:
how can pure democratic reasoning arrive at what's best for mankind?
And who gets to decide when the majority has arrived at truth?
(Remember, even the terrorists following Qutbism think they're actually pursuing the best thing for humanity by freeing them from the tyranny of non-Koranic governments... thus bringing peace and freeing all men to joyfully and contentedly adhere to Allah... what if they were a majority?)

BTW, how do you define "sin"?

 

[Avi1001]

Hi Bill....sorry to interrupt at this point....but it still seems to me that your fabricated religion....is still some cross between humanism and atheism...so where are we going with this illogical obfuscation ??

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Hi Bill....sorry to interrupt at this point....but it still seems to me that your fabricated religion....is still some cross between humanism and atheism...so where are we going with this illogical obfuscation ??

I, personally, am pretty atheistic. But there is polytheistic Religion, monotheistic Religion, and atheistic Religion. And I am not opposed to people being theistic. I have not explored humanism, but am probably pretty oriented in that direction. But my specific religious ideas are just mine. I do consider myself Humanian, because my ultimate ethical principle is the REUEP. That doesn't mean that any of my ideas are the right ones or that people have to agree with me to be Humanian. Can you tell me what I have written that seems illogical? Regarding fabricating a religion, I believe I have just given a name to a movement within Religion. Do you believe that that movement does not exist?