Spiritual Humanism

[DaveL]

Gang,

I've been reading quite a bit into Atheism and its more postive offshoots, such as Humanism of late.

I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion', which seems to criticise religious belief, without really acknowledging mankinds' tendency to celebrate spirituality more broadly.

I'm personally disappointed about the lack of alternatives in Dawkins argument. Surely not all spiritual beliefs are the result dogmatic and superstitious. Isn't spirituality endemic in all cultures?

After a few searches, I came across a 'happy medium' which acknowledges both scientific inqury and various forms of spirituality - 'Spritual Humanism'

To quote the Wiki entry:

Spiritual Humanism, is a religious and philosophical movement that embraces the religious inclinations common to most people, yet additionally requires verifiable scientifically valid evidence for religious beliefs.

The key principles are as follows:

1. Seek religious inspiration in nature.

2. Base religion on knowledge gained by the scientific method.

3. Treat people with equality.

4. Take action to diminish suffering, and advance happiness.

5. Resources that belong to every one must be protected.

6. Mark the arrival of the seasons with religious rituals.

7. Make a regular practice of religious activities such as meditation.

8. Recognize the debt to past and future generations.

9. Stand up for these principles and defend your beliefs.

10. Continually improve these ideas as new information becomes available

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Humanism

Cool concept(s) - however, I noted you can instanteneously become ordained in the Church of Spiritual Humanism (hey ok, it did cross my mind for at least 10 minutes, but nothing is that easy surely ).

http://www.spiritualhumanism.org/

It's not a recognised church here, so I haven't heard much about it until now. However, many of the concepts appear compatible with us Toadfish. Any thoughts?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

2. Base religion on knowledge gained by the scientific method.

Yeah.  I like it all except for #2 (above)

This, in my opinion, is pretty much a contradiction in terms.

To me, religion, IS philosophies that are based on things that CAN NOT be determined scientifically.

To determine a principle that has been demonstrated with scientific principles, even if it is a moral or behavior code, is not a question of FAITH, but one of ethical decision-making.

To claim the principle is "better" because of one or more "studies" loosely based in scientific principles is dangerously close to some of those "master race" sorts of things, I think ...  

Finally, Science is not set up to study the supernatural, nor is it setup to study things that do not have a basis in the world as perceived ONLY using your 5 senses.  This is NOT to say that science says things do not exist OUTSIDE this perception-- just that science is not prepared to deal with anything that IS.

So.

I LIKE the principles EXCEPT for #2, which smacks to me, of "faith statements" no better than OTHER religious ideals.

Just my $0.02 worth ...

[Sibling Chatty]

As in every pre-stated "faith", take what you can use, leave the rest.

Number 6, meeting the seasons, is pretty much an invitation to heatstroke at least twice a year down here. Y'all get summer and fall, we get HOT summer and HOTTER end of summer...

And it smacks of going outdoors, and I don't do that too much anymore. Lack of soft places to fall down.

[goat starer]

I may simply not understand what the writer MEANS by religion in this context but given my understanding I have a problem with....

1. Seek religious inspiration in nature.

sure I seek inspiration in nature. It inspires me, can fill me with wonder and awe etc. but at the end of the day to my mind that is the wonder and power of nature and i do not feel a need to add anything to it to make it more amazing. Anybody looking at the whole of nature cannot understand its majesty and complexity but the easy way out as I see it is to go "shucks! God made it like that". take the 'religious' out of #1 and I am with you.

2. Base religion on knowledge gained by the scientific method.

I see this as a contradiction in terms. I believe every scientific explanation dimishes the need for religion and that religion is essentially a placeholder for those things we have yet to explain (and indeed may never explain!). searching for religion in scientific knowledge leads to the kind of bastardised science that ID prponents expound.

6. Mark the arrival of the seasons with religious rituals.

why?

7. Make a regular practice of religious activities such as meditation.

again why?

I also cannot imagine that you will get my good thatcherite friend Beagle to sign up to....

5. Resources that belong to every one must be protected.

since he has sold them all to the highest bidder (or in many cases at bargain basement prices to any old tom dick and harry!) 

[Griffin NoName]

My reaction was similar. First define religion. And that is when the arguments begin.

See Problems with definitions of Religion.

I'm fine with Spiritual Humanism but not the definition above. Especially as the word spiritual has often been used to denote something similar sort of to religion but absolutely NOT religioun. If they hi-jack Spiritual it'll be confusing and garrrrr! how many words-definitions are we going to end up needing? (A. infinte ->>)

[DaveL]

My take on the words 'spiritual' is that is that spirituality itself is a human condition, embellished in all major belief systems and societies. How it is expressed is open to them (sounds similar to Unitarianism, come to think of it).

I also have a problem with #2 in isolation, as it implies that scientific discovery alone is they peak human experience. Or is it simply saying that aspects of nature, discovered or undiscovered should be revered rather than being subverted or dismissed? This needs clarification.

[Sibling Chatty]

Religion versus science is a HUGE false dichotomy currently being opposed more by science than religion.

Pardon people of faith if they pollute your "pure science" crap with belief that the two are NOT mutually exclusive.

[DaveL]

I certainly hope you don't mean me there Chatty, because I'm not endorsing it. I'm simply trying to understand it.

[Bluenose]

Actually, I completely agree with Chatty - I'm not at all sure that there is such a dichotomy.  Both science and religion are attempts to explain life, the universe and everything (thank you, Douglas Adams).

The difference as I see it is that science is based on a number of important principles that are open to anyone to utilise to examine the current state of science on any given question:

• What is the evidence?
• What is the simplest explanation (one that requires the least number of assumptions) that accounts for all the known facts?
• How could this theory be disproved?
• If this theory is true, what are the consequences and how can we test for them?

Of these probably the most important is the question of "disprovability", if something cannot be disproven then it is not a scientific theory.

We can apply exactly the same principles to religion.  Ultimately, IMHO, if a thing is real it must be open to examination and explanation.  The problem seems to me to be the currency of the idea that religion is not open to this sort of examination, that somehow it is against the rules to apply rational thought to religious ideas, that somehow religion deserves a kind of "do not go here" pseudo respect that other ideas do not.

I am not saying that we should not respect other people's right to believe whatever they want.  I certainly am not saying that people are idiots for being believers.  I just don't buy the argument that some ideas are somehow above scrutiny.  If someone wanted to believe that they are being stalked by a carnivorous invisible pink elephant I would ask them to demonstrate the evidence for that belief.  In the lack of any substantive evidence I would probably conclude that the person's belief is not rational, but he/she is entitled to believe it.  I may theorise that perhaps he/she has been eating a few too many magic mushrooms, or has a mental illness but resolving that question would probably require more investigation by someone with more relevant skills than I.

I take the whole "question of God" as a scientific theory.  I take it very seriously.  I do not accept the proposition that religion is a separate area of thought that cannot be examined rationally.  However, I also do not find and no one has yet shown me any evidence that supports the proposition for divine existence.  This seems to be the sticking point.  When talking about religion I am asked to use some different method of thinking - "if you believe, then you will see".  Sorry I don't buy it.



However, to the question of spirituality, I see that as the emotional response to things.  For example, and as I have spoken about before elsewhere on this site, many things in nature and the universe elicit in me what I would call a spiritual response.  I stand in awe of the size of the universe, of the smallest critter in my garden pond, of the whole damn noisy messy lot of humanity and the bewildering array of ideas, ways of life and everything.  I am an unabashed atheist, but I find a spiritual side to just about anything.  I just don't think of "spirit" as being anything more than an internal, natural (although probably emergent), product of the electro-chemical goings on inside my skull.  That is not to lessen their importance one iota.

Sibling Bluenose

[Sibling Qwertyuiopasd]

I agree with the general consensus and problems with the principles most others have here.

in comparison to other religions, this is not very dogmatic, but the "mark the coming of the seasons" and the "make a regular practice of religious activities such as meditation" makes it seem a bit restricting/demanding for what it is.

now, this may be because I like putting shameless plugs in for Unitarian Universalism, but I think this is similar to UUism, except that the UU principles are even more vague. the most spiritual thing in them is probably the inter-dependant web of life. after that it's all up to you. and we focus more on the journey of finding your spiritual home (like what you're doing) rather than the end result and how you go about with that.


~Qwerty

[Sibling Chatty]

I certainly hope you don't mean me there Chatty, because I'm not endorsing it. I'm simply trying to understand it.

Nah, Sweetie, you know I lubs youuuu.... I just had finished a long and bloody argument over the latest load of crap from Sam Harris, who wants to eliminate ALL religion in favor of science, except HIS sorta non-religious superstition-ish beliefs, and maybe some paranormal stuff, and ESP and a little Buddhism, oh, and some other stuff he's kinda interested in.

I DID suggest he contact Bobby and that they try writing a book together. That would be a trainwreck i'd pay to see.

[Sibling Chatty]

OH, one other thought on "Spiritual Humanism".

It's an obvious backlash against the Religious Right's demonization of the term Humanism/secular humanism.

As a humanist of long years practice (and a phenomenologist, as well) the division of my faith from my humanity by these RR nutburgers has ALWAYS just totally pissed me off.

I got moved to the far end of the row in church choir for rolling my eyes when a preacher went off on Secular Humanism as "the Greatest Challenge to Christendom EVER" back in the early 80's. Yeah, at the end, the congregation could see me, but directly behind the pastor, the TV cameras could. They bit the bullet and set up a special mic for me at the for end of the row, because I wouldn't quit rolling my eyes and HE wouldn't quit being a total dork about Secular Humanism. The whole IDEA of Secular Humanism was originally a way to express a furtherance of the worth of humans outside the framework of the religious mindset. That the RR can't conceive of science, or humanism, or much of anything else as anything other that "a false religion" is THEIR problem, not that of the humanistic movement. That the humanistic movement felt it necessisary to respond to the challenge by getting almost as didactic as the RR was regrettable.

Names. Divisions. Labels.

Signs, signs, everywhere signs.
Blockin' up the scenery, blowin' my mind.
Do this, don't do that, can you read the signs??

(Sorry, aging hippie flashback there.)

[goat starer]

Chatty, I would defend your right to believe whatever you like (and of course i love you deeply!) but my view is that there is a natural 'axis of hope' that takes in atheism, science and socialism. The empiriscist tradition seems to me to lead inexorably towards these three with other beliefs being mere abberations of historical process.

Of course everybody here knows I am a clinically insane marxist! 

[Opsa]

I'm hugging Chatty for rolling her eyes and Goatie for his   marxism!

I think that what makes religion religion is that it is based on faith, not science. The two are oil and water, as far as I'm concerned, but like oil and vinegar they can work side by side. I think that the creationists are blocking out useful information when when they call evolutionism "anti-God" values. It is not anti-God at all. God may well have designed things to evolve. In the same way, I don't think it's nice for some scientists to slam people who choose to believe in God. They should just accept God as a theory. Why not? It has not been scientifically proven to my satisfaction that God does not exist, therefore I choose to have faith in God.

By the way, the Unitarian tenets go like this:

    "We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote"

        * The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
        * Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
        * Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
        * A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
        * The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
        * The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
        * Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

    "The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:"

        * Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
        * Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
        * Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
        * Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
        * Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
        * Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

    "Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support."

There seems to be a lot of controversy over whether the UUs are really a religion, but since there is a tolerance for faith there, I would call it a religion.

[Aggie]

I think that what makes religion religion is that it is based on faith, not science. The two are oil and water, as far as I'm concerned, but like oil and vinegar they can work side by side.

May I offer you an emulsifier, dear?   

I think that #2 suffers from unfortunate wording...  maybe something more along the lines of using scientific knowledge as a base for one's worldview, and letting religion cover the above and beyonds? In other words, not letting religion serve as a basis for denying scientific knowledge, and not making things knowable by science into matters of faith.

Actually, the oil and water analogy is good....  the scientific method has acted rather like a demulsifier separating and clarifying the knowable from the unknowable, but there's still plenty of micellae out there, and the hope that one day we will be able to explore and know the oil above.  Early humans had to be content with a creamy salad dressing of integrated experience and faith.  Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's....