Sunstone Administrator (God, philosophy, religion, anthropology, humanism)

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Michel

One other question though (if I may) You quote yourself as being a secular Humanist (and I have a great regard for that philosophy); yet you quote Religion as an interest. Is the interest in knowing how others 'tick', or is there any part of you that has a little "Well, maybe......." ?

Sorry for not answering this sooner, Michel. It's a difficult subject for me because I wrestle with the "Well, maybe..." question on almost a daily basis. I'm not sure I would do so, however, were it not that I participate in RF on a daily basis, and thus the question is often suggested to me by the posts I read.

The shortest answer that still has enough truth in it is that were I not a non-theist, I strongly suspect I would be a pantheist. The old expression that "God is a circle with its center everywhere and it's circumference nowhere" is something I believe to be as adequate as any human description of deity can be, assuming deity exists in the first place.

Another short answer to your question is that I tend to approach the problem of deity from an epistemological POV: It's first and foremost for me a question of how and what can we know about deity, rather than whether there is or isn't deity.

Last, I have a tendency to ask the questions, "What does it matter whether there is deity or not? How would the existence, or non-existence, of deity significantly change anything about the life we live?"

As you can see, it's a complex issue for me.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Another short answer to your question is that I tend to approach the problem of deity from an epistemological POV: It's first and foremost for me a question of how and what can we know about deity, rather than whether there is or isn't deity.

Well done! You have managed to make an important distinction exceptionally clear.

But, having said that, what does the "problem of diety" have to do with religion? Here I am not speaking of religion the noun - the belief - but, rather, religion the verb - the attitude and quest. Why secular rather than religious naturalism?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Why secular rather than religious naturalism?

First, because secular naturalism seems to have much greater potential for fruitful questions and answers than does religious naturalism. Religious naturalism, IMO, too often leads to dead end questions and purely speculative answers.

Second, because secular naturalism seems to have a much greater ability to foster consensus. That is, it intuitively seems to me that it would be much more difficult to agree on the nature of nature, than on the nature of deity.

Third, because secular naturalism, perhaps ironically, strikes me as the best approach to deity, should deity exist. That is, it works from "the ground up" rather than from "the top down". To me, we should work that way to avoid beginning with meaningless questions. If one firmly adopts religious naturalism, why not begin with the supposition that pixie dust is Ultimate Reality rather than deity? Why would that be any more arbitrary than vicea versa?

Having said all that, there are days when I could still flip a coin and take whichever POV came up heads. That's how close of a contest it is to me on some days. My inclination to secular naturalism is sometimes a mere 51% to 49% divide.

I firmly blame my dear mother for my uncertainty, Jay. Growing up, she was so adamant that I and my brothers make up our own minds about these issues that she even refused to tell us her own convictions for fear we'd adopt them as easy outs. She callously threw us to the wolves of thinking for ourselves, and in doing so, gave us no proper sense that firm beliefs are much better than tentative ones. I sued her over it, but the suit was thrown out of court on a mere technicality: The judge said she was my mother.

[Feathers in Hair]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I firmly blame my dear mother for my uncertainty, Jay. Growing up, she was so adamant that I and my brothers make up our own minds about these issues that she even refused to tell us her own convictions for fear we'd adopt them as easy outs. She callously threw us to the wolves of thinking for ourselves, and in doing so, gave us no proper sense that firm beliefs are much better than tentative ones. I sued her over it, but the suit was thrown out of court on a mere technicality: The judge said she was my mother.

*gasps and tries to hide you under a blanket* Children should never have to face that kind of horror!

(On a more relevant note, thank you for your well-thought out replies to this thread! It's given me a lot of insight, not only into a great friend, but a way of looking at the world. )

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Second, because secular naturalism seems to have a much greater ability to foster consensus. That is, it intuitively seems to me that it would be much more difficult to agree on the nature of nature, than on the nature of deity.

Religious naturalism has absolutely nothing to do with deity.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Religious naturalism has absolutely nothing to do with deity.

My apologies. I simply assumed I knew what you meant. After a search, I'm wondering if by "religious naturalism" you mean the notion that the need for religious experience can be fulfilled with a purely scientific understanding of the universe?

Assuming that's what you mean, then I can only partly agree with the notion.

I think there's some evidence for the notion that some people, however few, occasionally have experiences that transcend normal consciousness, involve new information, and in at least some cases cannot be dismissed as caused by a dysfunction or disorder of the nervous system. I presume for such people, a purely scientific understanding of the universe is insufficient to account for their transcendental experience(s). Furthermore, some people have expressed a feeling that they in some sense need such experiences, and for those people religious naturalism might indeed be inadequate.

Having said all that, I still think that a serious study of science is apt to give us a much greater understanding and appreciation for nature and the universe than is the notion that everything was created by an omnipotent deity through the gift of gab. So, if by "seeking religious experience" we mean we are seeking depth of understanding, appreciation, a sense of mystery, valid description, truths, awe, and so forth, then religious naturalism would seem to be a good and possibly sure path to those things, and in it's way, much superior to the feeble, "God done it".

I hope that answers your question better than my first wingshot at it.

This is somewhat related: One thing that has interested me for years is the history of God and Nature in American culture. When the first Europeans came here, they brought their European ideas of nature with them, but were confronted with nature on a scale that was previously unimaginable to them. Beginning with Bradford's European/Biblical description of nature as "a howling wilderness" you see a steady progression through history, IMO, to some sort of synthesis of God and Nature. That synthesis is sometimes partial, sometimes complete, but once established in some form or another, it always thereafter runs as a sub-current through American culture. I am not surprised then, that someone would suggest naturalism can wholly replace the need for religious experience.

[Green Gaia]

Sunstone, what is the number one book that you really should have read by now, but haven't?