Amazingly enough, the battle between the atheists and the theists is still going strong. Someday, perhaps the atheists will realize that all they are doing is playing the Christian game, by letting the dominant Christian tradition define what religion is. So here’s an alternate definition of religion, from the introduction to The Twenty-first Century Confronts Its Gods: Globalization, Technology, and War, a collection of scholarly essays edited by David J. Hawkin (SUNY Press, 2004):
It is difficult to define what religion is. It seems easy enough at first: most would say that religion entails belief in a god or gods, involves ritual and worship, and has a system of beliefs…. Yet this definition does not include, for example, Theravada Buddhism, which does not have a transcendental being in its belief system. Nor does this definition reflect that in popular usage the term “religion” is used very broadly (as in, for example, references to New Age “religion”). Paul Tillich recognized this when, in Dynamics of Faith, he defined religion as being grasped by an “ultimate concern.” What Tillich meant was that for most people all other concerns are preliminary to a main concern that supplies the answer tot he question, “What is the meaning of my life?” What makes this primary concern religious is that it is the primary motivating concern of one’s life: it makes an absolute demand on one’s allegiance and promises ultimate fulfillment. Using this definition, we may distinguish three types of religion. First, theistic religions, in which the object of ultimate concern is a transcendental being (as in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Second, non-theistic religions, in which the object of ultimate concern is some higher principle or abstract power (as in Theravada Buddhism and some types of Hinduism). Third, secular or quasi-religions, where the object of ultimate concern is such that it resembles theistic or non-theistic religions. What the person holds as ultimate concern gives that person’s belief a character (often unintentional) similar to that found in more traditional religions.
I’m not sure that my own faith community, Unitarian Universalism, fits neatly into this broad-brush typology of religions, since we have both theists and non-theists. You could argue that what holds Unitarian Universalism together (if indeed something is holding us together) is a higher principle, thus plunking us into the category of non-theistic religions. I’d be more likely to argue for a fourth category that mixes theistic and non-theistic approaches to religion. In any case, the real point is that the atheist/theist debates only work within the context of the first type of religion, the theistic religions; and we’re not a theistic religion; therefore the atheist/theist debate is a waste of time within Unitarian Universalism.
What is the atheist/theist debate? Whether god exists? Or whether religion is beneficial? Or something else?
I agree with you, Dan, that the debate is a waste of time in Unitarian Universalism. The key difference between our internal struggle, which seems to be mainly about language more than anything else, and the fundamentalist/atheist divide is that generally, those UUs who identify as theists don’t think that atheists’ souls are in danger of eternal torment for denying the existence of a god or gods.
But it would help, at least in my experience, if the more militant atheists in our midst did not cringe so very much at another’s use of religious language, particularly the word “god.” I use that word because I haven’t found a better shorthand for the ineffable, “life, the universe, and everything,” that works for me, not because I believe in a personally involved, bearded white guy in the sky keeping watch and judgment. But when I don’t offer that explanation, I have often been accused of superstition. It would be nice to get beyond that and let everyone speak their experiences as they see them.
I wonder if a fourth category of “metaphorical” religion might be appropriate — I’ve personally found that within Unitarian Universalism we’re often all talking about the same religious values and ideas, but using different forms of metaphor, images and language, to express them. The differences are only on the surface.
I like Forrest Church’s definition best of all those I’ve seen, though: “Religion is our human response to the dual reality of being alive and knowing we must die.”
I’m a theist, in so much as I believe in God, in your “metaphorical” sense – ie I do believe in a greater power, but not an angry bearded man and his loving son sitting on a cloud.
Personally, I prefer the traditional idea of Unitarianism (as I understand it), which pretty much fits with my own view – of a greater God (indeed good) for all, Jesus as the divinely-inspired man, etc.
To be honest, while I can see why the Us and UUs threw out any formal dogma, but people being what they are, this does not seem to remove the tensions – on the contrary they become internalised with – in what I pick up from the US church – the argument between believers and non-believers continuing in-house rather than out, though why non-believers would wish to attend religious ceremonies I still don’t quite understand. I mean, couldn’t they just become humanists?
The cost is greater though I think with respect to recruitment – this desire to NOT define what we are, and what we are not, affects our brand. I believe the vast majority of people with spiritual affinity believe in classical Unitarianism and would greatly benefit by being made aware of this religious possibility – the trouble is our reluctance to say what we are, excludes many, even though its intention – in a much more religious age it has to be said – was quite the contrary.
In a community where the vast majority of folks are converts, it comes as a surprise to a lot of those converts that not everyone here believes what they do.
this stretches from theist and deist and agnostic and atheist all the way to what we eat (which seems a lot more militant and angry than the current theist arguments) to the Pagan-Humanist sniper fire…
You mean we don’t all think alike?
Why should atheists stop playing the game? Fundamentalist Christians and anti-religion atheists need and feed each other. The more radical and verbally aggressive one side becomes, the stronger is its counterpart. And the likely victim is the moderates, i.e. the benevolent “religion-has-its-uses-after-all” liberals.
h sofia @ 1 — You ask: “What is the atheist/theist debate?” You know, that’s a big part of the problem — no one quite seems to know what the atheist/theist debate is really about. (Though for a mildly cynical answer, see Jaume @ 5 below.)
Jess @ 2 — You write: “It would be nice to get beyond that and let everyone speak their experiences as they see them.” I agree. Anything less is starting down the slippery slope towards dogmatism and orthodoxy, where one person gets to tell another person what to say/believe.
unitalian @ 3 — You write: “The cost is greater though I think with respect to recruitment – this desire to NOT define what we are, and what we are not, affects our brand.” We hear this argument over here in the States all the time. But really, I think we are quite good at defining who we are — as a non-dogmatic, covenantal religious tradition — that’s a definition in and of itself.
StevenR @ 4 — You write: “In a community where the vast majority of folks are converts, it comes as a surprise to a lot of those converts that not everyone here believes what they do.” This, rather than some theological binary, is probably the crux of the problem — and I tend to forget this, since I’m something like 7th generation Unitarian, so I’m just not all that aware of the whole “conversion” process. Thanks for the reminder.
Jaume @ 5 — You write: “Fundamentalist Christians and anti-religion atheists need and feed each other.” Sad, but I think essentially true. Which means that actually I’m pretty foolish trying to step into the middle of their happy little dysfunctional relationship….
Essentially, I am a scientist with traditional Lutheran roots. So the argument of God versus no God has great meaning to me, although the answer is not yet available, except for those who believe they have a personal relationship and even have talked with the Almighty. Except for those who miss-apply what science has been unable to study, eg Richard Dawkins.
Dr. Dawkins’ laudible book, the God Delusion, effectively scolds examples of religiously motivated atrocious behavior, but his argument about the improbability of a God is lame. As a Darwinist, Dr. Dawkins points out that all complex entities have evolved from elementary forms, so how could a tremendously complex God have started at the beginning? There are several problems with Dr. Dawkins’ argument. One is his application of an Aristotelian principle, which is very appropriate for the physical world, to a Platonistic concept of a spiritual being of whom the rest of this world is merely a reflection. His argument therefore is circular reasoning.
Even if we remain entirely within the Aristotelian approach, Dawkins’ argument fails. In Paul Davies’ most recent book, The Cosmic Jackpot, he points out that there are more than thirty fundamental characteristics of our world, such as the weight of a proton or the charge of an electron, that were they to be different the universe would not have been able to support life. This gives at least the appearance of a designed creation.
Dawkins’ argument against this is the anthropic theory. This imagines an infinite number of universes, each with potentially different parameters of these elemental structures of our world. Since we humans are here and now wondering about this very thing, then we must be living in one of the very few universes that can support life. Our universe therefore would be very special in the context of the larger “megaverse,” described as looking like foam, with each bubble being another universe. Furthermore, Dawkins submits to the idea that one of these little bubble universes can give birth to another, and that to another or many, and so on and so forth.
In this argument by Richard, he counters his own earlier argument of a complex God at the beginning of time. God might have evolved in one universe to a complexity great enough to create another universe. So there Dicky Dawkins!
The point is that there is not a compelling argument either for or against a God Creator. Another point is that search for how our universe is structured is quite fruitful both philosophically and technologically.
The problem faced by most of us is that we have a hard time with change. Even scientists frequently find it difficult to abandon a much beloved model when another model appears that better fits the available data.
Traditional Christianity is in such a predicament of being unable to let go of it’s beloved commitment to salvation by belief in Christ. This concept is, of course, divisive. If I take a theist perspective, this concept divides the body of God. From a humanitarian perspective it is unethical. Regardless of what a person believes, that person is worthy of our compassion.
It is difficult for me to understand how the argument of God versus no God doesn’t fit, at least in some way, into the body of thought of Unitarian Universalism, unless your point of view is that it doesn’t matter. Do you just shirk your shoulders and say, who cares? Doesn’t really apply to my life? Are you agnostic to the extreme of espousing the notion that it is impossible to know whether there is a God, so why bother? Mathematical logic is supportive of such a position, but even that mathematical logic has its loopholes.
One more thing. What is religion? I subscribe to the very simple and very inclusive definition that religion is those things we believe that are not prooven to be. An amusing corollary to this definition is that mathematics hereby becomes the only religion that can in fact proove that it is a religion.
Tom Curtis @ 7 — Richard Dawkins appears to have no familiarity with 20th C. theology. You would think that a scientist would know enough to review the relevant and recent literature on a topic before publishing, but when it comes to theology, it looks like he didn’t bother. The computer geeks would say “RTFM,” but we might tell Dawkins: “Read The Friggin Literature.”
As far as your last paragraph, in most Christian traditions you can equate individual beliefs with the beliefs of the whole, since each individual is expected to hold the orthodox beliefs or dogma of the whole. But in a Unitarian Universalist context, you must distinguish between one individual’s belief, and what Unitarian Universalism as a whole stand for. Since Unitarian Universalism is a non-creedal, non-dogmatic faith, by definition individual membership in a Unitarian Universalist congregation will not tell you anything about whether or not that individual believes or does not believe in God. In short, you are framing your whole question as if there is a uniform Unitarian Universalist creed or dogma, but by defintion that is not true, therefore your question is essentially meaningless. I know this can sound confusing if you’re firmly embedded in a Christian worldview, but if you work it through logically it should eventually make sense.
Tom Curtis @ 8 — If you’re serious about wanting to know how to define religion, I would suggest getting a recent undergrad-level text book on comparative religion (as long as you get one written by a reputable scholar, not by some fundamentalist Christian apologist). You should run in to these basic points: “religion” started out as a Western concept that some scholars do not believe is applicable universally, although others do; there are different approaches to defining religion (e.g., sociological, anthropological, theological, the study of comparative religions, etc.), and each definition has its strengths and weaknesses, its proponents and detractors; and that there are empirical and theoretical approaches to the study of religion, each of which again has its strengths and weaknesses.
I’m afraid that you will find out that your definition of religion is, alas, pretty much inadequate. I’m afraid your definition reveals a distinct cultural bias (very Western, very Christian), it has neither a firm empirical grounding nor a firm theoretical grounding, and it does not take advantage of any of the frameworks from the various intellectual traditions (sociology, anthropology, etc.). As an exercise, please try to apply your definition to Therevada Buddhism, or to Hinduism — I think you’ll find that your definition simply isn’t adequate to the task.
Sorry to be so negative, but I’m trying to be really honest, in the assumption that you are genuinely seeking knowledge.
Dan wrote:
-snip-
“Richard Dawkins appears to have no familiarity with 20th C. theology. You would think that a scientist would know enough to review the relevant and recent literature on a topic before publishing, but when it comes to theology, it looks like he didn’t bother. The computer geeks would say ‘RTFM,’ but we might tell Dawkins: ‘Read The Friggin Literature.'”
Dan,
The “Dawkins hasn’t read the current theological literature” criticism is an interesting one to raise.
First, it hasn’t gone unanswered the very vocal atheist writers community — PZ Myers (biology professor at University of Minnesota – Morris and author of the Pharyngula blog) responded with what he calls the “Courtier’s Reply.” Myers’ response is copied below:
“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngula_%28blog%29#The_Courtier.27s_Reply
Second — regarding the impact of 20th century theology, one could question if anyone outside seminaries reads any of this literature and if it has any impact on the followers of traditional religion in North America.
Many folks are still deeply rooted in traditional religious thought and the theologies that Dawkins examines may very well be the majority view once one leaves the liberal seminaries and liberal churches.
Remember that one criticism of Dawkins’ documentary “The Root of All Evil” was that he interviewed so-called “fringe” religious leaders like Ted Haggard — this criticism ignores the 30 million membership of the National Association of Evangelicals and influence that a Ted Haggard has in our society (Haggard prior to his sexual downfall was a religious leader who could demand a meeting with the President).
One of the largest Episcopal churches in my town is aligned with the conservative Episcopal and Anglican groups who are opposed to liberal religious trends. Their senior minister wrote about the votes that the conservatives lost during their 2006 convention on his blog — he said that even though they lost these votes, he had read the book and he knew that his side would win in the end (apparently a veiled reference to Revelations end-times theology).
So — the theologies that Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et al. are critical of could very well be the majority religious views in the US.
Steve Caldwell @ 10 — I’ve heard Dawkins’s defenders make exactly this defense, but I don’t buy it. If Dawkins is attacking popular religion in the U.S. (or the world, for that matter), then he should read the relevant sociological literature on what U.S. popular religion looks like right now. If he had done so (and I have done so, to a small extent), he would have found a great deal of religious diversity in the U.S., which should have moved him towards a more nuanced attack on “God,” since what is meant by the term “God” is not a monolithic entity. Simple case in point: Wicca and other pagan religions are growing very quickly in the U.S., but their view of “God” and religion has nothing much to do with what Dawkins attacks.
In addition, Dawkins would have done well to read some of the very interesting literature coming out of the field of comparative religions, which points out that under some reasonable definitions of religion, phenomena like sports, the free market, popular music, etc., look very much like religion. Dawkins of course would deny this, because he has set up a very narrow definition of religion — but he should at least address the fact that there are other possible definitions out there, because that affects how we evaluate his arguments. My sense is that he does not want his arguments evaluated in any serious way — he is engaging in mere polemic, just as the Ted Hazzards of the world are doing.
You also write: “Second — regarding the impact of 20th century theology, one could question if anyone outside seminaries reads any of this literature and if it has any impact on the followers of traditional religion in North America.” OK, but a logical corollary to that argument could be made by the advocates of creationism — no one reads serious evolutionary biology outside the academy, so therefore it doesn’t really have any impact on the popular culture, so we can ignore it. This gets to the crux of my arguments with someone like Dawkins: he plays exactly the same intellectual games that the fundamentalist Christians play. He dismisses an entire field of human intellectual endeavor — and that’s just what the fundies are doing when they dismiss evolutionary biology as “just a theory.”
My real point is that I personally don’t want to play in that sandbox — I’d rather play in the sandbox where ideas are taken seriously, and where the goal is thoughtful conversations that move knowledge forward. In my sandbox, we share the Tonka trucks and build structures together — over in the sandbox where P.Z. Myers and Dawkins and the fundies play, they just throw sand in each others’ eyes.
OK, I’ve pushed that metaphor too far… anyway….
Hi Dan,
For some reason my previous response didn’t make it. Here goes again.
Both Buddhism and Hinduism have cosmologies that are just as imaginative, just as incredible as the cosmologies of Western theistic religions.
Once when asked whether a person could call himself Buddhist if he did not believe the cosmology, Damien Keown responded yes, but only at the risk of reducing Buddhism to scientific humanitarianism. So the question then becomes whether that is a religion. Maybe. Even probably. Category two.
One of the very attractive things about Buddhism is its emphasis on the acquisition of knowledge, vital for knowing HOW to be compassionate.
The concept of the Bodhisattva, this is attractive also, and in the structure of my thinking this is equivalent to the Christ consciousness spoken of by some liberal Christians.
Recently there has been a lot written in the progressive theoretical physics and math literature suggesting that the universe itself is a huge computer, a consciousness of which we ourselves are a small part. So this brings into consideration whether an important function of religion is to change the mind of God (the universal consciousness). Enter all the heretics down through the ages.
Now getting back to your original question of which category of religion you would put Unitarian Universalism, even considering the construction of yet a fourth category, I have a question. Why do you not think Unitarian Universalism fits into the second category, with allegience to a higher priciple? I find it curious and maybe an amusing feature of the apparent UU personality, that it claims not to have a creed, and yet it does. Unitarian Universalists really do not want to be categorized and so there’s the amusing part of this. You looking for a category but you really don’t want one. That is indeed why you think about constructing a fourth category, but whatever you come up with, that wouldn’t be good enough. Okay. Sincerely, I’m okay with that.
And I suspect also that whatever I were to write here, you would find an objection to it, maybe accompanied by a gentle put down with with an air of superiority and a veneer of obligatory graciousness.
Oh yes. The Creed of UU, here it is and you probably know it by heart.
“We the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote
1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregation and in society at large;
6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are part.”
You may claim that this is not a creed, but your claim would be more semantic than substantive. This is indeed a creed. And I think it is a very good one. But I’ll add one more little elbow into your ribs. There is no way you can know that it is indeed correct. You believe this creed is right but you don’t know it. There is in fact evidence that the world works better by survival of the fittest, and there is no proof that compassion is the way that will best work in this world. We believe it is the best way, though.
If you try your lot at studying why there is evil in the world, you will find ways in which the characteristics of humans, both the flaws and noble characteristics contribute to both beneficence and to evil born out of self centeredness. And so it may not be that our chosen way of charity and compasison and equity, etc, is the right way. It’s only that we believe it is. We want it to be so.
We presume to know more than we know.
And it seems so many people search for meaning in their lives, and they use spirituality as a tool for that selfish purpose. Maybe instead we would do better by striving to make the meaningfulness of our lives less important to us. If I did not make so important what meaning my life has, then wouldn’t I be made more free to devote my energies to some purpose more noble than myself? I’m Christian, so let me put it like this. If I die to myself, won’t I then be reborn into a better life?
Don’t presume that the UU creed (or not creed–your choice) is absolutely the right thing. You want it to be the right thing, and maybe it is. But certainly it fits into a definition of religion being made up of beliefs for which we have no proof. And so does Buddhism and Hinduism and . . . . here’s a curious thing to ponder. Is the scientific method a completely reliable method for knowledge? No, of course it’s not either. Smile, smile, smile.
Hey, if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that it’s not all about me. I’m not in this to learn the meaning of who I am because I simply am what I am. I’m not in this to be enlightened because who really cares? I’m not in it in order to be saved either. I have good reason to believe salvation is out of my hands no matter what I choose to do. I’m in it predominantly because I’m just so damned curious about it all.
Really, the UU creed is a good one. Admit it. Smiles and best wishes.
t
Tom Curtis @ 12 — you write: “I’m in it predominantly because I’m just so damned curious about it all.” OK, then, please follow my advice in a previous response to one of your previous comments: RTFL. The way to satisfy your curiosity is not to pontificate at length, but to actually go out and learn something by reading the relevant literature, taking courses, or from direct observation. Use the latter if and only you know the appropriate methodology to make reliable observations, which I have to say at this point you do not — therefore, you need to RTFL.
As for your complete digression into the matter of “creed” (where the heck did that come from?), no, I do not have a creed. I disagree with the so-called “seven principles” of the Unitarian Universalist Association quoted above (which you would know if you had taken the time to do a simple search on this blog). I’m afraid your obsession with creeds as necessary to religion reveals more about your unexamined assumptions than anything else. Once again: RTFL.
Dan wrote:
-snip-
“If he (Dawkins) had done so (and I have done so, to a small extent), he would have found a great deal of religious diversity in the U.S., which should have moved him towards a more nuanced attack on ‘God,’ since what is meant by the term ‘God’ is not a monolithic entity. Simple case in point: Wicca and other pagan religions are growing very quickly in the U.S., but their view of ‘God’ and religion has nothing much to do with what Dawkins attacks.”
Coincidentally, PZ Myers wrote about a recent blog response to the “Courtier’s Reply.” The blog post is online here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/we_happy_hooligans.php
Two quotes from his blog post:
“The standard rebuttal is to claim that I was making an argument in favor of ignorance in the face of theological scholarship, followed by a laundry list of esteemed theologians … but never, and I mean absolutely never, even the slightest attempt to address the core of my criticism — not once have they presented a solid, confirmable reason to believe in a deity.”
“And yes, I do accuse his honor roll of theological luminaries of perpetuating lies, of credulity, and often, of pettifogging rhetoric. When someone advances remarkable claims of remarkable phenomena, like N rays or cold fusion or polywater (or natural selection or chemiosmosis or endosymbiosis), we demand evidence and skeptical evaluation…but not for religion. God always gets a pass from the people who already believe. They claim the existence of the most powerful, all-pervasive force in the universe, yet will provide not a single shred of support. And worse, this bozo calls the demand for evidence ‘hooliganism.'”
FWIW, it sounds to me that PZ Myers is looking at theology through a philosophical materialist lens.
Steve Caldwell @ 14 — “FWIW, it sound to me that PZ Myers is looking at theology through a philosophical materialist lens.”
Good point — same could be said of most of the current crop of atheists-in-print. (Not that I’m a big fan of most theologians, who often display a similar inability to confront their assumptions.)
Dan,
Scientific methods depend on naturalism and materialism as their methodology (“hypothesize, predict, test, repeat”).
I can see how a person could easily make the leap from materialism as a methodology to materialism as a philosophy.
Given the usefulness and effectiveness of scientific methods, the current atheist writers naturalism assumptions are very understandable. The scientific method has a very effective track record and it may make sense to extend this method into religion. In other words, it may make sense to examine religion as a natural phenomenon.
Personally, I’m very close to the “natural” end of the natural – supernatural continuum and very skeptical of unproven supernatural claims.
We have lots of evidence about the natural world. We have scant to no evidence of any supernatural phenomenon.
So my working assumption here is that our universe is a “WYSIWYG” (“what you see is what you get”) universe.
The world is amazing enough as a natural place for me.