A natural born religious naturalist!

@skado

I am not religious. Since age 13, I have been an atheist.

Since age 18, I have been a Democrat, environmentalist, feminist and peace activist.

@LiterateHiker
I understand. That word has different meanings for different people. I’m just saying your description of your life is just about the epitome of the life promoted by the people who have chosen, for whatever reason, to call themselves Religious Naturalists.

I don't know why you think we can't choose parts of religion and reject others. Every religious person I've ever known has done that. I even made up an entire religion to suit myself. One thing that religions have besides morality, ethics, and compassion is self development in attitude. It's more noticeable in some Eastern religions, but it's there in all of them. It requires practice. With or without institutional backing, if a person practices, that is what I call religion.

@skado The worst parts of religion are the very things that make it a religion. The fear, guilt, and superstition are bad enough, but then people waste their real lives in hope of an imaginary afterlife, pollute and deplete the planet in the belief that they are entitled by their imaginary sky fairy, and generally screw other people over because they think their imaginary friend will forgive them.

Religion is an enabler of the worst human behavior. If you get rid of that its not religion, it's just rehashing moral codes of older cultures without the guise of some divine directive.

@JimG
I feel the same way you do about fundamentalists, and I don't begrudge how other people define religion, but my definition doesn't give it all away to the fundamentalists. Many educated people are devout practitioners of ancient religions and don't subscribe to the woo.

You don’t.

@skado your entire post is about holding onto religion. even if you get rid of the “woo,” you’re still hanging onto it.

@basher
Depends on what you’re calling religion. My post is not about holding on to what you call religion. I don’t recommend that.

@skado you’re the one defining the word. i’m using your definition and saying it’s unnecessary.

@basher
Tell me your understanding of my definition.

I haven’t recommended religion or spiritualism at all, let alone as the only way.

@skado good for you.

totally!

Exactly what I’m recommending.

That doesn’t sound like a good part to me.

@skado The two are intimately linked to the point that they are basically the same thing. For example, when the bible talks about responsibility it is typically referring to spiritual responsibility to oneself or punishment for wrongdoing. This is nothing like our modern conception which is based around ethics and legality.

@Happy_Killbot
They are linked in your perception but not in mine.

@skado Consider the example of homosexuality. The bible and the quran explicitly forbid it. Therefore, by killing homosexuals you are doing them a favor by preventing them from committing any more sins that could keep them out of heaven.

This is compassion from religion. When you consider this, it almost makes you have to rethink the values themselves.

@Happy_Killbot
That’s not compassion from religion; It’s compassion from one religious perspective. When governments are bad, and they mostly always are, we (most of us) don’t say let’s do away with government - we say let’s reform government.

@skado To reform a government is to destroy it. would you argue that the government in the colonies before the American revolution was merely reformed?

Likewise, the fastest way to reform religion is to write it off to history, and start from scratch avoiding all the previous mistakes.

Human emotions and virtues are much more malleable than many of us are willing to admit. If we had a way to test what someone was feeling, possibly by monitoring brain signals or chemistry, I would bet that honor killings by a devout traditional muslim are accompanied by great amounts of compassion and love.

@Happy_Killbot
If you destroy “a” government, you are not destroying “government” as an abstract category. You understand what I’m saying? Religions will come and go, but the abstraction called “religion” can’t be destroyed. That’s what I’m talking about. Not any religion you have ever heard of, but “religion” as an abstraction.

@skado I have to be honest here, that kind of seems like a bit of a cop-out.

All I'm trying to say is that logic and deliberate direction, from either a goal seeking or information maximization perspective should be the driver of all progress, not just physical but also moral and social.

In other words, the world should be the way we want it to be, not to satisfy some arbitrary metaphysical abstraction, but rather because we are actively trying to make it what we want, because if you do it the other way, you can very rapidly alienate yourself and others from what's important due to a fundamental misinterpretation of the physical world.

@Happy_Killbot
It's not a dodge. It's a proud and accurate description of my central point. I'm not recommending trying to satisfy some arbitrary metaphysical abstraction. I'm saying, for example, it makes no sense to be angry at math (another abstraction) just because it was used to make the bomb. Even if math had never been used to make anything but bombs, it would still be silly to make negative emotional attachments to a neutral abstraction. Whether we use math or don't, all those relationships will still exist, and all their constructive potential is still there. Religion, the abstraction, is what I am talking about, and only what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about religions.

@skado I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you are saying, what exactly is the difference between religion, the abstraction, or as I describe it some arbitrary metaphysical abstraction, ( examples of which would include a god exists, good people go to heaven when they die, and raped daughters should be killed ) and religions, besides that a particular religion holds one set of arbitrary metaphysical abstractions that may or may not be shared by another?

While I agree that being angry at math for being a critical tool in the development of basically every technology invented, including WMD's is silly, I can't see them being in the same playing field because math sets no goals the way religions or governments, or childish beliefs in Santa clause, just being a nice person does.

If you are trying to argue that believing that being a good, morally sound person is a great idea, I would argue this is both dangerous and unnecessary, as I largely already have above.

@Happy_Killbot
I have failed to make my point understood, and I take full responsibility for that. If I can think of a better way to express it I'll get back with you, but for now, I'm stuck. What general category of human behavior do you put meditation in?

@skado I'm not sure, I know almost nothing about meditation.

Mental exercise maybe? I guess it is generally related to self betterment and well being, but my opinion holds little weight.

@Happy_Killbot
Ok, whenever you hear me use the word religion, just replace it with whatever word or mental category you would use for meditation, and it will clear up a lot of confusion I think. The reason I still use religion (after all the complaints I get) is because I don't know what the replacement word is either.

@skado I think that just made things even more confusing:

"Some think that if you remove superstition from [ self development ] there will be no more [ self development ], because they see the entirety of [ self development ] to be false, useless, or dangerous. "

@Happy_Killbot
You got it! Self development has become corrupted over the millennia, to the point self development itself has accumulated a terrible reputation. But if you remove the corruption you will find that what is left is self development. Homo sapiens still needs self development. We never needed corruption.

@skado I don't know if religion was ever about self development, but if self development is what you mean when you say religion in this context, then I guess you have your better word.

@Happy_Killbot
It helped us communicate in the context of this conversation, but If I say self development in an open context it could mean learning to play piano or doing laps at the the pool or getting a college degree, none of which have religious implications. Religious self development is specifically about spiritual, or in modern terms, psychological, or attitudinal development. Along with a thousand other things, that kind of development has historically been the domain of religion. Self development isn't a word, but two. Religious self development is three and circles back to lean on religion. I just don't know how to get around it.

@skado Well, the only other words I can think of are maturity, introspection, or the equally dangerous spirituality. I suppose you could say "personal spirituality" so as to ignore the general vagueness of the term, but other than that you will have to make up a new word. then wright a book, get on as many day time TV interviews as possible, get in touch with a bunch of bloggers and social media influencers, and hope it catches on.

@Happy_Killbot
I know! I know! Ha! That's the problem - nobody will recognize my new word in my lifetime, so I just use the word that already has worldwide recognition, and put up with the various problems that creates.

@skado It might not be as hard as you think, the real problem would be drift in the meaning of the word, especially if it is vague. I know from personal experience that getting an idea into the public discourse is easy nowadays, but making it stick takes continuous repetition. That being said, if the right people find out about it and the timing is good, this is feasible to do in as little as three to six months.

It really just depends on how much work you want to put into it. Bots are helpful, and not actually as hard to setup as one might think. Then it's just a matter of saturation until people get used to it.

@Happy_Killbot
Interesting thought. Thanks. If I could think of a word that I thought was more descriptive I'd sure be tempted to try it.

I’m not supporting any ideology.

Oh mighty Buddha

What prevents the religious?

@skado The standard common usage of the term 'religious' indicates a superhuman controlling power (woo) it makes sense to use a common term that already fulfills the "good parts" without the supernaturalist baggage.

[merriam-webster.com]

@AlPastor
The word, “naturalism” stands in direct opposition to supernaturalism. So in this case, “religious” just refers to an attitude of humility toward the magnitude of unknowns that the human species faces, or in some cases, to indicate the presence of a specific, regular practice, as distinguished from a philosophical position.

“there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion”
[en.wikipedia.org]

@skado

The word, “naturalism” stands in direct opposition to supernaturalism.

YES! That is exactly my point.

I get it, being a religious person may hold a sentimental and emotional appeal to you. I took from your original post that you were making a call to the "good parts" of religion as a regular practice. I think that call may be difficult when the title is apparently contradictory and requires a follow-up of, "So in this case, 'religious' just refers to...."

I wish you luck in your pursuit of Religious Naturalism, my fellow traveler. Cheers!

@AlPastor
“Being a religious person” holds no sentimental appeal for me. Emotionally, I am as disgusted by the idea as 99% of the members of this site are.

But after an entire adult life of non-belief, an ever increasing appreciation for factual accuracy has forced me to see that the word religion has no hard connection to superstition.

Its association in our minds is due to a long standing and persistent misunderstanding. I know that’s going to be a hard sell here, and I’m not expecting to change anyone’s mind, but I do feel compelled to say it like I see it, if you understand. Thanks for listening.

I find that, more often than not, differences of opinion on this subject come down to different understandings of the meanings of words, rather than to holding different values. By choosing certain definitions over others, I can agree with you completely.

Because it’s more than philosophy. Philosophy, as far as I know, is only about how to reason. Religion adds a practice. An illustration might be... philosophy is to learning about why bodybuilding is beneficial, what religion is to the actual practice of bodybuilding. Philosophy is thinking - religion is doing.

@skado Ok. It's an unfortunate choice of words. Using the term "religion" for your movement will automatically keep a number of people (especially those here) from looking into it. That seems the opposite of your desires. Best of luck.

@Shawno1972
Probably true. The "movement" was already named that before I discovered it, but of course I did make the decision to start the group here with the same name. My motivation for doing that probably comes from two sources. First, I am convinced that our propensity for religious involvement is an irradicable part of human nature, and that it is dangerous for us as a species to allow it to become co-opted by irrationality and supernaturalism, so I am making a stand, so to speak, for the rehabilitation of the word religion, instead of abandoning it to the corruptors. And secondly, I suspect it might serve to filter out the more narrow-minded and fundamentalist atheists who are unable to entertain ideas outside the familiar and comfortable. There is nothing about the word religion that requires a departure from reason and verifiable facts.

@skado I don't disagree on any particular point you raised. It's just unfortunate that the word comes with the baggage.

@Shawno1972
Yes, very unfortunate. The baggage is heavy.

@skado Philosophy, in its truest sense and meaning, merely offers up possibilities, etc, whereas religion seeks ONLY to IMPOSE itself upon all others without consideration of ANY and ALL possibilities.

Though it can be said that in these times some so-called Philosophers have twisted and distorted the practices of Philosophy to suit their owns ends and means thus bring Philosophy into disrepute.

You’re talking about institutions. I’m talking about personal practices.

@skado True. But the institutions have taught people this, and for many who adhere to religion it's become internalized.

@bleurowz
Yes, but that’s not the topic of this thread.

@skado I don't see how it's separate.

@bleurowz
Personal practices don’t depend on institutions in any way, unless they just volunteer to do so.

@skado This true. But internalizing is not easy to shake. Most people aren't aware of it and so can't discern the differences.

@bleurowz
That’s right.

I don’t need the Bible or a religious book, but I can use them without thinking I have to be a slave to them or take them literally.

@Allamanda
Not at all. I have zero cuddly feelings about that stuff from childhood, I promise you! I use it like an archeological dig, for the same reason archeologists do what they do. They don’t worship the site; they learn from it. They learn from it only because they have been trained how to learn from it. Otherwise it would look to them the same way it looks to the untrained eye: like a pile of rubble.