Exploring The Religious Naturalist Option

[rug]

November 23, 201410:44 AM ET
Ursula Goodenough

Adam recently wrote a nice piece on the "spiritual but not religious" distinction being made these days. He noted that "religious" is commonly used to connote being affiliated with a traditional religion and "spiritual" to connote some larger sense of awe and wonder.

I'm offering another take on these matters — one that incorporates the science-based understandings of nature that lie at the heart of (that essay) — by answering some questions here:

What is the standard understanding of being religious?


Most traditional religions have a core narrative (a mythos, a large story), usually recorded in texts or oral accounts. Interpretations of each account are embedded in the mythos and elaborated by clergy, spiritual responses to the account are elicited via art and ceremonies, and moral/ethical edicts are built into the fabric of the narrative.

A person adopting a traditional religion elects to believe in the mythos and its embedded interpretive, spiritual and moral/ethical parameters — and usually participates in a community of fellow believers.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/11/23/366104014/exploring-the-religious-naturalist-option

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/10/21/357770909/does-being-spiritual-but-not-religious-really-mean-anything

[NYC_SKP]

1. "usually participates in a community of fellow believers."

This part caught my attention.

One seemingly common thread throughout many if not most religions, and certain groups of atheists, is this need or requirement or characteristic of claiming membership in a community of fellow believers.

I part company with this notion in my personal spiritual existence; I neither profess to agree with nor disagree with anyone on religious matters.

I believe we are all personal experts in our own experience and sets of beliefs and these need to be "respected" at the very least.

However, where harmful or antisocial actions arise under the banner of religiosity or non-practice, I will call out those actions as hurtful, harmful, bigoted, or other as the case may be.

[rug]

2. The qunitessential trait of property is the power to exclude.

Too many ideological groups do the same.

[edhopper]

3. Do you really think

ALL beliefs should be respected?
Should we really wait to challenge any belief, no matter how vile, until it is acted on?
Don't you think challenging beliefs and changing minds can prevent harmful actions.

[NYC_SKP]

4. "...where harmful or antisocial actions arise under the banner of religiosity or non-practice..."

I believe we are all personal experts in our own experience and sets of beliefs and these need to be "respected" at the very least.

However, where harmful or antisocial actions arise under the banner of religiosity or non-practice, I will call out those actions as hurtful, harmful, bigoted, or other as the case may be.

Some examples of this:

A person or faith-based organization uses their religion as a reason to attack LGBT folks.

A person (or organization) uses their anti-theism as a platform to attack believers for nonspecific reasons.

I think challenging beliefs and changing minds can be a productive act before any harmful actions occur, but if this is done in an antisocial or bigoted way, then THAT way of responding can, itself, become a harmful act that should be challenged.

So, yes, I think challenging beliefs and changing minds can prevent harmful actions before they occur and as they occur.

[edhopper]

5. good

so we shouldn't respect all beliefs, correct?

Of course we each have our on view of what is harmful. But open debate on any subject should always be allowed, without any ideas getting a special privileged.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Not quite.

I think the term "respect" is often confused with other words, including "admire" and "fear".

I neither admire nor fear many or most major religions, necessarily. For any that promote values I hold dear, like honesty and kindness to animals, I admire those features alone.

I use the word "respect" in my reply and in most other places I use it to mean "acknowledge", or that I admit that I "see" something is there.

Whether or not what I see is a thing I like or agree with is another matter entirely.

[edhopper]

7. Okay

I often see it as a call to refrain from questioning or challenging another's beliefs.

I think the respect is afforded the person (not the belief) commensurate with their behavior and interaction.

[NYC_SKP]

8. This reminds me of different POVs that are held by school teachers.

Many with whom I worked (middle-high school) were of the opinion that the student will get their respect only if they first show respect for the teacher.

Ass backward and guaranteed to fail when most needed, though quite consistent with the education=compliance model.

I was successful as an educator largely because I reversed that dynamic; every human has my respect, I don't have 'tests' for whether or not I will respond well to them.

Now, for adults, I can see how this might take a different spin, however, I don't think a person is going to be very convincing in their arguments if they respond to nastiness with nastiness.

Rising a bit above it is a better way, usually, IMHO.

[edhopper]

9. Sure

It's about how someone presents their beliefs in the first place.
As well as what those beliefs are.