Is there anything in religion worth keeping? Does it necessarily include supernaturalism?

The Religious Atheist
March 16, 2011 at 10:20 am


I am a religious atheist. I share the ultimate concerns of religious people, but my search for God has led me away from gods.

Many atheists are religious. We yearn for meaning and purpose, we’re animated by concern for humanity, and we recognize the power of working together. Of course, there are non-religious atheists. They are suspicious of group prayer, hymn singing and the pulpit. I share these misgivings, but there is much good in religion I want to cultivate. I attend a Unitarian church. It has far more atheist members than my local atheist group. But Unitarian churches have no creed, so there is nothing to surrender to, except the joint desire to come together and do good. I lend my voice, but I also scan the hymn lyrics and often withhold it, sometimes mid-verse. If I hear something troubling from the pulpit, I go home and write a response. I act as an at-large committee member, not a Party member. I am wary of groupthink and headless mobs, even liberal ones. I am as hard on my own thinking as I am on others. An unexamined belief is not only not worth having, it’s not really even a belief if we don’t understand its consequences.

Already, we can see that ‘religion’ is a big word like ‘politics’. If fact, religion is largely politics. It is an effort to get people to work together. As such, it is going to be aggravating, uplifting and full of compromises. But it is worth it and we can’t do nothing. Our humanity requires us to try.

But religion isn’t just politics. It is usually polluted with supernaturalism and unreason. Faith is declared be a virtue, without mentioning that it is a road to anywhere. We are often programmed to believe that following the rules of invisible gods is necessary for us to be good people. These often include dietary and sexual restrictions that have nothing to do with human well-being. They are like being told which peg to hang your coat on. And billions of people take them very seriously, to the point that they restrict the rights of women and minorities because of them. We are told we can live forever, but there are conditions. We are told our faith is correct but other faiths are wrong. Or we are told they’re all correct, which is itself unbelievable.

So why am I religious? Well, I’m not religious if religion requires faith. And I’m not religious if it requires God. I am religious because I’m concerned with the things that religion lays claim to: morality, ethics, meaning, purpose and knowledge. I want to help rescue religion from its supernatural corruptions. Carl Sagan:

“A religion that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by traditional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.”

It’s already here. Unitarian Universalism is close, but we don’t need its imprimatur. Sagan’s religion comprises perhaps a billion dispersed people who don't know they are members. They are people who live moral, meaningful lives without supernaturalism. Many of us have found each other in UU churches, atheist groups and on the internet. We are more visible and politically involved than ever.

Being a religious person, I am open to God, but I can’t find one. It is common for atheists to be knowledgeable and interested in religion. In my own investigations, all the gods I have encountered are unworthy of my devotion. Why? I have several scientific, logical and moral reasons, but the clincher is this: Little kids suffer needlessly. That’s it.

It is impossible to believe that Indonesia, Haiti and Japan were the best an all-powerful god could do. It is impossible to believe that he couldn’t have reduced the suffering of even one kid a little bit. But we don’t need spectacular disasters to know this. We have always had smallpox, birth defects, mental illness and neglect as demonstrations of God’s character. Yet, when I point this out to believers (typically Christians), they make excuses for God! As if God needs primates to defend him. Come out and answer for your crimes! Where are you? No Greater Good, no happy ending justifies the real, present abandonment and torture of children.

You might think this is unfair. We shouldn’t expect God to meddle with nature and make everything fair and safe. I couldn’t agree more. But then you have to stop saying he helps you and he is a loving God. It isn’t loving to help some people through a divorce or a child’s illness, then do nothing for a kid with a brainstem tumor. You have to admit that, if God exists, he plays favorites. You can’t have it both ways.

Am I angry at God? I would be if he were real. If believers love God, they should do what a good defense attorney would do: try to convince us that God is absent from the scene of the crime. Deists understand this. They like to think Something started the universe, but then retired or died. Ordinary human compassion requires it. It is unthinkable that any God presides over the epic, ongoing suffering we read about in the news every day. We would pillory anyone in our community who did the same. It is also more than a little selfish to take comfort in a God who isn’t for everyone.

So, the best thing we can say for God is that he is absent. Anything else implicates him in crimes against humanity.

But wait! Doesn’t God deserve a good defense? Absolutely. I’d love to hear it. But consider this: the defendant is all-powerful, created the universe and populated it with planets and species. Yet you want a jury to believe he couldn’t allow one more drop of rainwater to fall in a child’s mouth before she died from gangrene in her crushed legs? See you in court.




http://www.facebook.c...

I welcome your thoughts...

Don

Don;
You express a beautiful sentiment and I appreciate your compassionate heart. We need to be careful with the word, "religious" though. It's easy to get caught up in the trappings of religion and forget what it really asks of us.

You say, "I am religious because I’m concerned with the things that religion lays claim to: morality, ethics, meaning, purpose and knowledge." These are not religious issues. They are human issues.

Religion lays claim to them in order to pervert and control them, and us along with them. I've found far more morality, ethics, love, compassion, meaning and purpose in non-belief than I ever found in the hallowed halls of religion.

Yes, religion presumes to answer the difficult questions, but it does so with cheaters answers. It got the answers by cribbing them from someone else who didn't do their homework either. It cannot show its work.

Worse, we know that many of its answers are wrong. It didn't steal them from the back of the teacher's book as it claims. It made them up out of ignorance and fear. Then it demands that we cower in that same ignorance and fear so that it can cement its claim to authority.

Perhaps I presume too much, but I think I know how you feel. There is much in this life that transcends what we can understand with our intellect: the sanctuary of hearth and home, the sacredness of a mother's love for her babe, the majesty of a summer sunrise, the power of nature's fury, the richness of human compassion, the excitement of new knowledge, the thrill of human achievement, the humility of undeserved love. Sometimes, it feels as though your heart could burst from the richness, the magnificence and the glory of this amazing life.

If you are like me, you want to be with people who share these feelings. You want to sing songs and share lives together. You want to gather together and share the experience, to hear their stories and share their sorrows. You want to weep and laugh and love and learn together with people who treasure this amazing life the way you do.

Religion wants us to believe it invented all of these things and is the only source. I used to believe that. Now I know that all of these things are part of being human, and what religion offers is but a cheap copy. Not only does religion fail to provide these rich and wondrous things, it often seeks to rob us of them and to poison the one life we have.

To paraphrase St. Paul, with religion we see through a glass, darkly. When we throw off its filters, we see clearly, as though face to face. Read Sagan, read Dawkins. Read Feynman and Hawkings. When you know how the universe was truly formed, no religious answer will ever satisfy. When you understand how rare and precious our one short life is, you'll never again trade it for the pie-in-the sky trinkets of religion.

Everything religion pretends to offer is ours already. The wonder and the awe, the compassion and the morality, the love and the dreaming, the purpose and meaning, these things are our birthright.

Perhaps we need a different word. "Religious" and "spiritual" carry too much ancient baggage. Perhaps we could call ourselves "transcendent" atheists to show that we appreciate the sublime richness of life. Maybe it cannot be expressed in words, but we can be sure that "religion" does not serve us.

Look at our history. Humanity and reason are the engine that drives us forward. Religion is the frozen emergency brake that holds us back, wastes our energy and fills our vehicle with the stench of burning. Release the brake. Release religion. It is long past time to move forward and claim what is ours.

It sounds like both of you are philosophers more than anything else. "Religion" or "religious" are words that suggest the worship of a deity or at least a rigid set of beliefs to me. Philosphy is a more open mindset.

My father-in-law was a carpenter. He used to joke with me - I cannot change a light bulb; I am really pitifull when it comes to repairing anything - when all else fails, read the directions.

Well, perhaps when all else fails - read the dictionary, and the terms religion and religious do not seem - to me - to apply to this discussion. See

http://dictionary.ref...
and
http://dictionary.ref...

If we want to stretch the word, it is - perhaps - the last, and final, definition under the word "religion" that might potentially apply. However, if we want the word to be stretched that far, I guess you could call me a "religious Democrat," but I would disagree with that characterization of me - preferring, perhaps "dedicated" or some other secular term.

My personal passion is jazz, and I have stated - jokingly - that my religion is jazz, but I certainly don't mean it - truly - as religion. Perhaps, as in the previous sentence - passion, but sigh - we get to Passion of Christ. The entire dictionary cannot be re-interpreted in religious terms, much as "they" try to do it. We all have seen the "fish sign." I love fish - to eat - I love my wife's salmon. Does that make me religious?

A long way of saying that I agree with Melissa.

All good, thanks for your replies. I agree completely, so it appears I didn't quite make myself clear. I think I should add the word "wrongly" to this passage:

"I’m concerned with the things that religion wrongly lays claim to: morality, ethics, meaning, purpose and knowledge."

I am as critical of religion as you are, but to be credible, we can't pursue the eradication of religion. For example, politics is a source of much trouble; but the solution is not to eradicate politics, it is to transform it. I think religion is about as fundamental to humanity as politics is. Not everyone is religious, and not everyone is political, but most people are and all people have to grapple with the majority which decidedly is both religious and political. Over time, these proportions will change, but for now, religion is as much a fact of our social landscape as politics is.

I am critical of the US, my atheist group, my family and my university. I work within each of them for change. No one would take me seriously if I said they should be scrapped. We desire transformation, not destruction. This requires us to cultivate what is good about them while working for change.

Religion includes much that is good. In a disaster, we need the charity and service structures put in place by religious organizations. Working with them doesn't require us to compromise on reason or faith. We can remain opposed to the Catholic condom policy while serving food and medicine alongside them.

So, my piece was about rescuing religion from its corruptions. Having said that, I agree that the word 'religion' connotes supernaturalism. (I appreciate the dictionary lookup.) When I use the word, I am careful to say something like "I am religious in the sense that I am passionate about what we can achieve together..." or such. I can see that it might be wise to simply avoid the word, but that is true of many words, including "atheist". I have pretty much stopped using the word "spiritual", although it still is sometimes useful. But I admit I usually have to explain what I mean by it, since it's such a tainted word. I used to use the word "God" in a very loose sense, and I never do that anymore for clarity's sake. I'm just not quite ready to stop saying I'm 'religious' because I started out religious and still have the best part of religion in me.

If anyone has the God gene, it is I. Religious belief came naturally to me and becoming an atheist has been a lot of work. It is still second nature, just as special relativity is not intuitive to me even though I know it's correct. Atheism is slowly becoming comfortable and I'm starting to experience the joyous freedom I hear other atheists talk about. But I did the work to dismantle my beliefs despite the discomfort it entailed. Comfort is a terrible reason to believe something.

I love clarity and I am considering stopping calling myself a religious atheist, partly because of your feedback. Thank you.

Don

I failed to mention humanism. Many humanists identify as 'religious humanists': "To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation."

http://www.americanhu...

"There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. "

Religious Humanism can combine both religion and humanism. For ME - an atheist - this only confuses matters, and puts in all manner of words that are not meaningful to ME. It is fine for those who want it, but not for me.

See, THE SOCIETY FOR HUMANISTIC JUDAISM
http://www.shj.org/...

and. The Faith of a Humanist - Unitarian Universalist
http://www.uua.org/pu...

and, The Trouble with 'The Trouble With God' , from Sheffield Quakers
http://sheffieldquake...

and lots and lots of others, and you see all manner of humanistic views mixed with religion, faith, spirituality. For those who like the casserole, that is fine with them.

I prefer my humanism to be a la carte.

The only issue, if you could even call it that, with Don's position is that of saving religion from itself. I think what Don is proposing is a very noble and even good endeavor-to rescue religion from the corruption that it suffers from. However, I have a very hard time separating that corruption from religion. To me at least, it seems that any attempt to transform "religion" is a futile endeavor because it necesserily involves changing the people that adhere to it. Now, this can be done and has been done many times over, but the seed of corruption is always there. That seed is Faith [in the supernatural sense]. Unless you abolish faith and remove it completely from any personal philosophy or religion you will never be completely free. You will always be forced to concede that things are the way they are because [insert Faith based reason here], which I think we would all agree is not a good philosophy to adhere to when making tough decisions concerning morality and ethics.

This is why I advocate a trimming, if not abolition, of religion. I am a realist, I know religion would never be abolished, nor do I think it really should be completely. And of course, we mean religion in its broadest terms, there are certain specifics of theist religions that I think we agree SHOULD be abolished. However, we are at a point, I believe, where any concession to religious ideology or zealotry has long reaching and far flunt negative effects. Our civilization at this point literally has the power to change the world as we know it, to cure diseases, to feed everyone, and to leave our atmosphere. We can do so many amazing things and there are still people attempting to hobble our attempts at a more peaceful and just world. Not because they are explicitly evil or wish ill upon others (though some are and do). But because of certain religious beliefs we see more harm coming to our fellow humans, for example, that two same gendered people don't deserve legal protection. That women don't have a right to their own body. That scientific progress is inherently bad and should be discouraged. That their plot of land is better than any other plot of land simply by virtue of it being their plot of land. The only answer to these kinds of harmful beliefs is first reasoned disapproval and then abolition of the foundation of such beliefs. So perhaps it is not the abolition of religion proper but rather the abolition of dogma and faith that is my focus, but it is abolition none the less. Giving any quarter to these beliefs legitimizes them and gives rise to even further ridiculousness.

Now, when it comes to respecting religion as an means to good ends as Don references in disaster releif and charity, those are all great! Great things can come from religious groups and ideologies and we should not stand in the way of these efforts. What we should do is show how these efforts are not dependent on faith or religious ideology and can be had without any sort of dogma. They are separate and at times despite their religious convictions that such good is done in our world. The more we separate goodness and morality from religion by both example and activism the more we chip away at the idea that religion is inherently good or moral. Furthermore, it lays bare the fact that we can and do have goodness and morality without religion and we can show that much of the progression made in our civilization has been in spite of religion, not due to it.

Hear, hear!

Don;
You quote the Humanist Manifesto I (1933). It should be noted that today much of that document seems rather naive--it supposed that socialism would save the world, and it failed to foresee the horrors of fascism and other political changes that plague us yet today. Some of that naivete shows through when it states, "Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life."

Compare this passage from the revised Humanist Manifesto II (1973);
"Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals."

Amen

I wouldn't discourage you from building a new institution on the religious model. Others are attempting that very goal (see the North Texas Church of Freethought). When I first abandoned my faith, I wanted deeply to join, or create, a place that felt like my old church did. I missed the fellowship, being part of something bigger and the mutual encouragement and support. I thought it'd be cool if an atheist group could buy up an old church building. I still feel that longing.

The more atheists I meet, though, the more I wonder if my dream may have been misguided. The real power and beauty of the atheist community is a diversity that is too wild and free to be contained in any "church". I wouldn't want to be part of anything that crushes that spirit. I've also found what I originally missed: the fellowship, the care, the encouragement. With atheism, you have to work harder to get at it because it is not institutionalized and automatic, but that extra work is worth it because it won't limit you or pidgeon-hole you either.

Peace and happiness my friend. Let's get there together.