Secular Bible Study

The reasoning theists, atheists, liberals, libertarians, & conservatives of Secular Bible Study, First Minneapolis Circle of Reason, Circle of Ijtihad, & Winnipeg Circle of Reason join Interbelief Conversation Café for our 306th Plurationalist (Interbelief Reasoning) Dialogue by Zoom, “How Can We Reduce Religion’s Polarizing Effects?”

Polarize | ˈpōləˌrīz | (British & Canadian English also “polarise”)
· divide or cause to divide into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs: The voters have polarized into two antithetical ideologies.

How can we reduce the polarizing effects of religion, going beyond the performative commitment to tolerance, and truly examining the polarizing elements in doctrines?

Since the origin of religious worldviews, many religions’ followers have used them to polarize humanity. Some have used religion to coerce each another into uniformity through tribalistic theocracies, as others have used religion to encourage each other to practice religious pluralism and secular democracy. Nor is theological-political polarization unique to the religious -- some atheists have used anti-theism to coerce others to abandon not just theocratic laws but personal religious practices; while other atheists have internally-polarized along disparate political, economic, racial, and gender worldviews. Is there any universal but modifiable feature of humanity that causes us to polarize? Is that feature a particular worldview? Or is it a particular practice?

Are the polarizing effects of religion unique to religion, or shared with other worldviews? Is such polarization caused by the religious or secular worldview, or is it caused by people holding their worldviews to be “sacrosanct,” inviolable, or absolute, and to be manifested at all costs, even if by force?

Ask a religious conservative, or a religious or atheist white-nationalist, or atheist libertarian, “Who is your “antithesis?” -- and they may reply, “Progressives.” Ask a progressive religious pluralist the same question, and they may reply, “religious and white-nationalist conservatives and libertarians.” Ask a progressive atheist or secular humanist, “Who is your “antithesis?” -- and they may reply, “all religious people,” without distinction between progressive religious pluralists or conservative theocrats. Ask a plurationalist “Who is your “antithesis?” – and they may reply, “Myself, whenever I manifest my worldviews irrationally.”

Beginning in the 1970s, an atheistic U.S. secular-humanist movement began which chose to polarize itself from its parent (a broader Universalist Unitarian secular-humanist movement) both legally and now politically – by the early 1990s succeeding in legally ostracizing its former religious humanist chapters to create an exclusively atheist identity as the American Humanist Association (AHA). Today both atheist and secular humanist organizations consider all expressions of religion, whether politically regressive and theocratic, or politically progressive and supporting secular government, to be irrational and morally corrupt.

Is an atheist secular humanist making an enemy out of a potential religious humanist ally short-sighted? Does lumping all religious people together prevent reasoning dialogue with any of them? Does lumping all atheists together, whether progressive, conservative, white-nationalist, or libertarian, prevent reasoning dialogue with any of them, as well?

Do members of every worldview sometimes treat those with different views as “unreasoning” solely because of their different worldview? Is such a stance itself “unreasoning”? Is the “commitment to tolerance” merely performative when there’s no longer any real communication or dialogue between those of polarized worldviews, whether they be theist or atheist in nature? Is such dialogue even possible when we choose to judge others on what their worldviews are, whatever their nature – rather than on how they interface their worldviews with the real world around them?

What is it that causes a “doctrine” to become polarizing? Is it the dogmatic content of our doctrine? Or is it our human fallibility (including our fallacies) of practicing dogmatism and indoctrination ourselves?

Attempting to bring a human being to “God” at the point of one’s spear is coercing another’s mind & body. But is it not also coercion of another’s mind & body to attempt to rip away a human being from “God” at the point of one’s barbed insult? Does enraging other people make them more reasoning, or less reasoning? And what does it make us?

Is there any means other than rational dialogue to reduce the polarizing effects of religion, to go beyond performative “toleration” of other religions to truly examine the polarizing elements in disparate religious doctrines and sectarian practices? In the same way, is there any means other than rational dialogue to reduce the polarizing effects of antitheism, to go beyond performative “toleration” of different expressions of atheism to truly examine the polarizing elements in disparate atheist doctrines and confrontational practices?

At 7-9 pm CST Mo 12/15/25 by Zoom we'll reasoningly share our diverse or even disparate views on how we can reduce religious -- and perhaps non-religious (?) -- polarization. Our reasoning dialogue’s agreements of open-mindedness, acceptance, curiosity, discovery, sincerity, brevity, & confidentiality should help us exchange more light than electricity!