|
8.0.4 Can Religion Be Natural and Rational?Version 1.1 March 2013 (Previous Version) Is it possible that a religion can be both natural and
rational? Arent religions by definition based on dogma, beliefs
held in spite of the evidence and all about the supernatural? It is useful to
describe what sort of beliefs these global
beliefs are. They are not trivial beliefs, such as who won the last football match. They are not tactical level beliefs about specific aspects of life, that we might use to decide which clothes or kitchen utensils to buy. They are not like business ethics, that professionals or company managers would use in considering how to deal with clients or to pursue their business. They are more
fundamental, more important, more strategic beliefs. They are critical to how we manage our whole lives, They help us discover and explain values and lifes meaning and purpose. They explain why we can, and should, choose to be good. They explain why some of us arent good, why there is suffering in the world. They help us to understand mystical or spiritual experiences. They help us find ways to express our reverence for life. Just as god fearing parishioners can share a complex set of attitudes and moral principles, as they participate in their community, so we as atheists, ● following this reasonable way, based on reason and the evidence, ● can share that we have looked reality in the eye and seen its harsh, indifferent side, ● but we have chosen the path of truth, diversity, life, love, freedom, responsibility, equality and hope, ● and we can look each other in the eye and say you have done this too. If we can accept this, there are various ways to consider the implications; We can look at how we define religion, whether we can have a natural rational religion, whether we can have reasonable rituals and alternatives to religions liturgy; We can explore various ways to present these conclusions, in single page summaries, personal statements that look a bit like creeds (but arent), or in poems, and so on. The key conclusions of these global beliefs conform to the core structure of a religion: an explanation of our origins, an explanation of the human condition (suffering, alienation & insignificance), explanations of moral choice and values, exemplary models of behaviour and guidelines for fulfilled lives and social justice, rituals and practices for most situations; a universal narrative in which we have parts to play as lovers, friends, family members, colleagues, citizens and self actualising individuals. These give us meaning and purpose, as emotionally and spiritually satisfying as any traditional religion, but intellectually honest. As such they are a positive, valid alternative to the traditional, irrational, supernatural religions. The key conclusions of these global beliefs are not fixed dogma but will be refined as we learn more, using reason and evidence, to become even better, because a fundamental part of each approach we use is the process itself, the open commitment to truth and compassion. Just like traditional religion, this rational natural approach requires us to adopt a humble openness to the truth, because our core beliefs are always subject to being challenged. Many people say that traditional religion is more a set of practices than a set of dogma. Our practice involves seeking the truth based on reason and the evidence, with the faith that reality is comprehensible, rational and discoverable. We dont have any fixed dogma. We can only embrace the mystery of existence and the uncertainty that it entails, valuing
truth, goodness, beauty, life, love, compassion, responsibility, justice,
mercy, duty to oneself and others, freedom and human rights. We can be entirely rational, scientific and sensibly skeptical and still accept the validity of mystical experiences without invoking supernatural explanations, to feel a sense of unity with the All, to lose our egos, to be awed by the majesty, complexity and beauty of the universe, to feel connected to life, humanity, our loved ones and our community. We can select (as all religions do) the useful bits from
various sacred texts, historical documents, and all the other literature,
music, art and culture for ways to express or explore values and ideas. We can use all sources of insight, knowledge and inspiration that are reasonable and rational to help us find ways to address our personal and political problems, inspired by the whole of human knowledge, rather than being limited to ancient prophets or modern scientists. Our heretics are those who lie for personal gain, who are ungrateful for what is extended to them out of compassion, who are not open to rational dialogue, who wish to impose their beliefs by force, who abuse others rape, murder, torture, rob, starve and imprison for the self interested benefit of themselves or their in-group. Despite our uncertainty and pluralism we must have the courage to oppose evil in ways that are effective. Our natural tendencies to vanity and hubris are countered by the need for continuous scepticism, acknowledgement of our uncertainty and limited understanding. But we must also have the courage to act and be decisive as the occasion requires. Our natural tendency to feel overwhelmed by the immensity of life, the universe and everything can be addressed, by recognising spiritual experiences that also provide comfort; by acknowledging that our choices are as valid, if not more so, as those of any others; by understanding our origins as told to us by science and history, and how we fit into the world; by recognising the progress humanity has undeniably made in science and social justice (at the same time acknowledging that there is a lot more to be done), and by recharging ourselves in communion with ourselves, friends and lovers, family and our communities. This collection of beliefs and practices is emotionally and spiritually satisfying, believable in a way that the traditional dogmatic religious beliefs are not, providing more useful and simply delightful details, a richer tapestry, greater mysteries and an awesome wonder. 8.0.4 Natural Rational Religion If we call this reasonable way our religion then everyone will understand that we use these beliefs to find meaning and purpose and the core values that guide our choices. Because many people think that religion must by definition be unreasonable and irrational we can distinguish this way by referring to is as a rational religion. Because many people think that religion must by definition involve belief in the supernatural, we can distinguish this way by describing it as a natural rational religion. This description has an emotional impact. more (later) Many people will say religious beliefs
must by definition involve some fixed
dogma that is taken on faith. These
global beliefs are based on reason and the evidence and they involve ongoing
choices, rather than fixed dogma. While
some initial faith is involved that this is a good way to go about it, we must
also check if this approach is actually effective and helpful, so the faith
involved is minimised. Many religious sceptics, and many
religious fundamentalists, will be reluctant to accept that a religion can be
reasonable and rational, as these global beliefs are. Some religious people have been
irrational some have been proudly irrational.
Some have been unable to adapt to new
knowledge or havent tried too hard to fit the new knowledge into an old fixed
set of beliefs. If we say religious beliefs must by definition be unreasonable or
irrational then we cannot say these global beliefs are religious beliefs. Some people define religion as
requiring a belief in the supernatural because historically that is what most
religious beliefs have required. But these global beliefs are
naturalistic: they do not include any belief in the supernatural. If we say religious beliefs must by definition include beliefs in a transcendental god or spirits (or some
other entity that is beyond the laws of nature), then we cannot say these
global beliefs are religious beliefs. Some will say religious beliefs must by definition be beyond rational argument.
They are not saying religion must
be irrational but that it cannot be decided on rational grounds alone, that it
must involve faith, somehow beyond
reason. The religions that require the greatest
leap faith are precisely those that are most unreasonable. People of faith-based religions have no right
to expect that all religions must involve a huge leap of faith. On the other hand, these global
beliefs do involve a minimal amount of faith. We assume that the universe is
comprehensible. Everyone does. We assume that it is silly to believe
something despite reason and the evidence.
Many religious people dont do this. We make a choice, when faced with the
dilemma of chaos or causality versus some kind of free choice, which we can
call a leap of faith. Everyone does
this. But we make as few leaps of faith as
possible. We think leaps of faith are
regrettable, not causes for celebration.
Nevertheless we can celebrate that some people make (what we think are)
the right choices. If we say religious beliefs must by definition require a huge leap of faith then we cannot
say these global beliefs are religious beliefs. Some will say religious beliefs must by definition involve a belief in
something that is beyond our understanding, ie incomprehensible to humans or inexpressable. It is obvious that we dont know
everything, and some things are incomprehensible. These global beliefs do acknowledge some
fundamental dilemmas which we cannot resolve.
These global beliefs acknowledge there is still much to learn, but we
are trying to understand as much as we can. But we cannot find meaning and purpose
and values from something totally incomprehensible. We can only find meaning and purpose in what
we can understand at some level. A lack of understanding does not give
us meaning, it just remains a mystery. There is no reason at all why our most
fundamental beliefs must be unreasonable or irrational. There is no reason why they should
include beliefs in the supernatural or transcendental beings. There is no reason why they must involve a huge dose of faith or
must be essentially incomprehensible. If we say religious beliefs are by definition our most fundamental strategic beliefs that provide ● whatever
meaning and purpose we have; ● core
values that guide our behavioural choices,
● ways
to understand deeper feelings & experiences, Then we can say these global beliefs are
religious beliefs. We could just use a long description,
to say these global beliefs constitute non-religious core beliefs that
provide whatever meaning and purpose we have and provide the core values that
guide our choices on how we behave.
Some people will think this means that there must also be other religious
core beliefs that we might hold at the same time as the non-religious core
beliefs, which is misleading. We would
need to explain what the phrase means: that our core beliefs that provide
whatever meaning and purpose we have and provide the core values that guide our
choices are non-religious. We could use a shorter description to
say these global beliefs constitute, for example, a naturalistic, evidence
based, universal narrative and a set of ethical guidelines based on
naturalistic philosophy. It needs these
two parts because the universal narrative itself, based on science and history,
does not provide values, meaning or purpose, so we need to also describe that
these are part of the whole set. But this description has no emotional
force and only philosophers will understand it, so it does not express the idea
well enough. We would still need to
explain what this phrase means. We could use a brief description for
these beliefs such as a reasonable way.
If you are familiar with phrases such as the way of mindfulness (from
Buddhism) or the way in Daoism, you know that way in this definition
implies some kind of ethical or proper behaviour. Using reasonable in the description adds
the implication that the mooted ethical behaviour must be based on reasonable
principles or reasonable beliefs. But a reasonable way seems better as
a label, like a brand name, for the set of beliefs, rather than a description
of what kind of beliefs they are. In
this presentation a reasonable way is used as a name for this whole
approach. Because we use conclusions
from philosophy, science, history, religion, art, personal practice and
politics to determine a reasonable way to behave, we can also describe this
multifaceted approach as paths to a reasonable way. It is a separate issue to describe this
reasonable way as a religious approach, because it might have been seen as a
non-religious way. Some might take that
as a good thing, but most of the world seems to want to follow a religion,
because they think it is right to do so.
|
