Considering the sharpening debate about atheism it seems necessary to
remind ourselves as humanists (it is perhaps different for those who
are committed to atheism as such) of the advice given by Sir Hermann
Bondi in 2002. He said: “I think in this country we are too impressed
by the concept of God. Many religions, like Buddhism and Confucianism,
don’t have a God at all. On the other hand, Communism in its heyday
had a ’sacred text’ which were the writings of Marx and Lenin, and you
justified an argument by referring to these writings. So it seems to
me that the important thing is not the concept of God – indeed we
cannot quarrel with an undefined God, for how can we disagree with a
concept that is undefined. No, what makes a religion is a
“revelation”. And it is the belief in a revealed truth that is the
source of religious problems – that the Koran is the word of God, or
the Holy Bible is the judge of everything. So in arguments with
Christians, when you come to the word God you have already lost the
battle. You must stress the revelation, that’s where the real
disagreement lies, because if you are driven to a position where you
have to deny the existence of an undefined quantity you are in a
logical absurdity.”

As Bondi said, in the fight against dogmatic religions the right
target to attack is revelation. And the point about ‘logical
absurdity’ cannot be brushed aside.

Vir Narain

Calling such differences “sectarian” not only makes the point I was talking about in my essay but also is a touch derogatory.

It is okay for their to be some differences in Humanism. Unless and until we all agree 100% on everything then the different “flavors” are okay as long as one doesn’t try to stomp on the others.

Humanism is a philosophy. Anyway is free to adopt elements of the philosophy or attempt to live their lives by its precepts. Part of the problem I think we have in this movement wide discussion is that a lot of people think of and treat Humanism as if it were a sectarian alternative to religion. It isn’t. It is a philosophy.

I realize some people treat their Humanism as a religion – like the Ethical Culture society does – even though they say it is a non-theistic religion – which is their right. And that is fine, but Humanism itself, is a philosophy. That is why we have so many different types of Humanists (Secular, Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Religious, etc).

We need to try and not confuse the philosophy of Humanism with the various sectarian versions of the way people choose to practice it.

I got lucky and the local Humanist group I joined was secular centered but we do have some people who are religious humanists and attend the local UU church.

Hope you like the midwest in your new job.

Sometimes, like in the dead of winter when it is the 10th or 20th day of below freezing temperatures, I sometimes wish I could move to LA or somewhere warmer.

Two other quick points: the whole discussion about the “new atheism” and that the authors have been too broad in their critique of religion – at first I agreed. But, then I noticed how energizing and galvanizing these works have been. And then I remember the old conflicts in the gay rights community: should we try to “fit in” and not “offend”? Or should we be “in your face” and not care about any offense taken? In the end I’ve realized that the glbt community has needed BOTH to make changes. Both approaches have their merits and demerits, but both are needed. Maybe that needs to be accepted more in the humanist/atheist/agnostic/freethinkers/naturalist/rationalist communities (did I cover everyone with those labels )?

Also – I don’t think of UU’s being humanist anymore although it is open to religious humanists. I think it’s more theologically pluralistic and more theists (of many stripes) are making important inroads into the organization. OTH, your friends’ experiences can easily vary given how each UU group can be idiosyncratic.

That pretty much proves the point of my essay. If there is a discussion one can’t be comparing apples to oranges and demanding that it is really apples to apples.

Just because I don’t agree with your definition of religion, you don’t think I know about the subjects of myth and religious metaphor? I am a huge fan of the Star Wars saga. George Lucas picked the brain of Joseph Campbell in developing the story and characters for his movies. When I a kid I use to believe in Santa Claus and in school I found the stories of the Greek Gods interesting. My favorite part of Sunday school was story time – my favorite story is the “Boy who cried wolf”.

I am exposed religious metaphor all the time as I have many acquaintances who attend a UU church. They tell me that I should come by one time and see their Water Ceremony where one of the people in the ritual called the Waterpourer says “Bless us, waters, and bring us home”. Kind of makes me giggle just thinking about it but some of my friends get something out of it.

I like art and poetry but I just have no interest in religious art and poetry. YMV.

He is, and I’ve read quite a lot of Hawkins, thank you. Your little snip of a quote doesn’t even come close to refuting my argument. Neither you nor Dawkins comprehends the scope of what “religion” is.

As a Zen Buddhist my religion is very close to Einstein’s as he described it in his 1930 essay “Religion and Science.” But it’s also very close to the mystical traditions of the several theistic religions. And your use of the words “myth” and “supernatural” reveals you aren’t well aquainted with the subjects of myth and religious metaphor and are viewing these matters in a drearily rigid, literalist way.

I respect your atheism, but I suggest that you cannot fully appreciate humanity if you cannot even grasp the nature of religion, whether you accept it personally or not.