3 comments

• 

  Daniel Miessler

  10 months ago

  Question: If you're shedding dogma and belief systems, why embrace another one?

  
  

  Answer: It's helpful, especially for those who are breaking free of religion for the first time, to be able to show others (and themselves) a tangible list of things that form the basis of their beliefs.

  
  

  In short, it's easier to go from a bad system to a good system than from a bad system to no system at all. And even when a system is no longer needed at all it's still helpful to be able to refer others to literature that enumerate the basics.

  
  

  Those who embrace rigid, dogmatic systems will understand (and respect) something with a name and tangible list of principles far better than the artifacts of a short verbal conversation.

  reply
• 

  weasel

  10 months ago

  "What does this system lack in terms of a replacement for religious belief?"

  
  

  I'm not sure it lacks anything as a replacement for religious "belief", but I think it may lack something as a replacement for religion completely. I say "may" because I'm not absolutely sure, just suggesting a theory.

  
  

  Imagine there's two types of religion under the same label. One type you could call "faith" or "belief", as it involves learning scriptures, following moral codes and repeating prayers. You could see this as the outward form of the religion, or the established church.

  
  

  The other you could call "personal religious experience" or "mysticism". In Islam this would be Sufis vs the Mullahs. In Catholicism the Contemplatives vs the priesthood. In Buddhism possibly Zen vs the more church-like sects.

  
  

  Now I'm not saying that any religious person has to belong to one or the other. It's possible to say prayers and have a religious experience, for example. But I think your life stance may be only replacing the first aspect of religion and not the second.

  
  

  To put it another way, imagine a number of aesthetic senses. A love of music, for example, or a love of learning. Perhaps a sense of humour. Each of these is a different way of perceiving the world. You'd say to someone who has no sense of humour that they are missing some of the fun of life - yet there's nothing of a sense of humour in the secular humanist life stance. It's like Goedel's theorem - something may be true, but outside the model.

  
  

  I suggest, perhaps, that religious experience is like this - like hearing the melody in a piece of music. It doesn't come with any prayers or creeds, but to miss it may be to miss something quite beautiful.

  reply
• 

  Daniel Miessler

  10 months ago

  Hi Weasel,

  
  

  What you speak of is spirituality, and if you read most any modern thought on atheism (or humanism) you'll find most atheists are quite spiritual in this sense. In fact, they may be even more tuned to this kind of beautiful experience.

  
  

  How?

  
  

  Because they know how fragile it is. They know how temporary it is. On one hand it takes magic away by reducing to "science", but on the other it becomes infinitely more special since we know a God didn't create it in a blink of an eye.

  
  

  So, no. This life stance does not take away from music or art or love. It adds to them.

  reply