Big Sigh....

[Lord Kenneth]

KEVP still hasn't answered my questions.

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
KEVP still hasn't answered my questions.

I picked up pretty quickly that

1) He likes to be mysterious and uninformative.

2) He gets upset when he's misunderstood.

I could tell him that 1 and 2 don't go well together, but I don't think I'll bother. Interacting with him was unpleasant.

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I picked up pretty quickly that

1) He likes to be mysterious and uninformative.

2) He gets upset when he's misunderstood.

I could tell him that 1 and 2 don't go well together, but I don't think I'll bother. Interacting with him was unpleasant.

Also, he likes to play the victim.

[Soapy Sam]

KEVP- I think by now you must see what I meant earlier. This is not a chat over coffee amongst old and familiar friends with a shared philosophy and set of assumptions. It is a text-only internet discussion among comparative strangers from different cultures.
If we lack common definitions of the words, we not only will not agree, we will not even be able to agree on what we disagree about!
You are causing confusion amongst some very different people here-
Lord Kenneth has a track record of biting peoples' heads off when frustrated. He recently gnawed his own foot off when lightly restrained. Right now he is being almost unbelievably restrained and polite .
Stimpson J Cat is always restrained and polite, but is getting frustrated because he thinks you are dodging the issue of logical definition.

I share their confusion and I certainly have not "attacked" your definitions. I still don't know what they are.

YOU may be happy with your definition of the term "religion", but WE are beginning to wonder whether you are uncertain yourself about it or if you are deliberately teasing us by witholding it.

Please specify if you can exactly what your beliefs are (if any) , the underying principles of UU and the criteria you would use to define it as a religion instead of (for example) a philosophy.

We really are quite decent folk. We just like to know what we are talking about. And LK only has the one foot left...

[aerocontrols]

I think you guys are wasting your time.

[Lord Kenneth]

*teeth gnash menancingly*

Soapy Sam writes:

"Please specify if you can exactly what your beliefs are (if any) , the underying principles of UU and the criteria you would use to define it as a religion instead of (for example) a philosophy."

The first one is difficult, because I am no longer speaking as myself, I have been turned into the ambassador of UUism. If I say what I believe, (which actually I have done several times in this thread, starting with my first post) someone will conclude "ahh, all Unitarian Universalists believe...". And of course we don't all believe the same thing. Cinojer's comment that UUs invented the flame war before the internet was ever invented is right on the money. This may be the reason that we use as our logo a communal chalice with a flame coming out of it!!!

Some of you, Lord Kenneth particularly, seem to believe that all the members of a given religion all believe the same thing. This is true of some religions, but not all. It is not true of UUism for one. And since I have not told Lord Kenneth what the things are that all UUs believe, he thinks I haven't answered his questions. The only way that I can answer your question is to tell you honestly that all UUs are different and believe different things.

Soapy Sam goes on to ask what the underlying principles of UUism are. This is also very difficult. We are a living, evolving religion, as Cinojer pointed out, and it's difficult to find underlying principles. The current list of seven principles (which Cinojer listed in his last post) was passed in the eighties, to replace a list from the sixties, and many UUs are saying its time we came up with a new list. But to try to answer your question, throughout the centuries the principles that seem to keep coming up in UUism are FREEDOM, TOLERANCE, RESPECT, and REASON.

So the final question, why do I call this a religion instead of a philosophy? It's a religion, first of all, because it is organized like a religion. Many religions are organized, these are called "organized religions". So Lord Kenneth's other question "Is it a religion or an organization?" is silly. Many religions are also organizations, look at the Roman Catholic Church, one of the oldest organizations in the world, and also a religion.

Unitarian Universalists, just like any other religion, are a community of people who share the same religious identity, which identity is expressed regularly in religious services. We have the stories of the history of our religion, and the great Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists of the past. These stories are true, so some might say that it does not constitute a "mythology", but we use it the same way other religions use their mythology.

If we didn't have these characteristics, then I probably would not call UUism a religion. We also have an ordained clergy, sunday schools, potlucks, rummage sales, and so on, which are all part of being a religion, but I would argue are not absolutely necessary. The Society of Friends (the Quakers) are a religion that do not have an ordained clergy, for example.

I will repeat a question I asked before, if UUism is not a religion, than what IS the religion of myself and every other Unitarian, Universalist, or Unitarian Universalist that has ever lived?

As I said before, when I visited the emergency room recently, the admissions woman, to fill out a form, asked me what my religious preferance was and I said "Unitarian Universalist", she then asked if I wanted UU clergy contacted if I was admitted to the hospital and I said I did. If UUism had been a philosophy, this could not have happened.

A recent article in the UU World, the UU national magazine, talked about UU chaplains in the military. These chaplains, just like the chaplains from all the other religions, have specific religious duties in the armed forces, such as organizing religious services for the servicemen. A high-ranking officer was quoted as saying he wished that more UUs became military chaplains, because the UU chaplains do such a good job of making sure no one is excluded. Chaplains come from religions, philosophies do not provide chaplains to the armed forces, or to anywhere else.

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, many churches in New England that had been founded something else (mostly Puritan) switched to Unitarianism. How could they have done this if Unitarianism was not a religion?

There are about 1,000 Unitarian Universalist congregations (mostly called churches) in the United States and Canada together, with others scattered throughout the world. And in these churches religious services are regularly held, usually weekly. If UUism is not a religion, than what is the religion of these services?

I once knew a man from Nigeria, who never understood what snow was until he lived in Russia. He had heard about it, read about it, but didn't really understand it until he experienced it first hand. And the two people here who understand what UUism is, and how it is a religion, are myself and Cinojer, the two people with first hand experience of UUism. I am obviously having great difficulty talking about this to people who have no experience of UUism, and very little first hand experience of religion generally. This is what really promted my original question, scroll down all the way to the first post to refresh your memory, of "How can we have this discussion, and is it even possible?"

[The Mad Linguist]

KEVP, the features that you identify as defining of "a religion" - and hence your motivation for describing UUism as a religion - are what I would consider peripheral to religion, rather than defining of it.

You consider UUism a religion because it's organised like a religion, has a clergy, provides chaplains to the armed forces, and has "sunday schools, potlucks, rummage sales", and so on. But it takes a relatively simple thought experiment to demonstrate that these are not the defining characteristics of a religion.

Imagine a Christian sect which has no clergy, no chaplains, no organised hierarchy, no sunday schools or church socials - in short none of the things whose presence in UUism leads you to classify it as a religion - but retains belief in God, faith in the miracles of Jesus, a belief in the Genesis story, and the dogma of the ten commandments. Is this sect still a religion? Clearly, yes. Now imagine removing those trappings from UUism. As you describe it, there'd be nothing left - certainly nothing we could legitimately call "a religion".

What is UUism if it's not a religion? Well, I know very little of it, but the way you describe makes it sound like a network of affiliated community social/philosophical clubs. To get back to the point of the thread, this is clearly not what Randi was attacking.

We might compromise by calling UUism "a philosophical movement with many of the superficial features of religious life". But with no dogmas, no rejection of naturalism, no mythology, and no worship - the underlying qualities of religion - it's difficult to see how it can be called "a religion".

[psy kick]

I, for one, am a born again christian, and I find the term Bright and Randi's latest column amusing.
The arrogance of atheists who think they are brighter than christians.
Sigh indeed
Fools, more likely.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

psy kick,

Quote:

I, for one, am a born again christian, and I find the term Bright and Randi's latest column amusing.
The arrogance of atheists who think they are brighter than christians.
Sigh indeed
Fools, more likely.

As opposed to people who say "A fool says in his heart that there is no God".

And using the term "bright" is no more arrogant than using terms like "saved" and "damned".

You know, I've never met a Born Again Christian who wasn't a hypocrite. I guess I will be open minded and give you the benefit of the doubt, though. All you have to do to keep my respect is agree that you think your brethren who say the above are also being arrogant and foolish.

Incidentally, I don't care much for the whole "bright" thing either, but for completely different reasons than you.


Dr. Stupid

[abiogenesis]

I've been lurking for a long time, regestered for not so long, and this is my first post. Please, be gentle.

The word "religion" is believed to come from a Latin word meaning "to tie fast", "to fix", or "to fasten". It implies a certain inflexibility. Religion has even come to mean habit in popular language, as in "He watches the Simpsons religiously."

I believe that the word is intended to describe a dedication to a belief or system of beliefs. It has nothing to do with pot-lucks or rummage sales. All definitions I could find mention belief and most specifically mention belief in the supernatural.

Trying to make the word mean something it doesn't is much like the (illconceived, I feel) hi-jacking of the word "bright" by the naturalists. Using religion to describe UU is worse, however, because UU is the opposite of religion. The flexibility and acceptance of all beliefs that UU is so proud of makes it an anti-religion.

And I do have first hand experience with religion. I am even an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, so I can clame to be UU, even.

Rev. - a b i o g e n e s i s -

The Mad Linguist writes:

"Imagine a Christian sect which has no clergy, no chaplains, no organised hierarchy, no sunday schools or church socials - in short none of the things whose presence in UUism leads you to classify it as a religion - but retains belief in God, faith in the miracles of Jesus, a belief in the Genesis story, and the dogma of the ten commandments. Is this sect still a religion?"

Does the community of the adherents of this religion meet regularly to hold religious services, to celebrate their religious identity? Then I would probably say yes. Otherwise, I would be tempted to say no. But I have a hard time including imaginary religions in a definition that is excluding real religions.

You are all treating me like I am the only person in the world who believes that UUism is a religion. But all of us UUs know that UUism is a religion. And any comprehensive work on religion in the United States will include UUism as a religion. Those that leave it out do so because of its small size.

Some of you are accusing me of not answering questions--I think I have answered all of your questions by now. I can't help it if you do not like the answers. I have noticed, however, that many of MY questions are going unanswered.

Abiogenesis writes:

"The word "religion" is believed to come from a Latin word meaning "to tie fast", "to fix", or "to fasten". It implies a certain inflexibility. Religion has even come to mean habit in popular language, as in "He watches the Simpsons religiously.""

This is the etymology of the word "religion". In any language, the etymology of a word does not necessarily have much to do with the actual meaning of the word itself.



"I believe that the word is intended to describe a dedication to a belief or system of beliefs. It has nothing to do with pot-lucks or rummage sales."

Look at the way I have been standing up for my religion. Isn't this dedication? What actually is a "system of beliefs"? Does it mean that everyone in the religion has to believe the same thing, or can it be a system that allows different people to believe different things, like we have in UUism? And some people are dedicated just as religiously to those pot-lucks and rummage sales...



"And I do have first hand experience with religion. I am even an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, so I can clame to be UU, even."

This statement baffles me. The Universal Life Church is a different religion from Unitarian Universalism. If you are affiliated with one, even an ordained minister of one, this does not give you the right to claim to be a member of the other. The fact that the word "Universal" occurs in the name of both these religions does not make them the same religion. I think it is merely coincidence that both of these religions have the word "Universal", I don't think they are related.

[The Mad Linguist]

Quote:

Originally posted by KEVP
Does the community of the adherents of this religion meet regularly to hold religious services, to celebrate their religious identity? Then I would probably say yes. Otherwise, I would be tempted to say no. But I have a hard time including imaginary religions in a definition that is excluding real religions.

You are arguing in circles here. Saying that my definition of a religion (which inspired the thought experiment) is incorrect because it excludes your religion begs the question because it assumes that UUism is a religion. This is the very question we're debating!

Let us say that my hypothetical Christian sect does not meet regularly for either of the purposes you mention. You would then not classify it as a religion. You are entitled to do so. But I would ask you to concede that many if not most people would disagree with you, and continue to classify the hypothetical sect as a religion, because it complies with the definition of "religion" which I expounded above.

I read your comments here as saying that UUists meet regularly to hold religious services, to celebrate their religious identity. But I would contend, based on the description of the beliefs of UUists that you've given, that what is being celebrated is not a religious identity. There is nothing in the beliefs you hold, per se, that makes them religious. Instead you point to the activities you undertake with your organisation to justify UUism as a religion, because they are "religious services" celebrating "religious identity". But what makes the services religious? What makes the identity a religous one?

If I understand your stance correctly, you claim that your religion is a religion because it includes religious activities, and these activities are religious because they take place in the context of a religion. Again, a circular argument.

Quote:

You are all treating me like I am the only person in the world who believes that UUism is a religion. But all of us UUs know that UUism is a religion. And any comprehensive work on religion in the United States will include UUism as a religion. Those that leave it out do so because of its small size.

Speakign solely for myself, not guilty. I'm sure millions of people believe UUism is a religion. What I'm arguing is that by any useful definition of the word "religion", they are incorrect, being deceived by the superficial features that UUism shares with religion.

Quote:

I have noticed, however, that many of MY questions are going unanswered.

If any of those questions were addressed to me, I apologise, I am unaware of them. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you have about my position.

Edited to add: Please do not read the above as an attack on UUism. Like many other atheists, I have a very low opinion of religion. You may take the fact that I don't consider UUism, as you describe it, to be a religion, as a compliment.

[abiogenesis]

Quote:

Originally posted by KEVP
The Universal Life Church is a different religion from Unitarian Universalism. If you are affiliated with one, even an ordained minister of one, this does not give you the right to claim to be a member of the other.

Now, this statement baffles me. You, yourself, said that UU is happy to accept people of any religious belief. Christians and Buddhists are proud to be members of your "religion" while maintaining their status in either Christianity or Buddhism. Why is ULC different?

Personally, I don't consider ULC to be a religion on the same grounds that I don't consider UU a religion. There are no requirements for membership. To be ordained in ULC, all I had to do was fill out a form on their website. No assumptions were made about my belief system. People can have their dogs ordained in ULC.

The Boy Scouts of America has more claim to "religion" status than UU because, in addition to their pot-lucks and rummage sales, they insist that their members be theists.

The only common feature guaranteed among UU members is that they are members of UU. UU specifies nothing regarding belief, which I feel (and I'm not alone in this) is a fundamental aspect of religion.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

Edited to add:

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Please do not read the above as an attack on UUism. Like many other atheists, I have a very low opinion of religion. You may take the fact that I don't consider UUism, as you describe it, to be a religion, as a compliment.

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. The fact that UU is not a religion is a virtue.

[Lord Kenneth]

To sum up KEVP's argument:

"We're a religion because we celebrate being a religion and because the USA recognizes us as one."

[ceptimus]

Are there any tax advantages when an organisation declares itself to be a religion?

And how is this loophole (if it exists) to be plugged?

ceptimus.

[BillyJoe]

KEVP,

I think I may have an idea why you consider UU to be a religion....

I once worked for a someone who was a devout catholic. He believed absolutely and against all reason in his religion and nothing could ever pursuade him otherwise. He felt a pained pity for those who did not believe. But what really struck me most about him was that he enjoyed his religion. He was good freinds with the priests of his local church and the nuns in the local school. It was a kick for him to get together with religious people and discus his religion. He was a extremely cheerful, bright, intelligent individual and enjoyed life immensely and his religion was the focus of his life. Giving up religion for him would be tantamount to giving up his life.

So I'm thinking, perhaps you've had a similar experience - except that you have seen through the irrationality of your former religion and rejected it. Perhaps being a UU, then, is your way of rejecting religion and keeping the positive feeling that your former religion gave you.

In other words, perhaps you "feel religious" without actually "being religious".
Does that make any sense?

regards,
BillyJoe.

[Soapy Sam]

Some interesting stuff here.
Abiogenesis , welcome aboard (also KEVP if I failed to say it before).
Friendly advice- Don't take apparent "attacks" here to heart. People do sometimes respond abusively; we are making serious attempts to control this. You are on a sceptic website. Expect your ideas to be challenged. You chose to be here and we are happy you did. This is not a personal attack on yourself.

I appreciate KEVP's attempts to define his position, but like others , I feel he is leaving out the important part- what BELIEF lies at the core of the UU "religion". If the belief is simply that decency, tolerance and kindness are good ideas, then he will find few people here who disagree. (They will argue about it anyway, but that's life at JREF). But that's morality, not religion.

Billy Joe makes an important point, that a church plays a SOCIAL role. Many church members have no interest in the dogmas of the organisation. They are interested in the human support network.
Some folk might point out that JREF has a similar role for folk with a different mindset. The JREF mission is of less importance than the chance to debate with people from all over. Some of whom become if not friends, then at least fixed points in a complicated world. (Witness the dismay when the community aspect of this forum seemed to be under attack recently).
But does this make JREF a religion? There are core attitudes and an organisation, even a "Mission". But that also applies to the US Navy...

It seems for most folk on this site, the critical feature distinguishing a religion from an organisation is a belief in some aspect of the supernatural- ie something not open to scientific study.

For all you have said KEVP, I don't find that in your posts. Please correct me if I've missed it. I also apologise if I have failed to answer a question you put. Please feel free to repeat it.

(Allow for time lag. BillyJoe is in Australia, I am in the UK, Lord Kenneth in the USA. ECOM is fast, but people sleep and work. The nature of NET communications makes this sort of discussion quite different from face to face conversation).

[mummymonkey]

If nothing else this discussion has prompted me to bone up on the Unitarian movement. My knowledge has therefore been broadened & I thank KEVP for that.
It seems that UU, although originally an offshoot of Christianity, and still containing a large number of people who would consider themselves Christians, is now a kind of anything goes, relativist discussion group with added singing.
They do profess to 'worship', though it's not clear what. They also refer to 'other' faiths so I assume (perhaps mistakenly) that they consider themselves to have faith. Again, faith in what is not made clear.
In fact the main feature about UU is that very little IS made clear, there appear to be no set rules and each individual is allowed to decide for themselves what their belief system is and moral and ethical boundaries are.

Of course, these are only the opinions of somebody who's just spent a couple of hours Googling the web

It seems to be an interesting movement but it is not a religion as I recognise it.

Randi's commentary therefore, I believe, still holds good.

btw this is only my third post here so if you're going to savage me please do it gently!

I like Billy Joe's ideas, and it seems that mummymonkey is also on the right track.

Abiogenesis writes:

"Now, this statement baffles me. You, yourself, said that UU is happy to accept people of any religious belief. Christians and Buddhists are proud to be members of your "religion" while maintaining their status in either Christianity or Buddhism. Why is ULC different?"

I am a Humanist, AND I am a Unitarian Universalist. I can claim the title "Unitarian Universalist" because I am a member in good standing of a Untiarian Universalist congregation. If you were to join a Unitarian Universalist congregation, then I would also consider YOU a Unitarian Universalist. And, no, no one would ask you to pass any creedal test to get this membership. So membership is indeed open to Humanists, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Pagans, Universal Lifers, and so on and so on. But these people have to actually show up and join to be considered members. And of course most of them don't.


Septimus:

Yes there are tax, and other advantages to being a religion. If we say "Only nutcases who believe things that any sensible person knows are false are allowed to have religion" then we are allowing these people to have these tax and other rights that we are denying to us "brights". I cannot support giving rights to the wackos that I do not have myself. Of course, it's my choice whether or not I use any of my rights, but I don't like the idea of someone saying to me "You don't get this right, because you only believe things that are true."


Soapy Sam has said, as many of you have, that I have left out what he thinks is the "important" part, what belief lies at the "core" of the UU religion. I have not left this out, I have told you all repeatedly that there are no beliefs at the core of UUism, we choose to put other things at the core of our religion, we really don't believe that beliefs are that important a part of religion. No matter how many times all of you ask me "What do UUs believe" that is going to be the answer every time. And some of you are going to keep accusing me of not answering the question. That's the answer, I'm sorry if you don't like it.

So individual UUs all believe different things. This UU (KEVP) does NOT believe in the supernatural. I thought I made that clear in my first post in this thread, but evidently I didn't. There are many other UU's who do not believe in the supernatural. There are also UUs who DO believe in the supernatural. There are also UUs who are agnostic on the issue of the supernatural.


Several of you have looked up the word "religion" in various dictionaries and have used those definitions in this debate. Here's an idea I had this morning in Church (Hey, where'd you think a devout UU spends his Sunday Mornings??) have any of you tried to look up "Unitarian/Unitarianism" or "Universalist/Universalism" or the combination of the two in your favorite dictionaries? Do your dictionaries define UUism as a religion, or a philosophy? (Of course, any good dictionary will give you more than one definition for many words, often giving older as well as more modern definitions)

While your at it, look up "Buddhist" and "Quaker". See what you find....

[Lord Kenneth]

Unitarian Universalism
n.

A religious association of Christian origin that has no official creed and that considers God to be unipersonal, salvation to be granted to the entire human race, and reason and conscience to be the criteria for belief and practice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...20Universalism

[The Mad Linguist]

Quote:

I have told you all repeatedly that there are no beliefs at the core of UUism, we choose to put other things at the core of our religion

And this is why it's not a religion.

As I said above, you are free to define "religion" however you wish. But I would ask you to acknowledge that your definition is at odds with that used by the majority of English speakers.

Do you acknowledge this?

Note that the definition posted by Lord Kenneth says "religious asscoiation", not "religion". I think that definition is more-or-less in keeping with what I suggested above, that UUism as you describe seems to be more of a "philosophical movement with many of the superficial features of religious life" - although the statement that UUism "considers God to be unipersonal" would on the face of it seem to be incorrect, given that you and others are both UUists and atheists.

[Jethro]

UU is not a religion. It is a grouping of religiousish people. And even if one did consider it a religion, it is clear that most UU's (rhymes with Woo-Woos) would not fit into the specific category of holier-than-thou, you're-missing-the-wonder-of-creation religious that Randi specifically described as being the target of his scorn.

At any rate, I have decided that I dislike KEVP. Not because he is religious, but because he appears to lack reading comprehension skills.

Hey guys, I'm going to start a new religion. It's called the Church of KEVP is a Big Dumb Dumb Head. Our creed is as follows: KEVP is a big dumb dumb head. Oh wait, we don't have a special building, I guess we can't be a religion. Oh well.

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jethro
UU is not a religion. It is a grouping of religiousish people. And even if one did consider it a religion, it is clear that most UU's (rhymes with Woo-Woos) would not fit into the specific category of holier-than-thou, you're-missing-the-wonder-of-creation religious that Randi specifically described as being the target of his scorn.

At any rate, I have decided that I dislike KEVP. Not because he is religious, but because he appears to lack reading comprehension skills.

Hey guys, I'm going to start a new religion. It's called the Church of KEVP is a Big Dumb Dumb Head. Our creed is as follows: KEVP is a big dumb dumb head. Oh wait, we don't have a special building, I guess we can't be a religion. Oh well.

[davefoc]

I'm not a fan of KEVP's approach here. It seems steeped in a kind of long winded unnecessary mysteriousness. It also seemed that KEVP missed the point of what Randi was talking about when Randi used the word religion.

But I can see some justification for his position that UU is a religion.

I would define a religion as an institution based on a philosophy shared by an, at least partially, organized group of people that involves a belief in something which does not necessarily follow from observations and/or investigations of the natural world.

Cinorjer posted this as a list of UU beliefs:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all; Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Assuming that a group of people organized themselves in a group based more or less in a belief of the above, I would say that they are members of a religion as I have defined it.

Admitedly most people believe something like the above, but many don't and there is no naturalistic, scientific reason to justify a belief in the tenants of the list. Therefore if you are a member of a group based on the beliefs outlined in the list you are a member of a religion to me.

I realize that this is a bit of a semantic argument. The most common dictionary definitions seems to require belief in the supernatural, but in a way a belief in something that doesn't necessarily follow from observations of the natural world is at least similar to a belief in the supernatural.

[Dogwood]

A Unitarian Universalists FAQ.


Might be helpful.

[Diamond]

I think that all this thread proves is that Unitarian Universalists can be dicks just like anyone else.

[The Mad Linguist]

Quote:

Originally posted by davefoc
Cinorjer posted this as a list of UU beliefs:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all; Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

(snip)

The most common dictionary definitions seems to require belief in the supernatural, but in a way a belief in something that doesn't necessarily follow from observations of the natural world is at least similar to a belief in the supernatural.

I have to disagree with you there. The beliefs given in the list are beliefs about how things *should* be in the world, i.e. statements of values. This makes them very distinct from religious beliefs about how the world *is* (e.g. there is a God, there is an afterlife, etc.). The former do not require faith (defined as belief without evidence), the latter do. I think this difference is more critical than the similarity you point out.

[DrMatt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
UU, to me, doesn't seem to be a "true" religion, because there is no religious standard for it! To me it seems more like a get together where people dance or eat donuts or something.

If UU is a true religion then perhaps having hair is a hair style?

Perhaps having hair is a religion!

[DrMatt]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


I have to disagree with you there. The beliefs given in the list are beliefs about how things *should* be in the world, i.e. statements of values. This makes them very distinct from religious beliefs about how the world *is* (e.g. there is a God, there is an afterlife, etc.). The former do not require faith (defined as belief without evidence), the latter do. I think this difference is more critical than the similarity you point out.

The first and second Humanist Manifestos were both published by the Universal Unitarian Church. There's a lot in 'em that I don't fully go along with, but I don't see a whole lotta religion in 'em. Religion (from Latin: religer) is the binding of the mind to a fixed set of beliefs about what is true. Last I checked, most branches of the UU church don't have any of those, though individuals within the church are free to adopt some. There was a backlash within the church in 1953 and another in 2000. 1953 corresponded with McCarthyism... Lesee...

I don't see any contradictions here, but I note that the UU usage of the word "religion" systematically diverges from the usage found in the rest of society.

[davefoc]

The mad linquist said:

Quote:

I have to disagree with you there. The beliefs given in the list are beliefs about how things *should* be in the world, i.e. statements of values. This makes them very distinct from religious beliefs about how the world *is* (e.g. there is a God, there is an afterlife, etc.). The former do not require faith (defined as belief without evidence), the latter do. I think this difference is more critical than the similarity you point out.

Yes I sort of agree, but I was taking a fairly literal view of the situation.

Assuming that UU's believe in:

Quote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

They believe something that is nice, but they also believe something there is no evidence for. Why is the sociopath wrong when he is only driven by his own needs without empathy. Well, we don't like him, but his view of the world is not scientifically wrong. Admittedly it is counter to what most of us instictively believe, but the basis of our belief is not derived from a completely rational view of the world, it is just something we want to and/or instinctively believe.

[The Mad Linguist]

Quote:

Originally posted by DrMatt

I don't see any contradictions here, but I note that the UU usage of the word "religion" systematically diverges from the usage found in the rest of society.

Agreed. That's the point I've been trying to make all along, only summed up more succinctly.

Thanks, Dr Matt!

[DrMatt]

Quote:

Originally posted by davefoc
The mad linquist said:


Yes I sort of agree, but I was taking a fairly literal view of the situation.

Assuming that UU's believe in:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

They believe something that is nice, but they also believe something there is no evidence for. Why is the sociopath wrong when he is only driven by his own needs without empathy. Well, we don't like him, but his view of the world is not scientifically wrong. Admittedly it is counter to what most of us instictively believe, but the basis of our belief is not derived from a completely rational view of the world, it is just something we want to and/or instinctively believe.

Again, it's really a statement of values, not an allegation of facts. A lot of statements from temple-like organizations more or less deliberately mix up values with beliefs using exactly this rhetorical flourish. Cetainly the Society for Humanistic Judaism, an explicitly atheistic organization, does this regularly. I think they do it as a marketing ploy--it's easier to be accepted if you say you "believe" something than if you don't, even if your claimed "beliefs" are actually values (and in fact I think Rabbi Wine stated something like that in writing at one point).

Personally, I find this habit annoying because of the confusion it sews, but I understand the motivation behind it.

[BillyJoe]

STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS

The president of the Unitarian Universalists says he will push to
add belief in God to the denomination's statement of principles.
The Reverend William Sinkford, once an atheist, says the change
would attract members and increase the church's influence in world affairs

STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS

[The Mad Linguist]

Well, THAT would make it a religion all right!

[Soapy Sam]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Well, THAT would make it a religion all right!

...and therefore a legitimate target?

[Diamond]

Quote:

Originally posted by DrMatt


Perhaps having hair is a religion!

....in which case I'm an agnostic

[The Mad Linguist]

Quote:

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
...and therefore a legitimate target?

Not quite what I meant. A group which has the God belief enshrined as doctrine is clearly a religion for the purposes of working out whether Randi's comments apply to it...

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Diamond,

Quote:

Perhaps having hair is a religion!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....in which case I'm an agnostic

You don't know whether you have hair or not?

Dr. Stupid