The articles of 21st-century faith

[rug]

My four articles make religion intellectually respectable, even to the hardest-nosed atheists. Can believers sign up to them?

Julian Baggini
guardian.co.uk
Monday 21 November 2011 11.08 EST

Last week I argued that there is an ambiguity in the notion of "true religion", which could refer to what we think religion ought to be, in its best form, and what it actually, usually is. For now, I want to park the second, empirical question and focus on the first, prescriptive one.

Atheist critics of religion are often dismissed for dealing only with the simple, highly literal forms of belief, while ignoring more nuanced, intellectual understandings of religion. The form of this argument varies, but in general terms it rests on a rejection of the idea that religion requires belief in anthropomorphic supernatural beings. As Theo Hobson put it in an exchange with me a few years back, "a huge proportion of believers inhabit this grey area between 'literal' and 'metaphorical' belief – in a sense all believers do. Atheists call this muddle and hypocrisy – they want every believer to be two-dimensional, so as to bash them all with a two-dimensional critique."

I have a great deal of sympathy for the view that it is possible to have religion without primitive superstition. However, there seems to me to be an intriguing ambiguity in this argument. Is it the case that religion need not or should not include literal, supernatural beliefs? "Should" not implies an acceptance that atheist critics are actually right to say that belief in gods, heaven and such like is silly, but wrong to think that intelligent religious people actually embrace such absurdities. All that "need not" means is that it is possible to do away with the supernatural if you so wish. But that is compatible with the view that not only are supernatural beliefs an acceptable part of religion, they may, as a matter of fact, remain central for most believers.

I can't help suspecting that many people who stress the non-supernatural aspects of religion are actually still very much wedded to the spooky bits, but too embarrassed to volunteer the fact. For instance, I've had many an interesting discussion with a believer about how religious language is not the same as scientific language, only to discover that, when pushed, the faith of my otherwise modern, intelligent and sophisticated interlocutor rests on a belief in Christ's empty tomb.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/21/articles-of-21st-century-faith?newsfeed=true

[cleanhippie]

1. The UU's have already beat him to it, but they have 7 principles.

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

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.

http://www.uua.org/beliefs/principles/

[laconicsax]

2. And the straw atheist is defeated again!

:eyes:

[rug]

3. Are you saying Baggini is a straw atheist?

[laconicsax]

4. No. n/t