Our beliefs compared to agnosticism

Posted on March 15, 2011 by samana

written Tuesday, March 15, 2011
When I am asked for my own religious affiliation, I usually don’t say “agnosticism.” One reason I don’t strongly favor classifying belief systems like my own as “mere” agnosticm is that I don’t seem to fit the profile of the most apparently common connotations of the word “agnostic.” According to what I often read and hear, a few of the frequently assumed characteristics of what it means to be an agnostic include the following:

• The belief that there may or may not be a real “God” – it can’t be known
• Not really caring one way or another whether a “God” exists
• A flippant attitude about religion and spirituality
• The opinion that studying matters of religion and spirituality are a waste of time
• Considering religious and spiritual matters to be relatively unimportant

While all of the above do not necessarily mesh with “official” definitions of agnosticism, I believe they are fair characterizations of the assumptions often made by religious people about agnostics. Only the first item above applies to textbook agnostics: the belief that there may or may not be a real “God,” or that such cannot be truly known by man.

The truth is this: I care a great deal about religious and spiritual matters – and how well they may or may not reflect truth and reality. If I did not care about these things, then I wouldn’t make the time and effort to study these subjects and write about them as I do.

I should also admit that my first answer (when asked about my religious affiliation) is not Christianity, either – even though I believe I understand and adhere to originally intended message of Jesus as a moral teacher. The reason it is not: in modern America, the designation “Christian” is typically assumed to mean “Christian fundamentalist” or “Christian evangelical”- implying that I take the Bible literally and believe all other paths are not only in error, but doomed. Of course, I subscribe to no such closed-minded view.

Ongoing search for truth

What I am after is the truth. Yes, I believe it is certain that these kinds of truths cannot be known for sure by man at this time in history, given the current limitations of science. Even so, I see no reason to avoid this search for truth; for even though we cannot really know, I believe we can move toward knowing – that we can get closer to the truth.

We can consider all the evidence, options, possibilities, and belief systems and thus discover more about these things than would otherwise be determinable. Through the application of honest, objective research (that is, with the most objectivity we can possibly muster, given that we are human beings and are thus subject to bias), I believe we can get closer to the truth than those who do not spend large amounts of time and effort looking into these important matters.

Is it better to study these matters, or to ignore them and pursue other interests? I think many people suffer from a level of complacency when it comes to matters of belief and faith; however, while some people feel driven to look into the truths behind religious and spiritual matters, others do not seem to have this need. Indeed, many who have this complacency do not appear to suffer from it. I know people in both categories. I don’t know if there is a one-size-fits-all answer to that question.

MY beliefs vs. OUR beliefs

I will occasionally refer to “my belief system” in general as being “our beliefs” for one simple reason: these are not merely the beliefs of one seemingly strange, nonconformist, freethinking individual! In fact, a great many people share the views I am promoting. Many of them would be happy to tell you so. Certain others would not want the public to know what their real beliefs are, simply because they feel the need to portray the appearance of subscribing to a version of fundamentalist Christianity or evangelical Christianity for various reasons (often social ones).

It is widely accepted that the views of others should not be used as evidence that those particular beliefs are true, and we agree. The belief that what others think is evidence of truth is a common logical fallacy, or error in reasoning. Nevertheless, it is interesting and worthwhile to consider the beliefs of others.

Examples of belief systems that share a significant portion of the specific views promoted by this blog:

Deism
Freethought
Pantheism and others holding that God is not anthropomorphic
Panentheism
Secular humanism
Buddhism and other Eastern worldviews
Christianity – what I believe to be true Christianity seems barely recognizable today – it might be more similar to what is now known as Deism; “Jeffersonian” Christianity
Taoism

Examples of famous historical figures who have influenced my beliefs:

Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Paine
Benjamin Franklin
Albert Einstein
Lao-Tzu
Jesus – what many of us believe were his actual teachings and intentions
Siddhartha Gautama

Examples of modern writers and thinkers who have influenced my beliefs:

Resources

Is Christianity evolving, becoming more progressive?

Posted on March 13, 2011 by samana

Update: Monday, March 21, 2011
With regard to the evolution of religious belief, we are not singling out Christianity as being any more or less subject to change over time than other religions. The evolution of religion is bound to affect certain sects within a variety of religions, not just Christianity; however, given the purpose of this blog and the history, experience, and beliefs of its authors, Christianity is the most relevant religion to discuss here.

Subject: evolving beliefs, not evolving organisms

We are discussing evolving Christian belief — not the theory of evolution, evolutionary science, or the debate between special creationists and macroevolutionists. Thankfully, Christian acceptance of evolution seems to be on the rise – which might mean the ultra-conservative views of “special creation” (the belief that God created everything in six 24-hour days) and young earth creationism (the belief that our universe is around 10,000 years old) are on the decline. I do believe creationism and evolution are worthwhile subjects to study, particularly for those of us who not fideists and value reason within the framework of religious belief.

Evolution of Christianity is evident from opinion polls

Perhaps the most interesting implication from the 2009 Harris Poll results is that so many Americans consider themselves to be Christians even though some Christians are starting to reject various parts of what used to be central, “must-believe” tenets of the Christian religion.

I am not suggesting that Christians have suddenly “gone progressive”; of course, the majority of Christians still hold to the traditional tenets of their religion. However, if we can back up a few steps and consider the religion as a whole, Christianity appears to be evolving – ever so slowly – away from literal fundamentalism and toward logic, reason, science, compassion, acceptance, perhaps with a dash of syncretism.

The evolution of Christianity toward love and reason is a profoundly encouraging trend (in our opinion) because it seems to indicate a more reasonable, objective, and positive interpretation of “revealed” religious text (in this case, the Bible) and may be closer to what was intended in the first place (although I don’t suppose anyone can know for certain). If this theory is correct, then religious fundamentalism outside of Christianity is also on a slow decline; and as such, even the most ultra-conservative Christians could view the trend as having some positive aspects.

Evolution of religious belief vs. conservatism, fundamentalism

The ongoing, gradual change in religious belief systems isn’t likely to occur at exactly the same rate for all denominations and flavors of Christianity. The most obvious “divination” (was that a pun!?) might be this: the more conservative the belief system, the slower the rate of change. That is, perhaps a negative correlation exists between the two variables of conservatism and rate of progressive change.

With regard to conservatism, the first variable: How can “degrees of fundamentalism” – the relative amount of literal Biblical interpretation, fideism (belief that reason and faith are hostile to each other), piety, religiosity (devotion to religion), devoutness, zealotry, etc. displayed by a particular denomination — be measured and conveyed? Well, I think most fundamentalist religious groups are quite aware of how conservative or “fundamentalist” their own sects are in relation to others; some groups might even covet the rightmost spot on the religious scale.

Perhaps one day folks will create annual award shows for fundamentalist religious groups. They could be hosted in conservative cities like Nashville, Atlanta, and Salt Lake City. A wide-ranging system of awards could be devised, such as Most Fundamentalist Christian Sect, Most Certified Conversions, Best New Conflict with Science, Most Politically Active Denomination, Most Convincing Argument for Literal Bible Interpretation, Best Celebrity Conversion, etc. (unknown)

Of the hundreds (some would say thousands) of Christian denominations, divisions, and subgroups, which ones have the most fideistic, conservative, right-leaning, fundamentalist worldviews? “Born-again” Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Adventists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals — and possibly Southern Baptists and Restoration Movement Protestants — are known to be on the conservative side (obviously not a complete list of far-right Christian denominations). Progressive, evolutionary change in these Christian fundamentalist groups might be slower than in the less conservative denominations and sects.

On the other hand, I might have it backwards. The more progressive Christian sects might not embrace as many change-prone beliefs in the first place: those that part with reason or otherwise “require adjustment” in order for their churches to retain a plausible balance between their accepted creed and scientific discovery, for example.

Not only is the “evolution of religion” idea interesting and encouraging to many people; the evolving nature of Christianity might also help explain why there are so many varying beliefs or creeds within Christianity, and differences of opinion — ranging from minor to major — about what it really means to be a Christian. ReligiousTolerance.org compiled a list of at least 40 variants or definitions of the word “Christian.” According to Adherents.com, the new edition of World Christian Encyclopedia tabulated 10,000 distinct religious groups, including 33,830 Christian denominations.

However, it’s important to remember that differences of opinion within the ranks of Christianity are not in any way a poor reflection on Christianity as a religion, just as wide-ranging viewpoints within a democratic republic such as ours do not reduce the appeal of democracy. After all, there are over 3.1 billion Christians in the world – so it’s reasonable to expect a large number of subgroups.

There have certainly been widely varying Christian views in the brief history of our United States. Many people during Revolutionary times and even today have been proud to count men such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, and George Washington (can I include Thomas Paine in this list?) — the Founding Fathers, the framers of our Constitution – as being a part of the Christian community, even though the aforementioned men were not Christian fundamentalists in the modern sense. And since these men are called Christians, I have no trouble at all considering myself to be a Christian, as an adherent of the Unity Church (in the New Thought Movement vein of Christianity).

The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal – Slacktivist: ‘Test everything; hold fast to what is good. Excerpt from this interesting article:

In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.

Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.

Ask any American evangelical, today, what the Bible says about abortion and they will insist that this is what it says. (Many don’t actually believe this, but they know it is the only answer that won’t get them in trouble.) They’ll be a little fuzzy on where, exactly, the Bible says this, but they’ll insist that it does.

That’s new. If you had asked American evangelicals that same question the year I was born you would not have gotten the same answer. [ Read more ]

All of this is at least food for thought. These subjects will probably always interest this serious spiritual seeker.

(NOTE: I hope my attempts to write from a reasonably objective and detached viewpoint are evident. I refuse to write and publish a series of mere ideological rants based purely on opinion and ego; there are already too many of those.)