What religious/spiritual label should I use?

Great Debates
1

I got stuck trying to answer the question in this thread “What religion are you?” (I acknowledge that atheism is not a religion, but it is a label that falls under the religious heading). I honestly couldn’t answer consisely and precisely. It seemed a bad idea to bog down that thread with excerpts from the following, so I brought’em here.

I really am after the selfish answer to the above question - what’s the right label for me? But I put this in GD because
[ul]
[li] It’s religious, so where else?[/li][li] I’m seeking to nail down some slippery words whose definitions are debatable[/li][li] My “statements of belief” are certainly debateable. Call me on my errors, misstatements, and especially disagreements with your world view. Even if we don’t change each other’s minds, we will at least dig deeper into our own beliefs and better understand them as well as get a glimpse of each other’s views.[/li][li] Others may be in the same boat as I describe - together perhaps we can bring the boat to harbour[/li][/ul]

Here’s where I stand - my “statements of belief” if you will:

  • The term “God” refers to a sentient being that, among other things, is responsible for having created the world. Please note words like “omnipotent, omniscient” etc. are not essential to my definition, nor is “salvation” or “relationship.” By “God” I mean “God or Gods”

  • There is no credible evidence that even hints at the existence of God. I buy that the existence of creation implies a creator - but that creator could indeed be a force other than a sentient being and thus cannot, by itself, be used to infer God’s existence.

  • Every named religion is a product of human creativity. This is not to say they are without value as providers of comfort, moral guidance, social benefit, etc. - I only maintain that the stories that make up any one religion’s framework are not literally true.

  • While there is no evidence of the existence of God - that does not prove God’s non-existence. Any claims that God does not exist cannot be proven either. This is not to suggest a symmetry of faith between believers in God and believers of no God. Non existence satisfies Occam’s Razor far better, and specific claims of existence have a heavy burden of proof.

  • If God does exist, that fact is knowable. It may be difficult to know. The right circumstances may never arrive for us to know - but God is knowable or at least God’s existence is.

  • There’s… something more. I don’t know how else to say this. Maybe it’s just a hard-wired longing that rationalizes itself up to my consciousness as “a God shaped hole.” Maybe it’s a titilation with the mystic that is akin with my titilation with sci-fi, i.e. the capacity to enjoy wonder. Maybe it’s the Holy Spirit tugging at my heart (whatever that means). But there’s more to our existence than meets the eye - and it’s easy to suspect that “something” is wonderful.

Enough for now - I reserve the right to add additional beliefs as this discussion continues - perhaps even contradictory ones.

So I’m trying to answer “What religion am I?” This would be easy to answer if I belonged to such and such a church, synagoge, or mosque. I do not, although I am a recovered Pentecostal - a fiercely fundamentalist Christian sect characterized by speaking in tongues. I’ve clearly come a long way from there, arriving at the above. In trying to synthesize the above into the correct label, I keep bumping into imprecise definitions of the following:

Atheist: A simple understanding of this word is just “No God”-ism. Does this mean “I believe God does not exist” or “Whether or not God exists just doesn’t form part of my world view”? Or is it “Even if God exists, I reject him/her”?

Agnosticism: Meaning, I guess, “no knowledge”-ism. Does this mean “God has not been proven to me, therefore I reserve judgement” or “God is unknowable”

Believe: This is a double edged word (I’ve talked about this in other threads). I believe in Freedom in a way different than a Christian believes in God. I believe in the truth revealed in the fable of the Wind and the Sun. When one says “believe” with respect to religious thoughts, is “as in existence” the only correct intent or can one merely believe as in “hold as valuable”?

Religion: A formal statement of the nature of existence, whether or not inclusive of a God, based on mystical divination of that nature rather than science. To be a full fledged religion it must have a distinct tradition and a popular following.

Worship: We call our Mayor “Your Worship.” I certainly see no one bowing down to him, praying or singing songs in his honour. It’s merely a title of respect and deference, “you da boss” kind of thing. In a church setting, there seems to also be a sense of wonder and adoration. I am filled with a sense of wonder when I stare at the heavens, or consider the complexity encoded in DNA. Can I fairly use the word “worship” to describe that feeling? Can religious longings be satisfied fully by reason and physics? Do scientists worship their findings?

In the cases where one of these words can rightly be used in different senses, are there qualifiers that help pin down which definition is intended, something like agnostic theism (an interesting term that somehow, though, does not satisfy), or orthadox atheism to mean “there is no god” compared to say “atheistic rejectionism” Can we together compile a comprehensive list?

So let me try on some of these labels. “Agnostic” fits unless it means God cannot be known. “Atheist,” not bad but a bit snug in places. I’m comfortable with the idea there may not be a God. A God does not fit in my world view except as a question I play with once in a while - I certainly do not worship a God with any name. But I cannot categorically state “there is no God.”

Tom Harpur calls himself a Christian while asserting he does not believe in a historical Jesus. I’ve read The Pagan Christ, and while I have serious issues with his claims to scholarship, I really like the idea that “Christ,” as a metaphor only, represents “the spark of the divine in all of us” (and the implications that flow from this purposefully brief review of that book).

Can an atheist call herself a Christian if she takes this kind of view - similar, I suppose, to “believing” in Santa knowing full well no jolly old elf exists, but the idea of generosity has value and Santa is a symbol of that value? (maybe I should call myself a Clausian)

Maybe my answer is to take up a religion. Is there one that fits with my statements above? I’ve heard (ignorance reveal mode ON) that Hinduism does not take the stories of its Gods literally, but like Aesop’s Fables, treat them as morality stories. Buddhism, I understand, is an atheistic religion in that it has no Gods at all - only mystically arrived at “truths.” (ignorance reveal mode still ON - it’s never really off)

Can you help me?

2

Just a few thoughts:

  1. I would say that your belief that God might exist makes you an agnostic of some sort, rather than an atheist; most of my self-described atheist acquaintances and posters to SDMB are prepared to say (and do say, frequently) “God definitely does not exist”, or something along the lines of “There is no evidence that God exists, therefore it is wrong/illogical/irrational to believe in God”, rather than “therefore I personally do not choose to believe in God”. Someone who takes the view that God might exist but chooses not to believe in God as there is inadequate evidence is best described as an “agnostic atheist”, and I think this might be closest to your position.

  2. A belief in an entity that just creates the universe, but is not a “sentient being” and does not intervene in the universe in any way after its creation, is best described as Deism.

  3. On a more personal note - keep looking. It sounds as though you’d like to find a safe harbour in the wide ocean of spirituality, and there is one there for you - and atheism is just as safe as any other. :slight_smile:

3

My bet is that you’re a Universalist-Unitarian: uua.org.

One of the time-honored points of the UU religion is that these questions are basically unanswerable. Most UUs informally believe that these answers lie in self exploration, debate, study, service and the participation in a religious/spiritual community, and may be so subjective that there is no “one” answer.

Possibility #2: Sikhism (I should say that I’m both UU and Sikh).
Started in 1499 by Guru Nanak, a hindu who also studied and worshipped with Muslims, the religion can be summed in the Mool Mantar:

One God, named truth.  God is the creator.  God exists without fear or hatred.   He transcends time and form.  He is self-created, and can only be realized through the Guru's grace.

Here is what intrigues me: although Nanak said that God exists, this is not “god” in the sense of there is a shaper of the universe, and then there is the universe. Instead, the universe and God are one and the same, and in a real way we can consider that connection between us and all things in the universe “God.” It brings up the question-- if we invent “god”, doesn’t that mean God is self-created if we are aspects of God?

Another intriguing line in the Mool Mantar is “and can only be realized through the Guru’s grace.” Here Guru doesn’t mean a human guru, but rather a “teacher” aspect of God, or the aspect of god-enlightenment. In other words, you can only experience this enlightenment subjectively, never objectively. “Proof” becomes irrelevant then. Either God exists for you or god doesn’t; there is no such thing as a “God equation” (unless you think Erdos’ qualify :smiley: )
Possibility #3: You’re a neopagan. God IS real because at least one of the Gods is literally the earth, its life and its constant evolution, and ultimately, all gods are one god. I have a high regard for the Witch’s Rede: “If it does not harm, do as ye will.” How elegant is that? There’s Buddhist mindfulness since you have to ensure that your actions will not cause harm and that is not always easy, along with a hearty dose of “you’re an adult, you can make up your own damn mind instead of having some damn book tell you what to think or believe.”

Possibility #4: Why put a label on it at all? What annoys me about “god proofs” is that when you get down to it, spiritual or mystic experiences are completely and utterly subjective. You can describe the feelings, you can talk about what you’ve experienced, you can even teach others how you got there. Ultimately though, the experience is yours and yours alone. “God Proofs”, IME, are usually done with a couple of agendas in mind-- to prove we do live after death (hey, there is no evidence that the existence of God would gurantee that; I don’t understand the connection except in the context of religious traditions) OR to use the idea of “god” to enforce your political agenda. If God exists, he must obviously be a Christian/Muslim/Flying Spaghetti Monster god, therefore all of humanity has to obey our rules no matter how arbitrary or ridiculous they seem. Amen. And arr.

4

Thanks for the great reply, Tevildo. I like “agnostic atheism” - that qualifier gets past my discomfort of saying with certainty “there is no God”

I am definitely attracted to Deism, and pantheism in particular (I can’t get behind the word “pandeism” because I can’t shake the image of a holy panda bear :smiley: ). I admire those Deists listed: Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, others. The article lists a number of bullet points on why Deism is declining in popularity. This one really caught my eye.

If deism is the belief that God can be approached through reason and not revelation, and pantheism is the belief that all of existence is the body of God - how can that thinking get you to atheism? Is it that any idea of God that doesn’t amount to an anthropomorhpic image is de facto atheistic?

You’ve hit it! In a different thread I proffered “mysterium tremendum” as a substitue for spirituality - a recognition that there is “something more” and whatever it is can be explored and “worshipped” (in its strict “honour/respect” sense) without having to surrender reason nor adopting a fairy tale as truth. Perhaps another way of putting what you’re saying is along the lines of Carl Sagan’s “numinous” Atheism can be more than the simple rejection of God, but finding joy and profundity in what we do know while saying “What’s God got to do with it.”

5

I’ve taken a brief look at the UUA site and first reaction is a discomfort - but I’ll read more. I like your description of Sikhism. Is there a website you recommend I read? I’ve tried on “neopagan” and perhaps with some deft tailoring it would fit - but it has a deeper literalism than I am comfortable with.

And there’s the rub. Can I adopt any named religion if all I’m saying is: “I like the, say, poetry of how you express your spirituality - I do not literally believe a word you’re saying”? Is it hypocritical to say “I believe in God” when all I mean is “The idea of God is a useful image for morality stories, and I believe in the morals of those stories” but that’s it?

The question “what do you believe” comes up often enough that having a consise answer would be handy. Further, if it is not hypocritical to participate in a named organization’s rituals and fellowship yet not literally believe, then I may be interested in joining. Finally, labels, as shortcuts to communication, enable refined comparative discussions with other labels. But I get the spirit (huh huh) of what you’re saying. I guess the best label is “Seeker of Truth”

6

I think it’s more a question of how deism is percieved by the religious. In denying, or, at least, failing to accept, the existence of a personal god who can answer prayers, who actively intervenes in the universe, who requires His followers to attend temples, who has given them a code of laws which they must obey despite the dictates of reason and common sense, the deist is just as much of a (damned) infidel as the atheist in the eyes of the religiously zealous. On an unsophisticated, but unfortunately common, approach, either you worship the right god, the wrong god, or no god at all - you’re either saved, a heathen, or an atheist. Distinctions within these categories, fundamental though they may be, are irrelevant to someone who is trying to save you from your sinful unbelief. :frowning:

  • smiles * That describes my position very well, although we may disagree about what exactly constitutes “truth” and “a fairy tale”. :slight_smile:
7

Note the time of the OP… I hopped on the SDMB cuz I was having trouble sleeping, that thread caused my mind to drift to questions of God. Sheesh, if I was a dyslexic I could fulfil that joke :smiley:

Please consider the OP modified to reduce the focus on my selfish label search, but the debate on those “statements of belief” and a discussion to refine those slippery words.

8

OK. :slight_smile:

Unobjectionable, and an essential attribute of a monotheistic god, but it does exclude any polytheistic options there might be. Certainly, the classical Greek and Roman gods weren’t regarded as self-existent creators of the universe - I don’t really feel competent to say anything about Hinduism, but I suspect that the position of the (individual) Hindu gods is similar.

The word I’d focus on here is “credible”. Credible to whom? Every rational person, or just the individual believer?

If the former, some of our athiest contributors have stated explicitly that no evidence will convince them - even if the events described in the Book of Revelation were to occur, even if they were to come face-to-face with Jesus, they would consider it to be an hallucination, a sign that their mind had gone rather than their atheism was untrue. I don’t know how common a - I hate to use the word “belief”, but what others are there? - this is within the atheist community, but it certainly doesn’t appear irrational to me.

If the latter, that would imply that everone who has had a sincere religious experience is entitled to claim “I know that God exists”. I must admit that I have a great deal of sympathy for this position, but it does require abandoning the idea that there can be a “right answer” to this, or any other, serious question - in an ideal world, there would be some way of correlating our individual beliefs and perceptions about such issues so that we can reach a consensus. Is there a way of doing this in the world we have to work with?

In other words, are you saying “There can never be credible evidence”, or “I have not (yet) seen any credible evidence”?

This may be a little nit-picky, but I’d assume that evidence for any of the traditional aspects of (a monotheistic) God would come under this heading, not just evidence for the existence of the Platonic demiurge as defined in your first statement. In other words, you wouldn’t exclude evidence of an all-powerful, benevolent, Ruler of the Universe, even if that Ruler may not have created the universe? This, as I understand it, is the Zoroastrian position, so I’m not making an entirely abstract point. Of course, I’m not saying that such evidence can be provided. :slight_smile:

I might also want to tentatively offer up the teleological argument (not using the d-word, for obvious reasons) - the fact that, as we understand them currently, the physical constants and general “configuration” of the universe are such that intelligent life can arise in it, and the range of constants in which this is possible is very small indeed. However, I accept that this isn’t inconsistent with a naturalistic view of the universe, if we take the various anthropic principles into account - does it fail your “credibility” test for this reason?

I would agree here, of course - with the proviso that it’s “a product of human creativity” rather than “entirely a product of human creativity”. I’d also mention Islam as a possible counter-example - there are only a couple of very minor (by Christian standards, at least) miracles attributed directly to Mohammed, and, of course, the basic claim that he was inspired directly by God to write the Koran, but the rest of the text is basically theology and lawgiving, rather than accounts of the direct intervention of God in the world.

Again, no objections. Some might comment that Occam’s Razor, useful though it is in science and logic, isn’t universally applicable to all aspects of the human condition - how does it apply to art, for instance? And, more generally, it’s a product of human reason, and therefore as fallible as any other human idea.

Your other two points, I can do nothing but agree with and endorse whole-heartedly.

9

I think you are agnostic. Basically, an agnostic does not say one way or the other whether a god exists. I’m agnostic; to me, the correct answer is “I don’t know, and neither does anyone else”. Your list sounds an awful lot like mine.

10

I’m sure there are atheists like you describe who are categorical in stating that “God” does not or cannot exist, but I think if you actually read what atheists on or off the SDMB have said, you will find that many if not most of us are only so categorical when discussing some particular definition of God.

“God[sup]1[/sup] definitely does not exist”.

[sup]1[/sup]Where “God” means “the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as described in the 66 inerrant and verbally inspired books of the Holy Bible, Who created the world in six twenty-four hour days about 6,000 years ago and later sent a flood to destroy all life on Earth that did not take refuge in Noahs’ Ark, as described in the Bible by divine revelation the facts of which are easily confirmed by the study of geology and other natural sciences except those pointy-headed scientists are so blinded by their atheistic humanism and hatred of God”.

“There is no evidence that God[sup]2[/sup] exists, therefore I personally do not have any belief in God”.

[sup]2[/sup]Where “God” is defined as a hypothetical intelligence (or intelligences), of powers obviously greater than that of the human race but the precise extent of which are however unknown, which in some manner caused the Universe to come into existence.

And there would be other definitions of God–God[sup]3[/sup], God[sup]4[/sup], God[sup]5[/sup]–where I would say the definition is meaningless, or that I don’t know, but a “God” by that definition is awfully improbable, or there seem to be logical inconsistencies or internal contradictions in the definition itself, or I would fall back on the old Abraham Lincoln bit about calling a dog’s tail a leg.

As to the OP, if you find “atheist” to be too in-your-face or overly definitive, but you also aren’t entirely comfortable with “agnostic”, you could try “nontheist”. Beware, there are some who claim a more technical meaning to the word which you may or may not agree with, but the Oxford English Dictionary seems to list it as simply a synonym for “one who does not believe in God” or “one who is not a theist” going back to at least the 19th Century.

11

I apologise for any mischaracterization, but I would still say that, in my personal experience, the atheist (as opposed to agnostic) position has been “One should not believe in God” (however God is defined), rather than merely “I personally do not believe in (a specific conception of) God”. Perhaps the atheists I’ve known don’t form a representative sample of athiests as a whole.

12

First of all, if you, the peg, do not easily fit into any of the usual holes, you are a tweener. That is, you’re between one belief set and another.

If you are not certain that there is no God, or Gods, but you have seen no evidence of that existence, you are probably somewhere in the agnostic corral. It’s a big corral, though, and you are free to adopt principles of morality from other corrals. After all, in the agnostic corral, there aren’t any preachers to tell you you’re doing it wrong. :wink:

If you believe that there is no God as a single being, but that everyone and everything is God, you have moved into the Taoist corral. However, Taoists generally believe that there is no good or bad, but that everything just is. So, if you’ve borrowed a scale of good to bad from somewhere, you’re still a tweener.

I’m not here to pin a tag on you. I just want to throw a roadmap or two in your lap. Enjoy your wandering.

The t-shirt says, “Not all who wander are lost.” I believe it’s also true that, “Not all who are lost wander.”

13

Bear in mind also that you may not have experienced a representative sample of all the possible definitions of God that are out there. On a message board like this, everyone involved is less likely to simply assume that God=Jesus, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, etc., and an atheist who makes the mistake of assuming that “God=Jesus” (and therefore automatically trots out “101 Bible Contradictions” from the get-go whenever the topic of God comes up) will get his hat handed to him.

In other contexts–a discussion between the Workplace Atheist and the Workplace Fundamentalist–everyone involved may be assuming that “God=Jesus” right from the start, and react accordingly.

14

No real contribution to make but a note of appreciation for these term clarifications. I am now considering whether I am an agnostic theist or an agnostic deist. And I’ve previously just considered my position soft theism! I think an agnostic deist(!) but not one who believes that God per se created everything. This gets confusing.

Of all your points what I can most identify with is your expression of “a god-shaped hole.” I come to god belief based on the logic that I believe that some things really are Right and Wrong (or that I want to believe that anyway) and that to me that belief implies some absolute moral entity in the universe. That said I do not believe in a god that intervenes in anyway, my god doesn’t give a shit and is by definition incomprensible to mere humanity. Ethically I buy into most of the precepts of my cultural religious identification, Judiaism, so long as the stories are taken as literature and parables about greater truths, not literal truths. I can see how rituals and Laws can guide one to spiritual mindsets and to functional behaviors, without believing that God cares one way or the other.

Anyway, thanks for a thread that got me thinking about these things instead of merely debating them!

15

I don’t actually think your position as defined either suggests or excludes any particular religion.

16

I think the label you are looking for is “agnostic.” It might not be perfect, but the purpose of labels is to convey to others one’s basic stance, not necessairly the nuances.

I call myself a pantheist, but it is my own type of pantheism. It’s just the label that fits me best.

17

Sorry for the delay in returning to this thread. The holiday activities kept me hopping so I could never sit down and order my thoughts in reply. Now that I’m back at work… heh heh heh… Here comes four posts…

{braced words mine} Good point, and I didn’t intend such exclusion. That’s why I added “by God I mean ‘God or Gods’.” I wrestled, in the OP, about including any aspect of creation in my definition. I think it’s an important defining idea, though, because if there was a panoply of Gods, either they all created everything else as a team effort (in tandem or hierarchically), or one of them created the rest. What of the Zoroastrian Ruler of the Universe? The extent of my knowledge of this is your post. Let’s also consider “What if an alien from a super advanced planet created the earth and remotely manages human events.” This both answers the question “who is God?” in the local human sense, and defers the ultimate question “who made the aliens?” For the purposes of my musings, I consider this practically identical to the team effort act of creation, hierarchical style (i.e. a creator god created the creator of the earth - tag team creation). Another way of looking at this is: If we do find out the identity of God, it likely won’t be the end of all of our questions :smiley:

By “credible evidence” I mean “evidence provided by the convinced with the ability to pursuade a skeptic.” The key is to the ability to transfer convinced-ness. Let’s say Sue believed the world is flat. Bill could convert Sue’s belief by pointing at the shadow the earth casts on the moon, the fact that ships disappear bottom first over the horizon, etc. Sue would be convinced that the earth is indeed spherical. Let’s grant, for argument’s sake, that God delivers a special, private, divine revelation to Bill. Bill, a skeptic, is now rightly convinced that God exists. But the only evidence Bill has to pursuade Sue is his testimony. From Sue’s perspective, not having the benefit of the direct revelation, Bill’s word is rightly unconvincing without corroboration.

No. If someone offers evidence, I am willing to consider it. There is a high burden of proof on those that claim specific knowledge of God’s existence, and I may let my skepticism run overdrive and unfairly reject the evidence (I hope I wouldn’t though). But I maintain that if God exists, credible evidence of that fact must exist too. Although I haven’t scrutinized every single scrap of proffered evidence, I suspect that if real credible evidence was ever proffered in history I would very likely have heard of it. I stand to be corrected, but on this basis I claim no credible evidence has been submitted to date (but some day? it’s merely possible).

18

If this is the consensus amongst athiests, or at least if this is a commonly enough understood definition, then I am an atheist.

Except…

From the movie “Secondhand Lions”,

This is very compelling. I do “believe” these things (believe = hold valuable). There is comfort in rituals that reinforce these values. I find Aesop’s Fables valuable, so I can unequivocally say “I believe in Aesop’s Fables.” If I say “I believe in pantheism” because, if true the above-quoted values flow by implication, can I still call myself an “atheist” by MEBucker’s reckoning?

Going back to the Harpur book I mentioned earlier: Harpur doesn’t believe Jesus of Nazareth literally existed as a person - that all of the stories attributed to him are retellings of far more ancient stories, morality plays. These stories would have continued to morph to many other versions if only the printed word didn’t freeze their evolution, and powers-that-be declare them literal truths rather than metaphorical (likely as a political power play). He still calls himself a Christian, though, because he finds value in the imagery, how the metaphors speak to the “something more” of human experience. The metaphors happen to carry the label “Christ” so he is a “Christian.”

I don’t know, if pressed, whether Harpur would adopt the “atheist” label in the sense MEBuckner describes. But if he did, is there a contradiction or hypocrisy? Is there such a thing as a Christian atheist? Or if that’s too oxymoronic (hold the oxy?) how about spiritual atheist? I guess the most accurate is “atheist who appreciates all forms of literature, including religio-morality plays” but that’s a bit wordy :smiley:

19

This is almost exactly how I describe myself when in social settings the question comes up. I just prayed (ha ha) that no one would press me to define “my own type of pantheism” because I’d be hard pressed to do so. Pantheism, for me, “solves” the creation problem in that nothing, including God, was ever created by distinct act. Stephen Hawking, tongue in cheek I’m sure, asks the question about the yet discovered Grand Unified Theory - the theory that explains all physical phenomena: Could it be so elegant in mathematics that the formula itself demands that the universe it describes exists? This resonates with a self-creating God. It is in line with the Brahman of Hindu tradition, which (as I understand it) is that all of us, as parts of God, contribute to God “waking up” as an act of self-discovery. Robert Heinlein’s well summarizes his brand of pantheism with the phrase, “Thou art God.” In the same way the cells in my body - which could have been individually autonomous - collectively conspire to create my consciousness - each human being (and other sentient lifeforms on earth and off) are evolving to eventually collectively conspire to create a cosmic consciousness.

Damn, as I review what I’ve written I feel like checking myself into a looney bin. I certainly do not believe any of it literally, but I “believe” in the morality and values that are implied by such ideas - all boiling down to if we are all parts of a larger whole, we should treat each other well.

20

Here’s what I believe: There is no literal God, but God is useful centerpiece in valuable morality plays. We’re all in this together, so collectively we are all God. I am (drum roll) an aliteral panteist… ta dummm!

alternately I am a worshipper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose ineffable name is Og