|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 07/30/2005 : 13:45:31
|
I found this to be pretty interesting:
Universism:
quote:
What if there were a religion that does not presume to declare universal religious truths? The meaning of your existence would be yours to determine.
What if there were a religion able to generate respect among all of humanity by embracing our equality in the most important questions we face?
What if there were a religion to unite freethinkers--atheists, deists, transcendentalists, pantheists and agnostics?
What if there were a religion that demands no blind faith in prophets or their writings?
What if there were a religion that asserts no moral authority, religious or secular?
What if there were a religion born of this century that would instantly unite millions of people around the world - maybe even you?
Would it even be a religion? Yes. But wouldn't you say it would be unlike anything you've ever seen before? Welcome to the future of religion. Welcome to Universism.
quote:
The Universist Alternative can be summarized in one statement:
Universists apply personal reason and experience to the fundamental questions of human existence, derive inspiration from the natural uncertainty of the human state, and deny the validity of revelation, faith and dogma.
Universists share the following five principles:
I. The most important thing is the search for meaning and purpose, as in relationships and love, understanding and knowledge, experiences and emotions, or elsewhere.
II. There is no absolute Truth that applies to all people; ultimate knowledge of the nature of existence cannot be communicated, it can only be reasoned or experienced personally. The natural state of most individuals is uncertainty, motivating curiosity, openmindedness and appreciation for the experiences and thought of other beings.
III. Morality depends on individual circumstances and relationships. Any action's ultimate rightness or wrongness can only be determined by those involved in the action. Good and Evil are ideas that can be useful, but are inaccurate if used to describe the nature of the universe.
IV. Social structures such as governments and institutions are useful insofar as they help individuals to flourish - that is, become and remain healthy, happy and able to work toward their goals that do not interfere with the rights of other individuals to work toward their goals.
V. All life is free in the universe, limited in potential only by the physical laws of nature.
And thankfully:
quote:
Universism addresses religious truth, not scientific truth. Religious truths include the ultimate nature of existence, the meaning of life, and the nature of the metaphysical. There is an objective reality and science is the tool to decipher it.
As religions go, this one sounds very reasonable, if you agree that it even is a religion. I guess since I associate religions with some sort of faith, and Universism denies faith, I see this as more of a philosophy than a religion. But, whatever, you can call your association what you want.
The website is interesting, I recommend you check it out (no, I havent't joined and I'm not suggesting anyone does, I just thought this to be a good topic of conversation).
The FAQ page has lots of more detailed explanations, like this one:
quote:
How does Universism address the fear of death which drives many people to believe in various faith traditions?
Universism says we do not know what comes after death, that uncertainty should be celebrated, that a little collective anxiety can be a good thing. Perhaps embracing reality rather than clouding it will prove more therapeutic than cognitive dissonance. Maybe it will motivate us to improve life on earth in unanticipated ways.
That's one I can agree with.
So has anyone here heard of Universism before? Are you a Universist? Know any Universists? What do you think of it?
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2005 : 16:58:06 [Permalink]
|
| Makes me want to puke. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2005 : 15:32:50 [Permalink]
|
BigPapaSmurf's comment illustrates part of why the religious divide in this country is getting so deep - because people inclined to agree with Universism (or any other freethinking religion such as Unitarianism, Quakers, liberal Christians) is likely to keep going and just dump religion all together, and then turn around and dump on all religious people.
Frankly, I think nonreligious freethinkers making derogatory comments against religious freethinkers is just foolhearty. The only difference between the two is:
1.) One has an emotional (or "spiritual", depending on your terminology) need to be part of a religious community, while the other is happy to ride the wave of existential angst on their own (or pehaps in online chatrooms).
2.) One defines "religion" in terms of community and common philosophy, while the other defines "religion" in terms of faith in the supernatural.
In short, the difference is emotional/social needs and/or semantics.
A religious freethinkers doesn't deny the superiority of the scientific method, doens't deny objective reality, doesn't appeal to some mystical authority, bases their actions on critical thinking. So why make fun of them??? They're on the same side as skeptics, both politically and intellectually! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 10:23:26 [Permalink]
|
Did I at any point make fun of them? No.
I makes me sick that I would be automatically included in their spiritualty when such things I dispise. Similar to my Mormon friend who will no doubt give me a baptism after my death against my wishes.
I cant stand the thought that 'science' and 'atheism' are viewed incorrectly as religious in nature. It is you who insults me by saying I view my beliefs as religion. Edit: This problem is so widespread some large dictionaries have started printing a nth non-spiritual definition at the end of the entry.
So by saying there is no doubt that god exists are they making fun of me? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 08/02/2005 10:29:46 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 10:32:07 [Permalink]
|
| Also I'd add for me, the enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 14:08:04 [Permalink]
|
I makes me sick that I would be automatically included in their spiritualty when such things I dispise.
I do think it's questionable that they put Carl Sagan on their website, because they seem new, and he's passed on. I don't think he ever associated with this particular group while alive, so it seems crappy that they are using his image on their website.
However, it doesn't sound like they are automatically including all faithless. More like inviting.
I cant stand the thought that 'science' and 'atheism' are viewed incorrectly as religious in nature.
I don't see how Universism is claiming those things are religious in nature. It is simply establishing that they are a religion based on naturalism and that acknowledges the scientific method as our best way to discover truths about objective natural reality. On the website they specifically say: “Religious truths include the ultimate nature of existence, the meaning of life, and the nature of the metaphysical.” The Dalai Lama once called Buddhism an “atheistic religion”. Does that mean he was saying that atheism is religious in nature? Of course not.
It is you who insults me by saying I view my beliefs as religion.
I referred to you as a “nonreligious freethinker”.
Also I'd add for me, the enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend.
True enough, but as I've said, the only significant difference between nonreligious freethinkers and religious freethinkers is emotional needs and semantics. Think of Confucianism – religion or philosophy? Depends on who you're talking to.
I'm a “religious” Humanist because I define religion in a broad sense, I frequently attend lectures, ceremonies and events run by local and national Humanist organizations (I suppose that's the closest we come to worship), I had a Humanist wedding (definitely qualifying as symbolic ritual) and I'll be officiating two weddings this summer as a certified Humanist celebrant. (So in the eyes of the state I am “religious” clergy.) What's the part of that you despise, exactly?
I actually do a have a small problem with this Universist Movement. They are trying to fill a void that was already filled decades ago by the Unitarian Universalists and religious Humanists. Then again, perhaps they differ from those groups just enough that they really are something unique. Seeing as I'm perfectly happy with the atheistic religion I already have, I'll probably not look into too much.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/02/2005 14:10:47 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 16:03:12 [Permalink]
|
I do think it's a little odd that a group calling itself a "religion" would include athiests. I think Universism is more accurately described as a philosophy of how to explore metaphysical questions. Their rejection of faith, dogma, and revelation separates them from religions. Hell, it seems you could, using logic and reason, reject the existence of anything metaphysical and still call yourself a Universist.
Like many here, I do not share the need for creed that many people have. I do acknowledge though that a large segment of the population finds it important to explore these metaphysical issues, and this seems like a fairly intelligent and harmless way to do so. Sure beats claiming your favorite ancient book has all the answers and everybody else should live by your interpretation of it. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 22:48:39 [Permalink]
|
R. Wreck wrote: "I do think it's a little odd that a group calling itself a "religion" would include athiests."
I think it's a little ethnocentric to insist that for something to be a religion it must include faith in supernatural gobbledygook. As is stated above, there are great world religions in history that do not include such faith. Also, there are contemporary Western religions (like Unitarianism) that are based in critical thinking and philosophical humanism. To me, it seems most useful to define "religion" based on how people in the real world actually apply the term.
Regarding atheistic religions as philosophies - a philosophy is just a system of values and set of beliefs that make up a worldview. A philosophy becomes a religion when people with similar philosophies form a common social identity and set of rituals.
R. Wreck also wrote: "Like many here, I do not share the need for creed that many people have. I do acknowledge though that a large segment of the population finds it important to explore these metaphysical issues, and this seems like a fairly intelligent and harmless way to do so."
What is the difference between religious atheists who are part of a "creed" like Humanism or Universism, and the huge network of skeptic clubs, other than how the word "religion" is defined? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 06:50:09 [Permalink]
|
Your definition of non-religious freeethinkers refers to them being religious, thats my problem, since you included me in this group. A pet peeve of mine which keeps getting worse.
quote:
2.) One defines "religion" in terms of community and common philosophy
I have major issues with "religion" being substituted for "conviction". |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
TG
Skeptic Friend
USA
121 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 07:49:21 [Permalink]
|
Based on their website, it appears to me they spend ten times the ink listing what they don't believe than what they do.
Todays Raving Atheist has a related article. http://ravingatheist.com/ |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 10:03:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Universism addresses religious truth, not scientific truth. Religious truths include the ultimate nature of existence, the meaning of life, and the nature of the metaphysical. There is an objective reality and science is the tool to decipher it.
Why must there be any meaning? I don't think there is. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 15:06:21 [Permalink]
|
| I think everyone here is missing the point. This is a way to have the bake sales and potlucks that we non-believers are so sorely missing... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 15:58:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
I think everyone here is missing the point. This is a way to have the bake sales and potlucks that we non-believers are so sorely missing...
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 21:18:33 [Permalink]
|
BigPapaSmurf wrote: "Your definition of non-religious freeethinkers refers to them being religious, thats my problem, since you included me in this group."
*staring at this sentence really hard for several seconds* So... yer upset because me labeling you as nonreligious refers to you as being religious? If you're not religious, and you're not non-religious, then what exactly are you? 'Cause it seems you must be one or the other.
To astropin - I second Ricky's remark about how saying life is meaningless is taking a stance on what the meaning of life is. However, I will also mention that for religious Humanists (and those that call themselves "Secular Humanists", though we're essentially the same thing), we'd agree that the universe is meaningless by objective standards, but that subjectively the meaning of life is what humans make it to be.
To Kil - Hey, man, damn straight. I love potlucks and happen to make a mean tuna casserole.
Religion is only bad when it includes blind submission to an authority, worldy or otherwise. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/03/2005 21:20:16 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
