One thing that sets religion apart from other realms of human thought is that it provides answers to ultimate questions.

I would say that religion is not unique in this. Nationalism, for example, can do the same, as could an ethic used in specific ways (think, for example, of an extreme rendition of Kantian duty ethics: duty is your reason for existing, it is all you must do). It is true that Western religions (and I say Western specifically) tend to be more explicit in providing answers and labeling them as such, but I would put “ultimate questions” and ultimate answers in a more general heading, not limited by metaphysics or a teleological view of nature. One need not explicitly look towards a sort of progression towards purpose or goal to be given a sense of ultimate purpose. At the very least, I believe that one should think of “ultimate” in a much more general sense.
Further, not all religions do this. Observe, for instance, Buddhism as practiced by the Buddha. He ignored questions about the nature of things as being unimportant. Eastern religions generally seem less linear in this regard, and less extreme as well (though the most definitely have their extremists). They are, of course, still religions, unless we specifically define a religion as needing a sort of set view of the universe and its purpose or lack thereof (and even then the Eastern religions almost universally qualify).
Even within Western religions, much depends upon how one regards the religious teachings. For example, Western mystics do not necessarily think of beliefs as being central, nor may a follower of Eastern religions.
You do take precautions in your argument on this subject, for example when you say that “many (my italics) religions hold that belief is the key to ultimate consequences” rather than all. But that’s my point; I’m simply strengthening and emphasizing it. Religion leads to extremism, I think, for the same reasons that many “-isms” do. However, I’m not so sure that it does so enough to justify calling it out alone. What makes religion stand out, I think, may be due in part to the course of history and how things turned out for us, as once again the East-West example seems to show.

Something I should make clear from my last post: when I talk about ultimate questions and a sense of purpose, I’m not just referring to the metaphysical. One could include an ethical end, an anthropological end, or whatever. The use of Kant as an example kind of points this out, but I didn’t elaborate. What I’m trying to say is, that sense of purpose, of absolute meaning or fulfillment or whatever, is not something that is isolated to religion. It can be employed in different senses, including in ways that do not make explicit any such purpose, but simply push people in a given direction with some sort of motivation, be it psychological, spiritual, or otherwise. Religion, especially Western religion, has a certain, rather specific way of making this sense explicit and defined, but I think it’s not limited to that, both in theory and in fact.

Thx Sid.. enjoyed reading your perspectives on religious passion. Sad that what most people see from religious types is so different from what most of them believe about God.. namely compassion, love, mercy and grace.

Do you think that your response to Scott’s question would be different if compassion, love, mercy and grace were the hallmarks of passionately religious people?

-Bob

Heh, I had Buddhism in mind when I chose the qualifier ‘many’ instead of ‘all’. It is less prone (but not immune) to extremism precisely because it usually doesn’t answer the ultimate questions. I had metaphysics, teleology, and some ethics (divine command) in mind when I wrote about ultimate questions.

I think you are right that any ‘ism’ can lead to extremism. My point wasn’t that religion exclusively leads to it, but that because it has an unquestionable metaphysics and teleology, it is more likely to do so. Philosophy and, to some extent, science attempt to answer some of the same types of questions, but inherent in those related spheres, challenging conclusions in implicitly encouraged. It is explicitly discouraged in religion.

Re: Bob,

Unfortunately, religion is rarely, if ever, limited to good ethics. It incorporates a slew of unnecessary and sometimes harmful ethics into it’s divine command morality. It also claims certainty about the nature of the universe and its creation. If religion were limited to compassion, love, mercy, and the like, I would be religious as well. But that is pretty much the secular humanist ethic. Thus I can ascribe to those moral goods without the all-to-often damaging religious baggage.

“Do you think that your response to Scott’s question would be different if compassion, love, mercy and grace were the hallmarks of passionately religious people?”

Absolutely! In my response I identified what it is about religion that I think causes problems (which I’ve clarified in this comment). A religion that down-plays or eliminates these problematic aspects would be less prone to extremism. Of course, elimination of these aspects would make the religion very similar to secular humanism.

I guess what I was thinking about Sid is that people often reflect the God that they believe in. If they truly believe Him to be compassionate, loving, merciful and full of grace then I think that their lives might reflect those qualities in some ways.
All religions to not see God in that way though.. many see God as a vengeful being having unbelieving enemies that he destroys through violence.
I submit that it is all about what one believes about God that is at issue.
I don’t think that a secular humanist would reflect the qualities that I first mentioned because (IMO) these virtues are inner ones that emanate from a heart of sacrifice motivated from something divine.
Enjoying the dialog..

Hello Again, Bob!
I’m enjoying the dialog as well.

I don’t think that a secular humanist would reflect the qualities that I first mentioned…

I must be misunderstanding you here. Are you suggesting that secular humanists are incapable of compassion, love, mercy and grace? Because I know from first hand experience, both on the receiving and giving end, that this is not the case. In these instances, the person was certainly not reflecting the god they believe for they believe in no god.

Sid.. I understand that many people can be compassionate, loving, merciful and full of grace regardless of what they believe or don’t believe. Is it your contention that embracing Secular Humanism causes them to have those qualities? Was it the study of SH that caused them to change from uncompassionate, unloving, unmerciful and ungraceful people or was it some other factor?

Hi Bob,
“Is it your contention that embracing Secular Humanism causes them to have those qualities?”
Certainly! Ethics are a key component of secular humanism. Demonstrating compassion, love, and mercy are very often ethical acts.
“Was it the study of SH that caused them to change from uncompassionate, unloving, unmerciful and ungraceful people or was it some other factor?”
I reject the premise that every person starts out as uncompassionate, unloving, etc. Every person (with exceptions for brain damaged individuals) are born with empathy that compels a person to exercise those favorable traits you identified. We’re also born with self-interest which competes with empathy. Which becomes dominant throughout an individual depends on many factors, including biology and, mostly in my opinion, the social environment. Secular humanism tries to create an environment where empathy trumps self-interest when the two are in competition.

Thx Sid.. I think I see where you are coming from. As I am ignorant of the Secular Humanism framework maybe you can fill me on how it creates “an environment where empathy trumps self-interest”.

Like what vehicles are used to inspire good behavior in it’s adherents? Do secular humanists have meetings? Is there peer pressure to be empathetic? Is faith (in SH principles) involved or is it more of an appeal to logic? If so what is the logic of SH?

Thx for the dialog..

Sure thing Bob, and thank you for asking questions.
How does secular humanism (SH) create an environment that favors empathy? Well, first and foremost SH uses leadership by example. We try to live moral lives which values the needs of other people as much as our own needs. Education is probably the second most utilized tool. I doubt this is different from other groups with a major ethical component.
Sure, peer pressure is utilized to some extent as well. SH communities, where they exist, will remind members of its group of what they hold as moral. Unlike other groups, SH meetings usual don’t have a central authority figure that reminds the group of these things like a pastor in a sermon does. It’s more like the individual study groups you may be familiar with in church.
As implied in the last paragraph, SH does have meetings worldwide, but they very widely in size, duration, and regularity. Also, many groups that meet for other reasons have a SH outlook as part of their identity. Atheist, agnostic, and even deist groups often consist of people who accept the SH philosophies whether they know it or not. Some Unitarian Universalist churches adopt SH as well though they usually remain open to the possibility of some supernaturalism.
Faith is not a part of SH, at least under the common understanding of ‘faith’ as “A belief and trust in supernatural phenomenon and/or being”. The problem is that ‘faith’ has too many damn meanings. Humanism is built mostly on reason, though some would include other universal human traits.
What is the logic of SH? Hmm… that’s a bit two open-ended of a question to address within a comment. Can you specify?
Thanks!

I guess what I was thinking about is the idea that SH seems to be a logical philosophy that appeals to the intellectual side of morality.. not sure that is what you are trying communicate because empathy seems to be more oriented to feelings than rationality.
From what you have written it seems that people really don’t change and become secular humanists.. they just hear about it and it resonates with who they are already. So, in a sense, through genetics and childhood environment a person becomes s SH through no choice of their own.. they are simply born that way.
If that is true than being a SH really has no virtue in the same sense that being male or female has no virtue.. it is simply who you are.. but I may be misunderstanding.

While humanism primarily values reason, it values other universal human traits like empathy. That being said, it is also entirely possible to examine emotions rationally.

“it seems that people really don’t change and become secular humanists.. they just hear about it and it resonates with who they are already.”

That’s how it is for me. I wouldn’t presume to speak for all secular humanists.

Thx Sid for the continued dialog. Going back to Scott’s question..
“Does less religious passion equal a more peaceful world?”
Do you think that there are extremists in the SH movement that, like religious extremists, make for a less peaceful world?

Hey Bob, sorry about disappearing there for a while. I wrote a response to your question, then lost it due to a browser crash. Frustrated, I didn’t recreate it and then got sick. I’m back now and not frustrated, so I can finally answer your question.
There are certainly members of the SH movement that are rabble rousers. I have been known to invade people’s inner peace to challenge some deeply-held beliefs. But doing violence in the name of SH doesn’t make sense. Inherent human value is the center of SH morality. Doing violence to another human in the name of the inherent value of every human is anti-rational. In fact, I know of no instances where someone has done violence in the name of SH. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, though.

Thx for the response Sid. I guess there isn’t enough passion in SH to do violence.
IMO, much of the passion in Christianity helped to develop schools, hospitals, homeless shelter, soup kitchens and other charitable institutions.
Do you think that there is enough passion in SH to do similar good works? I’d be interested in knowing the philanthropic history of the SH movement.
Thx, Bob
PS: Glad you are feeling better!

Sure thing Bob. I’m enjoying the conversation.
There certainly is enough passion for SH to do those things. A few things you’ve got to keep in mind, though; SH is nowhere near as old, organized, or well-funded as the major religions. As such, their good works are nowhere near as visible as those of the older, better-funded Christian organizations.
Another issue is that SH has a negative connotation in America. Many institutions that are philanthropic but non-religious are likely motivated by SH ethics, but they don’t identify as such. Such a connection would likely get in the way of performing good works. The Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation and Warren Buffet’s philanthropic organizations are two better-known possible candidates for these types of charities.
On an individual level, many of us (myself included) leverage some of that Christian history and organization to volunteer through Unitarian Unilateralist churches. Though UU churches grew out of two Christian denominations, their ethics are very much SH based.

From what you have said so far Sid it seems to me that most of the SH ethics (as do most of the ethics of western civilization) have their roots in Christianity and specifically in the sayings of Jesus.. specifically in the sermon on the mount.
I have read somewhere that Melinda Gates was raised as a Catholic. I heard that they donated several million dollars to her high school, Ursuline Academy in Dallas, Texas (a Catholic prep school) – maybe she has influenced Bill.. who I do not believe was much of a philanthropist in his earlier years.
I guess my point is just that SH really has no moral or ethical code of its own and seems to be a reflection of religious values.

Based on what I’ve written so far, SH ethics come from reason and shared human empathy.

You are expressing a religious prejudice that frustrates me to no end. It’s based on the incorrect assumption that without religion, humans are incapable of morality. It’s simply not true and as insulting to nonbelievers as some atheists’ belief that religionists aren’t as intelligent (a belief I do not share).

Sorry about that Sid.. didn’t mean to project that on your whole thread.. guess I was reflecting about the Gates instance.. probably not fair because neither of the Gates nor Buffet are probably SH followers.. at least they are not on any list that I have found.. so who knows why they did their good deeds.
About the idea that humans are capable of morality apart from religion? A few questions:
1) Do you have any empirical/objective evidence of a society that thrived devoid of religious influence?
2) How do qualities like compassion and mercy fit into Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ idea?
3) Is it really probable that human beings have been unaffected by religion of some sort – positively or negatively? Isn’t it possible that (in a sense) SH is just a reaction to the negative influences of religion? That being so then it is possible that religion has actually shaped the formation of SH.
I think that I am now rambling.. thx for the dialog.

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

I don’t know about Gates and Buffet either. I just listed them as candidates for the sort of charities that may be SH, but purposely avoid linking themselves to SH to avoid the enmity of religious charities they could partner with or just to simply avoid the negative opinion of the public at large. I didn’t mean to suggest that I know that they are SH.

One thing I should point out is that one does not need to identify with SH to be one. If one is moral based on their feeling of empathy and/or because of using reason and not out of obedience to an authority figure (including God), then they are de-facto SH, even if they don’t realize it. SH has no cosmological or metaphysical doctrine (which is what separates it from religion), so no acceptance of fact-claims is really necessary to be one.

I’ll try to address your questions as best I can.

1) No. Religion is a universal trait of every culture’s history that I am aware of. Even if the culture is currently non-religious, there is no way to separate out the the effects religion had on the culture in the past. That being said, countries with a common religious heritage differ in their current state of religiosity. Thus we can compare the effects of SH on societies. It turns out that the least religious societies are the healthiest, happiest, and least crime-ridden. See the Scandinavian countries for examples.

2) First, ‘survival of the fittest’ is an over-simplification of natural selection, but I believe I can answer the question within that context. Basically, our fitness for survival comes from our ability to create and maintain complex social structures. Compassion, mercy, and even altruism strengthens social bonds thus increasing our fitness. Thus they are natural behaviors that increase our ability to survive.

3) Oh, absolutely in my opinion. SH is at least in part a reaction to the negative aspects of religion. People started asking the question we’ve been discussing, “how can people be moral without religion?” because religion had such disastrous impact on Europe before and during the Enlightenment. They answered in the affirmative and SH now provides a viable alternative to religion. This is also why there is an enmity between SH and religions. SH see religion as a deeply flawed moral system and religionists see SH as an empty or foundationless moral system, which is why I think we are having this interesting conversation.

Just gotta say (not that I’m surprised in any way since you two are such stellar individuals) that I appreciate you keeping this both civil and interesting.

Thx again Sid.. helpful to read your thoughts.
Number 2 doesn’t make sense to me because creating and maintaining complex social structures for selfish reasons seems to be the opposite of mercy.. at least in my definition. If we only give mercy because we want mercy (i.e. cause and effect) then it seems logical that we will not give mercy unless we have been given mercy or at least have an expectation of receiving mercy in return for the mercy we have given. I am thinking of people in countries where they are abused and persecuted and have no expectation of mercy.
I agree with your thoughts on number 3 – SH is a response to religion.. where would it be without bad religion? Of course, I wonder if it would exist at all if only good religion existed?

It’s my pleasure, Bob.
I don’t think our empathy (what I believe to motivate mercy) doesn’t occur completely at the cognitive level. It’s more like an instinct. It simply feels right to be empathetic. It’s what most people call a conscience. Thus we can act on that instinct and grant mercy even without a conscious expectation of reciprocity (i.e. unselfishly).
“where would it be without bad religion?Of course, I wonder if it would exist at all if only good religion existed?”
My guess is that we’d differ widely about what constitutes good and bad religion (pick any wedge issue ). So even if all religions were ‘good’ by your standards, SH would likely have cropped up anyway. If religion were entirely good by SH standards, then the only difference between the two would be the acceptance of the supernatural. In which case, we’d have most people generally agreeing on all moral issues, some would be religious, others would simply call themselves non-religious. I don’t think there would be no need to set up an alternative since believing would cause no harm at all.

Not sure we would differ much about what constitutes good religion Sid. Here are a few thought from the old and new testament that reflects my thinkings on good religion:
He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27)