Spirituality versus Religion

[TTChamp]

I am making up a charter for an organization I am forming. The following paragraph is one of the points of the charter. Please provide feedback of all types (poor wording, content, points you disagree with). Thanks.

Spirituality and religion are not synonymous. Given humanity’s current knowledge of the universe, certain spiritual and metaphysical questions can not be answered.

Spirituality is the quality one achieves through exploration of these unanswerable questions.

Religion is a set of beliefs based on superstitious or historical answers to spiritual questions.

Due to the limitations in humanity’s knowledge, religions can’t justify their beliefs so they ask their followers to rely on faith or historical events that can’t be reproduced. Worse, religion typically requires its followers to live by a dogmatic set of rules that are based on the group’s spiritual beliefs. Since these beliefs are not based on reason, the actions required of practitioners and the moral distinctions made by religious leaders are often peculiar and make little sense when examined logically.

[madnak]

Sounds decent, but it depends on the organization. An atheist group? Good. A "let's all get along" sort of thing? I'd get a bit less aggressive toward theists.

[Darryl_P]

I think the word "superstitious" trivializes religion too much. Maybe "supernatural" would work better? Or maybe "convenient supernatural" to suggest that simple answers tend to be favored.

Also, I'd replace "peculiar" with "inexplicable" or "incomprehensible".

[TTChamp]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds decent, but it depends on the organization. An atheist group? Good. A "let's all get along" sort of thing? I'd get a bit less aggressive toward theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tentatively describe myself as an atheist but really I am more a-religious. I can't really say if there is some kind of a deity, but I am 100% certain that the actions the major religions take in the name of a deity are misguided.

That said, I don't like the word or the movement called atheism for the following reason:

1. The existence or non-existence of a deity is one question among many spiritual questions. For example, atheism does not address the idea of fate versus free-will, nor does it address the phenonena of consciousness. Atheism is too narrow an issue for me.

2. IMO, atheist organizations are terrible at communicating their beliefs to others and maintaining a positive image within the community. I don't think it a streatch to say that there are few worse organizations of any type than atheists at this. The only time you see them in the news is when they are trying to take down a girl scout troops christmas display. Also they come out so strongly against anything spiritual that they alienate people who recognize that religion is bs but don't see any alternative if they want to participate in a spiritual discussion or be part of the community.

I want to create an organization that is open to any spriritual dialog and provides the same beneficial community support as churches, but that actively opposes religious dogma. I don't want to marginalize my group by labeling it atheist.

In that context I am interested in your second opinion. Still too strong against the theists?

[TTChamp]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the word "superstitious" trivializes religion too much. Maybe "supernatural" would work better? Or maybe "convenient supernatural" to suggest that simple answers tend to be favored.

Also, I'd replace "peculiar" with "inexplicable" or "incomprehensible".

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed....Thanks

[Duals21]

[ QUOTE ]
Given humanity’s current knowledge of the universe, certain spiritual and metaphysical questions can not be answered.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since these beliefs are not based on reason, the actions required of practitioners and the moral distinctions made by religious leaders are often peculiar and make little sense when examined logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me it seems illogical to expect organizations (religions) that are designed to help answer questions that in your view "cannot be answered" to stand up to rational scrutiny. If you presume that a question cannot be answered, and someone answers it, no matter what the answer is it will NEVER stand up to a rational critique. In this situation, one is left in a situation where what they have respect and awe for is the MYSTERY of the questions at hand. I would advise you to be very careful about how explicit you are in stating this problem. To me it seems likely that many modern religious traditions started in this same position but attempted to transcend the problem through metaphors which were later misinterpreted and turned into the same form of dogma which you disdain.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to create an organization that is open to any spriritual dialog and provides the same beneficial community support as churches, but that actively opposes religious dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you looked into Unitarianism?

Unitarian Universalism (UUism) is a theologically liberal religious movement characterized by its support of a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." This principle permits Unitarian Universalists a wide range of beliefs and practices. Unitarian Universalist congregations and fellowships tend to retain some Christian traditions such as Sunday worship that includes a sermon and singing of hymns, but do not necessarily identify themselves as Christians.

Both Unitarianism and Universalism trace their roots to Christian Protestantism. Many UUs appreciate and value aspects of Christian and Jewish spirituality, but the extent to which the elements of any particular faith tradition are incorporated into one's personal spiritual practices is a matter of personal choice in keeping with UU's creedless, non-dogmatic approach to spirituality and faith development.

[cambraceres]

John, can you elaborate on this odd form of belief? I can't see the whole system.

Cam

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds decent, but it depends on the organization. An atheist group? Good. A "let's all get along" sort of thing? I'd get a bit less aggressive toward theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tentatively describe myself as an atheist but really I am more a-religious. I can't really say if there is some kind of a deity, but I am 100% certain that the actions the major religions take in the name of a deity are misguided.

That said, I don't like the word or the movement called atheism for the following reason:

1. The existence or non-existence of a deity is one question among many spiritual questions. For example, atheism does not address the idea of fate versus free-will, nor does it address the phenonena of consciousness. Atheism is too narrow an issue for me.

2. IMO, atheist organizations are terrible at communicating their beliefs to others and maintaining a positive image within the community. I don't think it a streatch to say that there are few worse organizations of any type than atheists at this. The only time you see them in the news is when they are trying to take down a girl scout troops christmas display. Also they come out so strongly against anything spiritual that they alienate people who recognize that religion is bs but don't see any alternative if they want to participate in a spiritual discussion or be part of the community.

I want to create an organization that is open to any spriritual dialog and provides the same beneficial community support as churches, but that actively opposes religious dogma. I don't want to marginalize my group by labeling it atheist.

In that context I am interested in your second opinion. Still too strong against the theists?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using the term "atheist" where you should be using the term "straw-man atheist".

You need to understand why. It seems that your entire view of atheism comes straight from sunday school.

[madnak]

In that case I'd rework the second paragraph. Things like "can't justify," "worse," "peculiar," "superstitious," and "dogmatic" should be removed, they create a confrontational tone. Also, while I can't pinpoint it, something about the mention of reason seems to be poisoning the well. I'd emphasize (subtly if possible) that there's nothing wrong with beliefs based on reason - or just use a more neutral tone. Right now when you say things like "these beliefs are not based on reason" I feel like you're implying that's a bad thing. Also I'd replace "make little sense" with "don't seem to make sense from a logical perspective" or something with a similar connotation.