Were I to ask a typical American to tell me the name of that social institution where people who live near one another come together for the purposes of enjoying mutual aid, of developing a sense of shared interests and identity, and of professing their common commitment to certain shared values (or of exploring their understanding of certain core values), the answer I'd expect to get is "church." (Which answer might or might not be expanded to include the peer institutions of synagogue, temple, mosque, and so on.)
However, if I were to ask for the name of an institution that could be described just as I've done above, but whose congregants are additionally characterized by a common commitment to materialism (or naturalism, or secularism, or atheism), the word "church" seems no longer to apply. There really isn't any word in our vocabulary for a community institution that fills the role of a church for people of the secular persuasion.
Over the past decade, as I've done a lot of thinking and reading about congregational models of secular community, I've thought a lot about this vocabulary problem we secularists face in trying to put a name to the organized form of our coming together. Any time I came across a term in my research, I wrote it down. That list now runs to several hundred terms, many of which are quite weird but some of which seem quite workable. (For example, "congregation", "longhouse", and "assembly" -- as in the Sunday Assembly which this past weekend opened for business in the UK). I'll see about posting that list here sometime soon, to see what others think about this or that possibility, and to invite additions to the list.
An abridged and annotated list of terms will also appear in a future issue of Secular World magazine.
Look: we're here, and there's a lot of us, and we're working together, and though we're certainly not faith-based, we represent, in our shared commitment to reason and compassion, something which transcends the meaning of "neighborhood." It's time we had a name.
This isn't the only vocabulary problem we have. At a Winter Solstice brunch gathering yesterday organized by the Greater Boston Humanists, one Zach Alexander delivered a talk about the usefulness and limitations of "interfaith" engagement, and the limitations of the word "interfaith" itself (note the scare quotes). As has been noted by any number of commentators, and as was emphasized by Zach during his talk, the word "interfaith" is problematic. It would seem to exclude secular philosophies, lifestances, and worldviews, since adherents to these systems of thought tend to consider "faith" incompatible with their other ethical commitments. (NB: Conversely, the word "eupraxsophy" -- coined by Paul Kurtz -- by definition excludes theistic, faith-based, and supernaturalistic worldviews.)
When an audience member put Zach on the spot to ask if he could suggest a word to replace "interfaith", he observed that -- just as with "atheist church" -- there just doesn't seem to be a word that works. I think we should be able to come up with one. This isn't just semantics; if our ethical commitments prohibit us from celebrating or promoting "faith" as a virtue (which is a matter quite separate from our criticism of and engagement with "religion"), then it stands to reason that we're voluntarily giving up our seat at any table where "interfaith" work is being done. Are students involved with the Humanist Community at Harvard or eligible to participate in the White House-sponsored Interfaith and Community Services Campus Challenge? When the State Department organized the US-Indonesia Interfaith Conference in Jakarta, were representatives of secular community organizations welcome to participate? This semantic quibble represents an actual impediment to these and other venues were nonbelievers would otherwise have a chance to play a positive role in community and government.
To get the ball rolling, I've gone through some notes and typed up this list of alternatives to the word "interfaith". Some of these seem pretty feasible (I already use the words "intermural" and "pluralistic" where others might use "interfaith"), while others are a little out there, e.g. "intercistal" (not from cyst, but from cis-, as in cisgendered and cisatlantic) and "mondkonceptobla" (from the Esperanto words mond, koncept, and -obla, meaning "world", "concept", and "many").
Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments! And please share the URL for this post, and invite others to submit their suggestions below, or by sending me an email. As submissions come in, I'll add them to the numbered list, along with the name of the contributor, and any notes he or she wants to provide about the source or inspiration for their suggestion.
Don't be afraid to suggest really wonky words! Brainstorming is an open-ended process, and it can be useful to see all sorts of untenable suggestions as well as ones that stand a chance of being pressed into usage.
However, if I were to ask for the name of an institution that could be described just as I've done above, but whose congregants are additionally characterized by a common commitment to materialism (or naturalism, or secularism, or atheism), the word "church" seems no longer to apply. There really isn't any word in our vocabulary for a community institution that fills the role of a church for people of the secular persuasion.
Over the past decade, as I've done a lot of thinking and reading about congregational models of secular community, I've thought a lot about this vocabulary problem we secularists face in trying to put a name to the organized form of our coming together. Any time I came across a term in my research, I wrote it down. That list now runs to several hundred terms, many of which are quite weird but some of which seem quite workable. (For example, "congregation", "longhouse", and "assembly" -- as in the Sunday Assembly which this past weekend opened for business in the UK). I'll see about posting that list here sometime soon, to see what others think about this or that possibility, and to invite additions to the list.
An abridged and annotated list of terms will also appear in a future issue of Secular World magazine.
Look: we're here, and there's a lot of us, and we're working together, and though we're certainly not faith-based, we represent, in our shared commitment to reason and compassion, something which transcends the meaning of "neighborhood." It's time we had a name.
*
This isn't the only vocabulary problem we have. At a Winter Solstice brunch gathering yesterday organized by the Greater Boston Humanists, one Zach Alexander delivered a talk about the usefulness and limitations of "interfaith" engagement, and the limitations of the word "interfaith" itself (note the scare quotes). As has been noted by any number of commentators, and as was emphasized by Zach during his talk, the word "interfaith" is problematic. It would seem to exclude secular philosophies, lifestances, and worldviews, since adherents to these systems of thought tend to consider "faith" incompatible with their other ethical commitments. (NB: Conversely, the word "eupraxsophy" -- coined by Paul Kurtz -- by definition excludes theistic, faith-based, and supernaturalistic worldviews.)
When an audience member put Zach on the spot to ask if he could suggest a word to replace "interfaith", he observed that -- just as with "atheist church" -- there just doesn't seem to be a word that works. I think we should be able to come up with one. This isn't just semantics; if our ethical commitments prohibit us from celebrating or promoting "faith" as a virtue (which is a matter quite separate from our criticism of and engagement with "religion"), then it stands to reason that we're voluntarily giving up our seat at any table where "interfaith" work is being done. Are students involved with the Humanist Community at Harvard or eligible to participate in the White House-sponsored Interfaith and Community Services Campus Challenge? When the State Department organized the US-Indonesia Interfaith Conference in Jakarta, were representatives of secular community organizations welcome to participate? This semantic quibble represents an actual impediment to these and other venues were nonbelievers would otherwise have a chance to play a positive role in community and government.
To get the ball rolling, I've gone through some notes and typed up this list of alternatives to the word "interfaith". Some of these seem pretty feasible (I already use the words "intermural" and "pluralistic" where others might use "interfaith"), while others are a little out there, e.g. "intercistal" (not from cyst, but from cis-, as in cisgendered and cisatlantic) and "mondkonceptobla" (from the Esperanto words mond, koncept, and -obla, meaning "world", "concept", and "many").
Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments! And please share the URL for this post, and invite others to submit their suggestions below, or by sending me an email. As submissions come in, I'll add them to the numbered list, along with the name of the contributor, and any notes he or she wants to provide about the source or inspiration for their suggestion.
Don't be afraid to suggest really wonky words! Brainstorming is an open-ended process, and it can be useful to see all sorts of untenable suggestions as well as ones that stand a chance of being pressed into usage.
Candidates to Replace the Word "Interfaith"
- heteroethical
- intercistal
- intersocial
- interistic
- interoutlook
- mondkonceptobla
- intermural
- interbelief
- intertribal
- multicongregational
- interideological
- interlateral
- interfacial
- interliturgical
- interassembly
- interfactional
- interpositional
- intercreed
- intersystem
- crosscommunity
- crossperspective
- multistance
- crossconviction
- interweltanschauung
- transdoctrinal
- multinotional
- interdenominational
- pluralistic
- multiphilosophical
- ecumenical
- interminable (not a serious suggestion, but worth the laugh)
- interthought (suggested by Hemaht Mehta)
- rerumstitional (a play of superstition/institution, and De Rerum Nature; suggested by Alex Vera)
- interatheist (Since no theist believes in all the deities humans have created, everyone is an atheist with respect to most of the deities. Suggested by Scott Romanowski.)
- intersecularist (suggested by Andrew Wilke)
- interhumanist or interhuman (suggested by Andrew Wilke)
- metatheistic (suggested by Rick Mueller)
- intercommunal (suggested by Josiah Van Vliet)
- intergroup (suggested by Maria G.)
- transfaith (proposed by Ed Clint at the 2010 SSA Conference, cited by Evan Clark)
- interworldview (suggested by Evan Clark)
- religiously diverse (suggested by Evan Clark)
- metadiversity (suggested by Evan Clark)
- existential pluralism (suggested by Evan Clark)
- JIP (Justice, Interfaith, Pluralism; suggested by Evan Clark)
- interconfessional (suggested by yours truly, following from the German use of the words konfession and konfessionlos)
- interpath (suggested by Derek Lewis Knox, theology student at Andover Newton)
I heard Ed Clint suggest 'transfaith' at the 2010 SSA Conference in his talk (can be found on youtube). Not complketely sold on the word, but this it belongs in the debate.
ReplyDeleteRandom Other Ideas:
Interworldview
Religious Diversity
Metadiversity
Existential Pluralistic
J.I.P. (Justice, Interfaith, Pluralism)
(Third try. Can't get this to post as my Wordpress account. Sorry if there are dups.)
ReplyDeleteIntergroup?
Multigroup?
The whole point of interfaith is that it is people from multiple church groups working together on a community service project. So intergroup is similar and conveys the same meaning and it's simple. Simple is good.
As far as a word to replace church for a local secular community, how about "secular society"? Call a spade a spade. I know, how about Ethical Culture Society? Oh yeah, that one's taken.
Maria
I like transdoctrinal: It incorporates a range of belief systems, theistic, atheistic and anntitheistic, and the concept of doctrine is familiar to most people.
ReplyDeleteWhen I taught physics, it was difficult to explain why photons, light, might be particle-like in some cases or wave-like in other situations. I said a photon was a szyzgy. A made up word, because we don't have a word for such a thing with a dual ball-like/wave-like 'personality'.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that we want to use familiar words to describe something that doesn't fit into neat word boxes. (BTW, physics is not confused--a szygzy is a complex wave function, fully understood in quantum electrodynamics with some mathematics.)
There should be different words for different situations.
ReplyDeleteFollowing the prefixes inter-, trans-, or hetero-, root words like -ideological, -doctrinal, -thought, or -ethical make sense if the thing being exchanged in that moment is ideology, doctrine, thought, or ethics.
If you're collaborating on a prayer, meditation, wedding, funeral, or other formal service, then "interliturgical" makes sense.
Mondkoncept and Weltanschauung, both meaning "worldview," are often core to the purpose of what is currently referred to as "interfaith" discussions.
All of the above already appear on the list.
One root word that doesn't appear yet in the list is "identity." "Atheist" might be an identity more than it is representative of any specific strain of thought, since atheists have varied beliefs. The same holds for religious people and their religious identity labels. There is a difference between saying "atheists and Christians alike are welcome to participate" (identity-based) and "everyone is welcome regardless of your beliefs about God" (belief-based). The former is limited insofar as it neglects to mention all the possible identity labels: agnostic, Jewish, etc. If that is entertained, you'll end up with an infinite laundry list of identity terms and never satisfy everyone. Yet it has the advantageous effect of being clear that people with atheist and Christian identities are invited and can expect to see each other at the event, whereas the belief-based label is less clear on this point. To illustrate, one could imagine a synagogue holding an event saying "...regardless of your beliefs on God," and it would still be assumed that only people with Jewish identities were invited to discuss their varying beliefs about God; it would not be assumed that it was encouraging people with quite different religious identities to show up and discuss God, unless it were to specifically add "...people of all identities and backgrounds are welcome."
But sometimes the active presentation of "identity" isn't the purpose of the event. What if you have an event like a song fest or a neighborhood vigil and you suggest that people simply be present with each other and leave their identities aside for a moment? In that case, the prefix "inter-" might be misleading. The event would have something to do with returning to the core of who we are, leaving judgment aside, and being open to people on a level of empathy and joy rather than critical analysis. A word like "humanist" might work, except that one's already been taken to mean something else! Something like "soul," without the supernatural connotation.
Intercommunal
ReplyDeleteStone Dead, what usage would you propose for the root of "identity" -- interidentity, transidentity? "Join us for an afternoon of mixed-identity community service work?"
ReplyDeleteIt is tricky! A single word may not suffice. "Interfaith" itself is a broad term. It's used for tense events…sober events…cultural events…marriages…communities.
DeletePeople who go to "interfaith" events believe different things and have all sorts of reasons for being there. We can tell from context what is going on. It's generally helpful when people use full sentences to describe it.
If the word "interfaith" is vague in isolation, then broadening the concept to potentially include atheists would probably make it even less specific.
"Mixed-identity" could be misconstrued to refer to individuals from mixed backgrounds (e.g. one Jewish parent, one Christian parent), and it would be an easy target for sarcasm in the form of "mixed-up-identity."
This doesn't directly answer your question (sorry!). From some experience, I feel it's easiest when a group doesn't try to find one right word, since its members will always disagree about labels.
For decades now, I've been part of queer groups that have tried to make long lists of identity labels about who is welcome--seriously, like 40 labels, which degenerates into goofiness, entirely fills up a flyer without saying anything of substance, and in the long run, is abandoned as an advertising strategy. What has worked better is telling newcomers that the group is a place to "share your personal experiences" or "explore questions" with people on "similar paths" or "different paths," as the case may be (or whatever the group is actually going to discuss or accomplish. If it's to have a food party followed by a drag show, say that.). It has worked to roughly define who is and isn't invited--that is, in the most inclusive, friendly way possible, asking people to please self-select if they sincerely feel they belong at that group, and promising in return that the identity police will leave them alone.
I've observed that "interfaith" tends to characterize the event that actually happens, not the event one wishes would happen. So, for example, if I dream up an interfaith service, and I plan it, but only two people of my own faith show up, it's not an interfaith service after all. I may have had open-minded intentions, but the event itself is ultimately not interfaith.
This feels relevant to the word-coining project on a large scale. An "interfaith" event is more about what you're going to accomplish together, not about your private religious/non-religious orientations. If the event is a time to share beliefs out loud, say that. If, on the other hand, it's a time to put metaphysical beliefs aside and instead try to come together on some other level that interests us as humans, say that.
Now, what if it's the kind of "interfaith" that includes atheism? What if an event is advertised that way, but only people from one "side" show up? What if the attendees are a Catholic, a Jew, and a Hindu...or an agnostic, an atheist, and a humanist? Did the event succeed in being "interfaith" because it indeed drew people of different worldviews? Or did it fail because it didn't draw people who disagreed over whether there is a God? Is the "is-there-a-God" question central to the interfaith event? Well, it could be. Hopefully the organizers know what they're trying to accomplish. Maybe the collective identities of the participants are exactly what the group needs, and it's "diverse enough." But maybe not...maybe the core purpose of the group is defeated when the right kind of diversity isn't achieved. It all depends on the situation.
Could there be a set of single words with different nuances? I'm stuck.
I like your suggestion of "intercreed" -- just for the easy-to-pronounce sound of it. But "creed" still has too much of a religious connotation, don't you think? "Crosscommunity" has a really nice ring to it and means what it says.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "church" conundrum, I also like "congregation" and "community"-based words, and would suggest simply using "atheist" or "secularist" or "humanist" or something like that in front: First Atheist Congregation of Boston, say, or Boston's Secularist Community Center.
First things first: if you asked a typical American to tell you "the name of that social institution where people who live near one another come together for the purposes of enjoying mutual aid, of developing a sense of shared interests and identity, and of professing their common commitment to certain shared values (or of exploring their understanding of certain core values)," the most likely response would be a blank stare. That's not what church is, and it's not how people think of it. Few people actually get aid from their church or congregation, shared interests and identities are developed in many different contexts (people have church identities, work identities, sports fan identities, and so forth, all of which come together in the larger entity that cannot be named any more specifically than just "self"), and the shared values of a church identity are rather different from the shared values of being, say, a Notre Dame fan. In short, there isn't just one such institution, so it is a fundamental mistake to think that your question makes sense in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSecond, metaphysical naturalists (who should not be conflated with atheists, since there are atheistic religions) ought not be so concerned with representing themselves as a group. The desire for some equivalent to "atheist church" is a manifestation of incomplete liberation from religion, and it plays right into the hands of those who wish to portray the incredibly diverse group of people who are naturalists as just one more ideology--or even just another religion. Letting demagogic hacks "represent" me is one of the many problems I escaped by taking leave of hierarchical religious systems, so why should I trade scum like the Pope for scum like Sam Harris? I do not wish to be identified with either, and I would reject any term that sought to imply I was voluntarily associated with one or the other (as opposed to involuntary associations, like the fact that all three of us are human beings, males, and so forth).
When I advocate for things like same-sex marriage or science-based sexuality education, I don't do it as a naturalist. I do it as a human being with a basic understanding of history, ethics, and statistics. This frees me from feeling like I must attempt to ascertain and rearrange my interlocutor's fundamental ontology as a prelude to any sort of debate. Instead, I can focus on reasons and evidence we can both agree on, broaching metaphysical issues only if strictly necessary. It also prevents me from thinking I need anything like a word for "atheist church" or from using any of the absurd sentences that would be incomplete without such a term. If I want people to join me for an afternoon of community service work and have no plan to screen my participants, I would say just that: "join me for an afternoon of community service work--all are invited to participate." Why focus on the differences when the event is intended to be pluralistic (or even better, to be indifferent to whether it is pluralistic or not)?
First of all, Zach -- when you join a conversation, leave the adversarial manner at the door. I'm very glad for constructive discussion and disagreement, but I'm impatient with having someone I've never communicated with before presume to tell me what my "fundamental mistake is."
DeleteYour criticisms are, for the most part, not wrong as off the mark. It's a problem of speaking past one another.
"things first: if you asked a typical American ... the most likely response would be a blank stare."
As a rhetorical construction, this kind of statement is perfectly standard. I am not advancing this as *the* definition of "church", I am introducing *a* definition, for the purpose of conversation.
"That's not what church is, and it's not how people think of it."
And yet, it is what I think of it (insofar as anyone reading this post knows).
"Few people actually get aid from their church or congregation..."
I would contest this, on the basis of personal experience and from research. In any case, I am concerned with those people that *are* involved in congregational communities that facilitate mutual aid.
"shared interests and identities are developed in many different contexts..."
Of course. I happening to be concerned primarily with the portion of personal identity that is related to one's participation in a congregation.
"the shared values of a church identity are rather different from the shared values of being, say, a Notre Dame fan."
Of course! Though, I happen to be concerned with those differently particular values that come from being a member of a congregational community. Sociologically speaking, this is where those "questions of ultimate concern" tend to play a more central role.
I'm not being adversarial beyond the fact that I am disagreeing with you. I made an assertion that you happen to disagree with. I also presented it directly rather than beating around the bush. That is not adversarial to any but those who cannot handle conflict.
DeleteIf your question is a rhetorical construction, then it is a very bad one. It suggests that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a church is or believe that there is one place that people forge their identities. You try to defend this with the "I think of it that way" ploy, but it should be quite clear that not only did I use a plural term ("people")--which requires more than one person--but I am also speaking generally: most people would not think of it that way. Your personal opinion on the matter, then, is irrelevant.
You are concerned with finding a term that better conveys your intentions, yet you object when I point out that your framing of the question itself does not convey your intentions very well. Quite strange, I must say.
"I'm not being adversarial..."
DeleteThe fact that we disagree is fine; it was your manner that was adversarial. A little good will would go a long way.
"If your question is a rhetorical construction, then it is a very bad one."
Well, that depend on my aim. What I tried to do above is clarify the aim I'd had in mind, which your original reading misunderstood.
"It suggests that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a church is..."
I should say I don't... you're going too far in thinking that my post contains anything like an account of my understanding of what a church is.
".. or believe that there is one place that people forge their identities."
You're misreading the post; I said nothing about church being the exclusive place where people forge identity. Rather, I'm taking church into consideration as the place where people forge the church-related portion of their identity.
"You try to defend this with the "I think of it that way" ploy"
Characterizing my good-will response as a ploy is adversarial. Pack that in, won't you? There's nothing at stake here that requires that kind of manner.
"most people would not think of it that way."
I would contest that; my "thinking of it this way" follows from several years of concerted study, and actually represents a cogent description of an expanasive and standard sociological conception of "church" (really, of congregational, values-based communities). I might have said so above, but I didn't wish for our discussion to devolve into a pugil-stick fight where we take turns explaining that "my scholarship is superior to yours."
"Your personal opinion on the matter, then, is irrelevant."
Well, no. I'm seeking to suggest and to persuade, not to prove. Since it's my project here to mix together a little philosophy and sociology with some literature and personal experience to see what can be made of it, my personal preferences, opinions, and ethical commitments are certainly relevant.
"You are concerned with finding a term that better conveys your intentions..."
I'm not sure you understand what my intention in the post was.
"... yet you object when I point out that your framing of the question itself does not convey your intentions very well."
I take the point that if you misunderstood my intention, I might have done a better job of framing it. That said,
"Quite strange, I must say."
(You mean defensive, of course, not strange.) Well, look: I wasn't objecting to any of your criticism. Your manner, your initial *gesture* of launching right in with a list of ostensible shortcomings in my framing or argument... this is what I was objecting to. And really, I'm not even *objecting* to it -- only calling it out as unneeded here. I think we're on the same team.
"In short, there isn't just one such institution, so it is a fundamental mistake to think that your question makes sense in the first place."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't asking a question as much as positing one, for rhetorical purposes.
"Second, metaphysical naturalists ought not be so concerned with representing themselves as a group."
Yet, I am a metaphysical naturalist, and happen to be concerned with my participation in a group of shared values. It may be that you're a solo secularist, which is perfectly fine; but I don't know that our differing preferences place you in a position to tell me what I should not be concerned with.
"The desire for some equivalent to "atheist church" is a manifestation of incomplete liberation from religion..."
To be frank, this is a nonstarter. Or rather, it sounds like a manifestation of your commitment *to* a particular conception of religion as, say, hierarchical, doctrinal, coercive, in short, negative. I don't subscribe to that understanding of the term "religion", not would I say that such a definition is standard in the scholarly study *of* religion.
"...and it plays right into the hands of those who wish to portray the incredibly diverse group of people who are naturalists as just one more ideology--or even just another religion."
It is prudent to be prudent, of course, but I think you are overly worried. I am not here (or anywhere) suggesting that the worldwide atheist population must, for some ethical or political purpose, coalesce into local congregations so that we look like any other option on the religious menu.
"Letting demagogic hacks "represent" me..."
Is it the case that you interpreted my post as advocating for demagogues to come forward as self-appointed representatives of metaphysical naturalists everywhere?
"I do not wish to be identified with either, and I would reject any term that sought to imply I was voluntarily associated with one or the other."
Has such a term been proposed?
"When I advocate ... I don't do it as a naturalist."
Nor I.
"It also prevents me from thinking I need anything like a word for 'atheist church'..."
It sounds like you *wouldn't* have a need for such a word. However, those of us that do wish to participation in secular congregations are still wondering what word would work best to describe what *we're* doing.
"If I want people to join me for an afternoon of community service work and have no plan to screen my participants, I would say just that."
I think you presume too much. I have not written anywhere that atheists are prevented from coming together for community service (or socializing or social justice activism or what not) if they don't organize as congregational communities. My concern is with atheists who *do happen to be* interested in such communities.
Most of your response here is not a reply so much as words placed under quotes from my post that don't really relate to what I said (which, for the record, seems far more adversarial than simply being blunt about one's position). I will attempt a reply anyway. For the bits that are just repeats of your other reply, see my response to that reply. For the rest, read on.
DeleteI understand that you want a word that will play the role of "atheist church," but my contention is that you should want one. I understand that you are concerned with people who want such a word, but I am saying that you should not have that concern. I am contending that such a concern serves no positive purpose. If you had written a blog post asking the best way to torture kittens, it would be absurd to respond to a post saying "maybe you shouldn't torture kittens at all" by saying merely "but I want to!"
You ask what puts in the position to express my opinion on the matter. Well, what puts you in the position to express your own? I expect that there is no justification you can present for putting your own opinion out there that does not apply equally as a justification for me putting out my own. I am responding to an opinion that was publicly stated on a forum that invites responses. You asked for the URL to be shared, and someone shared it with me. Seeing as you requested replies, I'm not sure why you are upset to have received mine. I realize it may not be what you were expecting, but life has quite a habit of presenting us with the unexpected.
To me, organizing naturalists qua naturalists runs on the same subtle bigotry that leads businesses to advertise themselves as "Christian owned and operated." A charity or advocacy group ought to be chosen based on its what it does rather than on demographics. Thus my objection to the Salvation Army is not to its foundation on Christianity as such, but in its practices. Yes, those practices may be based on the organization's particular interpretation of Christianity, but the Christianity itself would not bother me were the group's interpretation to change.
The above point should itself be part of a proof that I do not have a commitment to a particular conception of religion in mind when I say that the desire for some equivalent to "atheist church" is a manifestation of incomplete liberation from religion. Churches need not be hierarchical, so the desire for a church is not necessarily the desire for a hierarchy. Churches need not be coercive, so the desire for a church is not necessarily the desire for an instrument of coercion. It is the notion that naturalists are a group that can be meaningfully gathered in a way parallel to a church to which I object and from which I gather an impression of incomplete liberation.
Metaphysical naturalism is a rather thin label. It entails nothing about one's moral or political views. Some naturalists are metaethical moral relativists. Others are proponents of robust moral realism. Some are Marxists, some are Randians, and some are Humanists. There are those who try to make the term "naturalist" or "atheist" refer to a thicker concept--one involving a rich culture--but that is a pop-culture adulteration. The idea that we could be represented at the table qua naturalists is therefore fundamentally mistaken.
(I realize that you don't like me saying it that way. That is my contention, however, and that's how disagreements work: people state and argue for their contentions. Seeing as you expressed a "commitment to reason," I didn't think I would need to explain the norms of assertion or the basics of rational discussion.)
"It is the notion that naturalists are a group that can be meaningfully gathered in a way parallel to a church to which I object and from which I gather an impression of incomplete liberation."
DeleteIf that's what you got from my post, you misunderstood, misunderstand, it. Do you care for me to explain what I mean?
If you've subscribed to this post, you'll get this update. I want to bring your attention to the excellent suggestion just posted at the bottom of the list above: "interpath", from Derek Lewis Knox, a member of the congregation at Emmanuel Church in Back Bay, and a theology student at Andover Newton. This is a term I'm going to be advocating for.
ReplyDelete"Interbelief," if the goal of the meeting is to exchange views of participants' different religious, cultural, philosophical, or political beliefs; "Transbelief," if the goal of the meeting is to transcend all belief systems/worldviews by participation in reasoning dialogue across such worldviews. In the Twin Cities, Interfaith Conversation Cafe will be concretizing its +1 year of welcoming atheists and humanists to its conversations by voting to change its name to Interbelief Conversation Cafe (we believe it will be the first interfaith group to do so in the U.S.); meanwhile, The society for pluralistic rationalism, The Circle of Reason, has sponsored "transbelief reasoning" dialogues for its theist, atheist, liberal and conservative members and the public in Minneapolis and St. Paul since 2009.
ReplyDelete