I have never posted a thread on LoR... I mostly read and keep quiet. So, fair warning, I may be inadvertently exposing you all to heaps of my ignorance here. I won't say how many times I've written this out... at various lengths and with more or less flowery language. I'm struggling to express what I want to say.
Atheism, as a non-belief, while it is a rallying point for many of us... is still a non-belief. Thunderf00t's video "Rejecting Atheism" where he applies the term P.E.A.R.L. comes to mind as a case where a basis for common ground was extended in the form of belief only in matters of "Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic". Which is great and all; it nicely sums up beliefs held by *most* Atheists I've known. I have to say "most" because the bare requirement to be an atheist is to not believe in a god or gods... leaving some atheists to believe in other metaphysical things which would not be found acceptable by a "Pearlist".
Furthermore, PEARL could apply to Agnostics who rely on the PEARL outlook in how they go about their lives, but who do not make that final decision that there are "NO" gods, regardless of how broadly they may define what a god could be. I would think their choice not to make that final decision based off a poorly framed idea of what makes a "god" is reasonable... and does not lessen their overall Pearlist nature. This divides them from their New Age crystal-collecting Agnostic ilk.
Is the term a useful one? Yes.
Is it an inclusive term? Not really.
It merely divides the "no religion" camp between rationalists and those New Age-loving Agnostics. As opposed to the old Atheist vs Agnostic split.
What I'm wanting to ask you reasonable folk, is if we can find a secular way to define the "no religion" or "no deity" group in a going beyond what we do NOT believe in. A way that basically outlines what the vast majority would consider our social contract? A list of ideals and morals which we could get behind and compile as a concise "secular canon", basically.
This stems somewhat from a mention that Durakken made in a thread back in June 2009:
We've already got science books and journals that fit the above role but the reason this stuck in my mind was that black PR the non-religious face in many places. Our "godless immoral natures" as I'm sure we've all gotten the memo about. I think many people who are questioning their faith could stand to see an alternative defined in positive words. As could people raised Agnostic but looking for guidance and moral support. Not everyone is as independent as the crowd here, and those may learn by seeing positive examples.
Is this a reasonable or desirable goal? Does such a book exist already? One which isn't specifically painting itself as "against god(s)" but which outlines the ways a person can be a positive and moral member of society without rejecting those poor questioning theists that run away at the first hint of militant Atheism?
If such a book does not yet exist, do you think the LoR would be interested in compiling one?
(Yes, yes, I know that nothing will please everyone in any group... but a book that deals in a social contract doesn't seem to be of much interest to hedonists or nihilists does it? They'd not want to obey any rules anyway, right?)
Atheism, as a non-belief, while it is a rallying point for many of us... is still a non-belief. Thunderf00t's video "Rejecting Atheism" where he applies the term P.E.A.R.L. comes to mind as a case where a basis for common ground was extended in the form of belief only in matters of "Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic". Which is great and all; it nicely sums up beliefs held by *most* Atheists I've known. I have to say "most" because the bare requirement to be an atheist is to not believe in a god or gods... leaving some atheists to believe in other metaphysical things which would not be found acceptable by a "Pearlist".
Furthermore, PEARL could apply to Agnostics who rely on the PEARL outlook in how they go about their lives, but who do not make that final decision that there are "NO" gods, regardless of how broadly they may define what a god could be. I would think their choice not to make that final decision based off a poorly framed idea of what makes a "god" is reasonable... and does not lessen their overall Pearlist nature. This divides them from their New Age crystal-collecting Agnostic ilk.
Is the term a useful one? Yes.
Is it an inclusive term? Not really.
It merely divides the "no religion" camp between rationalists and those New Age-loving Agnostics. As opposed to the old Atheist vs Agnostic split.
What I'm wanting to ask you reasonable folk, is if we can find a secular way to define the "no religion" or "no deity" group in a going beyond what we do NOT believe in. A way that basically outlines what the vast majority would consider our social contract? A list of ideals and morals which we could get behind and compile as a concise "secular canon", basically.
This stems somewhat from a mention that Durakken made in a thread back in June 2009:
Durakken said:Another idea would be to create an equal length book that is what science has shown us thus far that is nice and compact... though that might be a bit hard to do considering so much info.
We've already got science books and journals that fit the above role but the reason this stuck in my mind was that black PR the non-religious face in many places. Our "godless immoral natures" as I'm sure we've all gotten the memo about. I think many people who are questioning their faith could stand to see an alternative defined in positive words. As could people raised Agnostic but looking for guidance and moral support. Not everyone is as independent as the crowd here, and those may learn by seeing positive examples.
Is this a reasonable or desirable goal? Does such a book exist already? One which isn't specifically painting itself as "against god(s)" but which outlines the ways a person can be a positive and moral member of society without rejecting those poor questioning theists that run away at the first hint of militant Atheism?
If such a book does not yet exist, do you think the LoR would be interested in compiling one?
(Yes, yes, I know that nothing will please everyone in any group... but a book that deals in a social contract doesn't seem to be of much interest to hedonists or nihilists does it? They'd not want to obey any rules anyway, right?)