--> I was well known in CFI Portland for being an intellectual and an Atheist. Now I look back on this and wonder how much substance there was in my thinking that I was an Atheist.. And how much substance is there found in one's worldview of Secular Humanism?
Because, back then, I made the decision to be an Atheist and later on also a Secular Humanist, that being my ethical worldview...
It is interesting that I first made the choice to be identified as an Atheist and then about 2 years later, through a series of situations, it made sense to identify myself as a Secular Humanist.. Why not both at the same time?....
I guess a decision of non-belief was more important than a decision of what are my ethical beliefs... or at least it came first and was talked about far more often..
By far the most popular talk in the secular community was:
"I'm an Atheist, I don't believe in the existence of God, there are no good arguments for the existence of God, there is only evidence of a natural world, etc."
But very seldom was this the talk of the town:
"I'm a Secular Humanist, Secular Humanism is a superior ethical worldview to Christianity, it embraces the reality of human nature more thoroughly than the Christian view of people, it focuses on science and philosophy on a level not touched by religion, and it provides a proper framework for not just what is the best way to live life but how ought we to live our lives; the moral, ethical reasons for living a compassionate, meaningful life.."
But concerning what I underlined here, there are secularists who are wary of this type of thinking because it isn't coherent on the same level that mathematics is or empirical evidence. Philosopher's refer to this as the Is-ought problem..
And spending 10 minutes on the wiki link that I've provided here will show the average person how you can complicate things.. And I emphasize wiki because as you read there are words that are also links into a more fuller understand of the original article you are reading.
But it's easy to get lost in doing this as anyone who has explored a Wikipedia article understands. It's easy to get lost in analyzing something and fathoming the complexity of something and to have never involved your heart and emotions in the process and this is what I'm concerned about about secular intellectuals and their approach to emotions, relationships, spirituality, faith, God, and basically anything that is more abstract and not mathematically and or empirically precise, but just as valid of realities to a human being nonetheless!!
When I was active in CFI Portland (my secular community) a classic example of this was that people there would MAINLY AND ONLY discuss the hypocrisy of religion, the negative history of religion, arguments that would devalue the need for Christianity, the neuroscience that shows spirituality is merely a construct of the brain, and that evolution shows how belief in humans evolved..
But I would very rarely hear people, outside of myself, discuss with others the Psychology of religion, the Sociology of religion, why the church, for very significant reasons, is still to social backbone of society, why there are no secular alternatives to church that come even close to replacing it, the ways that prayer is important to a persons emotional and psychological health, why people need stories, narrative, symbolism, one's emotional, right-brain intelligence vs. their left-brain intelligence, and why it is a necessary part of human of nature to put meaningfulness into the hard and bleak realities of the world, etc.
I rarely heard these issues in the circle of topics that were discussed in CFI Portland in the 3-4 years that I actively participated in it's many meetups, events, and discussions..
But I discussed and progressively thought these things. And I think this is a huge reason why I continued beyond this circle of topics and into the more abstract topics which turn out to be the most important topics to most humans on this earth, more important than what we think we know intellectually!! And being open to these issues prepared me for being open to all that I have experienced this year..
But I get it...
We can only inquire thoroughly into so many topics..
In fact, it's not considered wise to know a little of a lot, but a lot of a little..
Because of this dilemma of our minds to be able to retain only so much information, we are forced to know only a handful of certain things really well and this can cause people to know a whole bunch about specific things but not sufficiently the context surrounding those things, therefore making their understanding of something far from complete..
But our mind is happiest when it knows something well enough and this certainty about something is more pleasant for our minds than being in uncertainty about things because you acknowledge that you don't know enough something.. It's our minds nature to not care about this intellectual integrity that acknowledges the complexity of things, that acknowledges the reality that we don't know as much as we want to think we know...
So these are some of the challenges that we are up against as fallible human beings..........
But if one wants to do religion justice and specifically, for the sake of this blog, Christianity justice, then you have to ALSO inquire into the more abstract, but just as important of realities that are in Christianity like the church experiences, prayer, faith, spirituality, etc.
And no, the response that you have been there and done Christianity and don't need to inquire into it again, will not fly! Because you are in danger of being biased and close-minded in your knowledge of these things, because many of you have been for a while now an intellectual reflecting on religion from your armchair and not getting off your bum and being the free inquiring Anthropologist that you know you should be, who steps into the environments where Christians practice their faith and taking in a fresh, AND MORE UNBIASED look at how other Christians meaningfully feel about their Christianity and why it is vital to them...
And in my next post I will discuss how this process in which I stepped away from my intellectual armchair was crucial in where I am today...
ALSO -->
I think I should reflect on and chronicle as a part of my December 27th post how and in
what ways I changed in my analyzing and reflecting on religion &
Christianity, especially starting as early as 2004, focusing on the years of
2006 when I first recognized a certain amount of unbelief in God to the years
of 2008-2010, which were the height of my being immersed in CFI Portland and
only surrounded by Atheists and Agnostics, to 2011, which was the twilight of
my involvement with CFI, to 2012, which was when I started going back to church,
and finally mid-2012 and later in my personally knowing Qivonne who greatly
helped me get back into Christianity… It
is important that I chronicle how I have changed in my approach in
understanding Christianity and to honestly ask myself how unbiased I have grown
over the years, or if that even matters..
((Also I need to email Bernie, and ask him to person chronicle how he
has changed in his approach of Christianity since his starting the Westside
religion and science discussion group))
This is important because there are VERY significant differences between
how I, Bernie, and (an old friend of mine)Sylvia approach our understanding
Christianity and religion in general…
On of the things that has deeply disappointed where I
thought I was going with my secularism in the name of intellectual integrity,
was how few people wanted to communicate with me on these topics; how little
most secular individuals showed a genuine enthusiasm to learn about the
narrative, symbolism, ritual, personal meaningfulness of, spirituality, and
faith of Christianity and why this is still immensely significant to people..
--I am stressing these points here, because I can think of
few things more important than the topics I have communicated in the posts of
this blog so far….
