Spotlight on Confucianism IV: Reflections and Recap

Often I end a series with a critique. However, I already have several loose threads and adding another to the tapestry would be too much. 

Instead I am going to briefly answer three questions from my current perspective:

1) Is Confucianism a religion?
2) What are the similarities between Confucianism and Humanism?
3) Who might benefit by contemplating the beliefs and traditions of Confucianism?

1) Is Confucianism a religion?

Though I have discussed this question, I have yet to take a firm stance. My answer is that Confucianism is a religion, but there are a few caveats.  

Confucian ideas used for purely political ends, such as in the Han dynasty, are not religious. But the practice of divination, the belief in Heaven as guide for morality, and even the Confucian analysis of self should all be considered religious. 

Confucianism fits most academic theories of religion. It is about community (Emile Durkheim), though it does merge the sacred and the secular. Self, family, and community are ultimate concerns (Paul Tillich). And, some Confucians even report experiencing Heaven (William James).

But, if you believe that religion is defined by a belief in a personal God or gods (and would not substitute an impersonal metaphysical principle), then you would likely disagree with me. Though if this is the case, perhaps you would disqualify Christian Science as well. 

2) Should we compare Confucianism or other Eastern traditions/ideas to Western Humanism?

American Humanist Association advertising campaign.

First what is humanism? Humanism has two meanings, one general and one specific. The general definition is 'a system of thought that attaches prime importance to human needs'. Confucianism is a subset of this type of humanism. 

The more specific meaning of humanism focuses on rationality, empiricism, and materialism (the belief that all existence is comprised of matter and energy). Confucianism is typically not humanism according to this definition.

Here's why:

In Confucianism, T'ien is the source of morality, the metaphysical principle, and the first instance of the metaphysical principle. T'ien and materialism are incompatible, because a typical humanist would likely not accept the metaphysical underpinnings of Confucian divination. 

(Thanks to Greg Epstein for gently chastising me into thinking about humanism more globally)

3) Who might benefit by contemplating the beliefs and traditions of Confucianism?

An illustration of the perceived difference between Cofucianism (left) and Daoism (right)

Previously, I wrote a harsh review of Alaine de Botton's Religion for Atheists. My chief critique was that he only picked aspects of religion that he liked without a theoretical perspective or even specific practical considerations. 

I also thought that it was problematic to take specific festivals and rituals out of their original context without due care. 

I hope to avoid my own critiques by being specific who I think aspects of Confucianism might help. I have Asperger's, an autism spectrum 'disorder'. 

From a purely personal perspective, I never felt like belief in God or attending church helped me with social belonging.

When I read about the Confucian method of first cultivating myself and then expanding outwards, this made sense to me. Sure, there is prayer and other ways of self-cultivation in Christianity, but this is usually focused on an individual's relationship with God. 

I had immense difficulty understanding human people and I felt everyone wanted me to have a relationship with a God-person, whose intentions are admittedly outside of everyone's grasp.

Without an overall plan for self improvement, I studied humans academically: first psychology, then philosophy, then history, and finally religion. Currently, I think religion best encapsulates humanity. (But this is an argument I will write later).

As I understand it, this strategy is not unlike the Neo-Confucian concept of ko wu (the investigation of things). By practicing ko wu, you develop an understanding of Principle. 

Also, Confucianism focuses on guiding individuals as individuals, as opposed to one approach fits all (terrible for those who are demonstrably different). For instance, Confucius gives advice to his students based on what that person needs to work on, as opposed to a generalized set of rules. 

There is focus on definite moral rules as well (i.e. respect elders, fulfill your roles well, and etc...). Though, an emphasis on specific rules would help, it would be difficult to implement this in an American context beyond the family. And perhaps a failure of Confucianism is that it creates a misguided holism of the religious, ethical, and political. 

However, it seems like a good model to follow for those who are demonstrably different, as they can be formally taught ethical and moral theories that they could potentially put into practice in their own lives. 

Bottom line: 

Overall I have so far enjoyed Confucianism. Though, for my blog I am moving on to other religions. I am looking forward to further investigating Confucianism, particularly the philosophy of Chu Hsi. 

Spotlight on Atheism and Humanism V: Interview of Greg Epstein

       

       To my knowledge, religious criticism, as a comparison with art criticism, is a project of my own creation (if anyone knows differently please let me know). With that caveat, I would encourage any critic to practice self-criticism; not practicing self-criticism is a discredit to your project, doubly so if you are starting from scratch. I have had the good fortune to interview and learn from Greg Epstein, a humanist chaplain and leader of the Humanist Hub (featured in my previous post).

         

        One important lesson I learned from the following interview is always re-read someone’s book directly before interviewing them. Reading a book with the purpose of asking the author questions will help you immensely, regardless of your perceived familiarity with it.

        Epstein was polite and expanded on points he made in his book and due to his patience this interview is of great value to those wishing to better understand this version of humanism.

  

Q: Is the Humanist Hub religious?

A: No. Anthropologically speaking, if you are a follower of Clifford Geertz, sure it’s religious. So it depends on your definition, but we have to make a decision and to avoid confusion we are not religious.

Q: I’m generally a Durkheimian, is the Humanist Hub religious in this respect?

A: In many ways it is a religion, if using other theorists, Weber Rappaport and others.

Q: I noticed in your service and on your website you emphasize ‘reason’. What do you mean by ‘reason’?

A: We do use reason, but we use it less than other humanistic organizations. For instance, there is the United Coalition of Reason. But we are less enthusiastic about it being primary and we don’t have a monopoly on the term.

Reason corresponds to thinking about reality and connotes using all faculties of investigation. It is not wishing that reality is something else. Steven Pinker, the cognitive scientist, says reason is the ability to use our highest intellectual functions that have evolved to solve problems.

Q: I generally like to ask a question or two about the organization. What was it like recently switching from solely serving Harvard students to serving the broader community? For instance, did it go smoothly?

A: I don’t think smoothly is descriptive, because human communities hardly ever go smoothly. But it has gone well. There is a huge demand for this type of organization and a huge non-religious population that really does want community in a professionally facilitated way.

It is becoming increasingly well facilitated. The Humanist Hub is not funded by Harvard. But to be affiliated we have to spend a significant percentage serving Harvard students. We have broadened the scope to serve dozens more.

Q: In your book you state that a better question about God is “what do you believe about God.” So what do you believe about God?

A: Like I say in my book, I believe that God is the most influential literary character created. More is explained about the world, more about ourselves through this concept. It’s empowering to have all of these things fall into place with greater clarity of the universe and ourselves.       

Q: Is humanism a logical conclusion of the Protestant Reformation?

A: Organized humanism is not a natural product of the Protestant Reformation, but more accurately a product of human experience. There are humanist ideas in both Eastern and Western traditions. It’s global and the way you presented the question presents humanism as being Eurocentric, as if it’s THE experience of humanism.

Different cultures have just as much to say about humanism. There is more said in the ancient Indian traditions about atheism and agnosticism then in the entire ancient Greek cannon.

Q: What is the inherent nature of humankind? Are we inherently good or inherently bad?

A: There is no simplistic answer. Evolution has no moral design. We evolved both to cooperate and to be selfish. Humans continue expanding the circle of human concern, as argued by Peter Singer and Martha Nussbaum. We are trying to become conscious of our own evolution. And we are imperfect in this attempt.

Humanism isn’t about human perfection or human perfectibility; it is recognizing that we are only human.  

Bottom Line:

       

            After the interview, I unexpectedly spent a lot of time thinking about the question: “How Western is humanism?” And I am very grateful to Epstein for bringing this question to my attention. My view on this question has evolved and is still evolving. I currently believe that humanist-like ideas are extremely widespread (historically and globally), but that humanism as a belief system and as a way of life is primarily contemporary and Western.

     

        My primary concern is the applicability of translation; Eastern religions often have different metaphysical systems (underlying assumptions about the universe) than Western ones. For instance, Confucianism’s cosmology/metaphysics starts with the individual and addresses their participation in the cosmos. In Confucianism, there is no God, and perhaps not even a static order to the universe. Epstein’s Humanist Hub is a ‘godless congregation,’ in the context of a God-filled society.

        What would such an organization look like inside a context that stresses God/gods less (i.e. many Eastern societies)? Would one call less theistic traditions ‘humanistic religions’? How would/does humanism change these less theistic religious cosmologies? How would/do less theistic religious cosmologies change humanism?

        All of these questions point to the difficulty of translating abstract concepts, like humanism, from one context to another. These questions are potentially answerable and likely someone has already written on these questions. (If you know of someone working on the translation of humanist concepts and worldviews between Eastern and Western traditions, please comment).

        These difficult questions are the beginning of a conversation, not the end; I welcome responses.   

Spotlight on Atheism and Humanism IV: The Humanist Hub

       

Creating Meaning Together: The Humanist Hub

       As ‘A Religion Critic,’ I have had no other experience that has challenged me (in a good way) than my visit to the Humanist Hub. I have been humbled twice, once at the meeting itself and again in my interview with Greg Epstein, leader of the Hub (also forthcoming). In writing this, I find it difficult to give context to the origins of humanism. Nevertheless context matters, regardless of the difficulty. I also gained a deep respect for Greg Epstein in the process, though our interaction was brief. 

       

        Whereas, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other major religions have a specific place and time in which they developed, humanist ideas do not. There are examples of humanist ideas in Eastern and Western religious texts, from the Rg Veda to Ecclesiastes. In the contemporary period there are many non-religious humanists from many cultures (unlike Epstein, I still suspect that the number of professing living humanists is less than 1 billion). In these respects, humanism is global.

       

       The Humanist Hub does have a place and time in which it originated. They were founded in 1974 as the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard, originally serving only Harvard University students; however, recently they have broadened their scope to serve people of all ages and backgrounds. It is this Western liberal context that MOST influences them. Though they work extremely hard at realizing the larger context of humanism, which is the most that can be expected of them.

       

        When entering the Humanist Hub natural light, at least on sunny days, illuminates most of the room. On one side there are comfortable chairs away from the center. This center has folding chairs in several rows. When I got there, a few minutes past starting time, there was a middle aged musician with the appearance of a hippy strumming a guitar, while the rest of the ‘congregation’ conversed among themselves. (Epstein himself calls the Humanist Hub a godless congregation).

       

        During this time I was able to look at their book shelf. It was adorned with Doubt, Pagans and Christians, Skeptical Inquirer (magazine), various books by New Atheist authors, and more. The books suggested skepticism towards religious claims, i.e. God, that was continued politely and non-dogmatically both in Epstein’s talk and discussions with the other congregants.

       

        The meeting was called to order and a musician played an original song called “In This Place.” It praised the Humanist Hub, for its openness to freethinking and dialogue. In form, but not content, this song reminded me of the Christian hymn with the same title. At my previous visit the same person sang a song about how wonderful it is that all that you see is all there is, implying that there is no world of spirits, God, or gods; there is just the natural world.

       

        The music portion was short. I get the sense that people do not usually sing along. However, it was the singer’s birthday this week; so, encouraged and backed up by the entire congregation, he sang happy birthday to himself.

        The talk was primarily about spirituality, at least what it was and wasn’t according to Epstein. He started with the observation that many in the humanist community were arguing over two incompatible views. The first group really wants humanism to be spiritual and the second really doesn’t want it to be spiritual.

       

        My initial reaction was that this is silly; ‘spirituality’ has so many meanings that the word is essentially useless. But if I am being fair ‘God’ has just as many meanings. Borrowing from Epstein, but replacing ‘God’ with ‘spirituality,’ the first question that should be asked is: what do you believe about spirituality. This question is necessary before you decide whether spirituality should be important to humanism or not.

       

        Epstein did something very similar. He started out by giving us examples of what spiritualty isn’t. Spiritualty is not religion. It does not make religious concepts, such as God, Karma, afterlife, dogma, or ‘cat’ma, central. It is not Eastern mysticism interpreted uncritically. Spirituality is not the idea that everything happens for a reason (it doesn’t, he stated forcefully, then retracted slightly; saying that this was his firm opinion). Most importantly to Epstein, spirituality is not going it alone contra to the 19^th century transcendentalist Emerson.

        When discussing Eastern mysticism, Epstein screened a College Humor video featuring an imagined Ghandi in an exaggerated version of an American yoga class: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMc9s8oDWE. Many of the congregation participated in a discussion about the Hindu concept of ‘yoga’ and whether it: has changed, is syncretic (combination of two or more religions/cultures), and/or racist/insensitive to people of Indian descent. This discussion was reminiscent of discussions in graduate religion courses.

       

       

        During this talk there were several references to the television show Mad Men. It seemed to function almost like a sacred text to this congregation or at least to Epstein. He referenced it several times, sometimes offering interpretations, and sometimes refraining from interpretation. One thing that he took from Mad Men was that people often believe that they should feel a certain way or do certain things; and when they don’t, they feel guilty. We broke into small groups and I heard, for the first time, what I would like to call atheist guilt.

       

        Atheist guilt is the feeling that you only live one life and this one life has to be lived well. Failing to live your life well means there is no second chance and no possibility of redemption on your deathbed. So then how do you plan your one life to make it the most meaningful in the time you have? This was quite likely the most ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious’ atheist discussion I have been able to witness. (Both ‘spiritual’ and ‘religious’ are words that should be taken with a huge grain of salt in this context).

       

        I did not share with this small group and being at such a great advantage doesn’t sit well with me, especially since I am writing about them. So (to the Humanist Hub members that I heard speak) my elephant is this: I fail in my interpersonal relationships. And when I think about my failures I get overwhelmed and do nothing or at least very little.

       

        In my understanding of Epstein’s talk, the answer to what humanist spirituality could be is: sharing in the struggle, sorrows, and joys of life together.

Bottom Line:

       

        To me, this meeting was beautiful. I often imagine ideas as a gallery. We have existentialist ideas, religious ideas, political ideas, and etc… I imagine myself viewing them from a distance and seeing them, much like art, as a reflection of their time as well as for their beauty, truth, and usefulness.

       

        Epstein helped enable a community, or at least this single meeting, to produce, or at VERY least ornately organize and pack, beautiful and deep ideas.

       

        Admittedly part of this reaction is that godless congregations are a relatively new idea. New art forms can be attractive and seductive precisely because they have not yet been seen. But, this is not wholly relevant in this case. I reviewed the book Religion for Atheists and visited Sunday Assembly Boston and saw potential in each (despite my criticisms); but both seemed incomplete. The Humanist Hub does not.

       

        I did give good without God, Epstein’s book, a mediocre review. I do stand by my critiques; but like religion, this version of humanism can’t be captured in a book. Minor errors like pointing out bad use of numbers, using the wrong terminology when discussing science, or even logical errors can’t take away from something deeper. 

Spotlight on Atheism and Humanism III: Sunday Assembly Boston

       

        Atheism is likely a logical result of Western reactions to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In the West, humanism has had similar origins. In particular, Christianity has dominated the Anglo-American world until non-belief became a viable intellectual option towards the end of the 19^th century.

James Turner, a prominent historian, argues that non-belief became a viable option not as a result of actions or beliefs of the less devout, but rather due to devout Christians expecting God to conform to human standards of morality and reason. Now, in the 21^st century, non-believers are starting to come together in communities that could potentially be considered religious.

The Boston chapter of Sunday Assembly is one of two such communities in the Greater Boston Area. Sunday Assembly was first founded in England when two comedians Pippa Evans and Sanderson Jones missed the community of church, but not its beliefs. Thus, their goal was to start a community based on non-belief.

Sunday Assembly Boston meetings are typically held in a space shared with Democracy Now. The assemblers that were gathered at the first meeting I attended were mostly younger and white, though a few were a bit older. From what I could glean, it seemed that most of them were atheist or agnostic, but I was told that there are even some traditionally religious people who occasionally attend.  

            

         The chairs were set up in rows almost like pews, and since the meeting was delayed I inquired about the leadership structure of Sunday Assembly. I learned that the founders wanted it to be egalitarian with no single leader. Ironically, a good portion of this meeting emphasized that Sunday Assembly Boston was following the leadership of its founders.

Continuing to ask about the governance of Sunday Assembly, I asked, if they did not want to have a single leader why did they not organize the chairs in a circle like the Quakers. He was unfamiliar with them and any other congregational style of church governance. (In fairness, the majority of churches with a congregational style of church governance have pew seating).

         In retrospect, it is not surprising that he was unaware of the Quakers; Sunday Assembly was modeled on contemporary evangelical Christianity and the Anglican Church. The founders did not search for different types of religious community, but settled on familiar models.

A leader was wearing a shirt with ‘live better’ inside a triangle. This triangle was an awkward design. The words were difficult to distinguish due to the letters being stacked on top of each other like an eye exam chart. When I asked several of the leaders about this design, they did not have an answer, though at my second visit they did.

          When the meeting started, we stood up to sing Michael Jackson's Man in the Mirror played on a speaker system. The assemblers (congregants?) sang along mostly without any gusto or enthusiasm reminiscent of Eddie Izzard's sketch mocking the singing at Anglican churches. Though, the enthusiasm at my second visit was much better.

         

We then broke into pairs and played Tic-Tac-Toe with a twist. Instead of a normal 3 x 3 grid, we were given a 4 x 4 grid adding 7 more squares to the typical Tic-Tac-Toe board. We were told that the objective was to score as many points as possible and that each Tic-Tac-Toe was worth one point. The point of this exercise was to contemplate the possibility that life is not composed only of win-lose situations, but also win-win situations (and presumably also lose-lose situations though this was not made explicit).

There were two speakers. These speakers told their life stories with emphasis on their humanistic achievements. The second speaker was an astronomer who advocated his own motto: ruth and truth. Ruth means compassion and is the root of ruthless. Thus, he was advocating compassion and truth as humanist ideals.

         

The first speaker dominated the question and answer portion of the second speaker, asking him how he reconciles his Unitarianism with his humanism. This repeated questioning betrayed the questioner's lack of understanding of Unitarian Universalism, because from its inception to its current practice Unitarian Universalism is deeply connected to humanism. 

         While this was an interesting exchange the questioner was not affiliated with Sunday Assembly. However, this and other aspects of the meeting left me with the impression that assemblers and their speakers do not know much about their religious options.

         We sang two more songs at the end of the meeting, including David Bowie’s Space Oddity. Though they changed some of the lyrics: “And may God’s love be with you” was changed to “And may our love be with you,” removing even ornamental (and historical) references to God.

         Before deciding to officially review Sunday Assembly Boston I decided to attend a second Assembly. This meeting was held in a lecture hall at Harvard University giving it a less religious feeling than the first.

Pop songs were still sung and there was still a speaker. However, this speaker was much better and the songs were sung with more enthusiasm. They even gave context to the song choice and speaker, making it feel much less haphazard. 

The speaker was a national poetry slam winner, who was working on a graduate degree in education at Harvard University. His poems were mostly about race, poverty, and family and were thought provoking as well as entertaining. You should check him out at www.clintsmithiii.com

I found it commendable that some of the leaders remembered my first visit and were better prepared for questions. One person even joked that I was not being asking difficult enough questions.

          Why triangles? They have a history of being used as symbols for certain members of the downtrodden like homosexuals, who were forced to wear pink triangles in Nazi concentration camps. Why not Unitarian Universalism? Sunday Assembly provides community to those who want a place free of any mention of God. Etc.... 

         Being a relatively new organization (to date the Boston chapter has had only 14 meetings) their lack of organization and coherent belief systems (at least in their first meeting) are somewhat unsurprising. And they are quite likely still evolving.

Bottom line:

         Is Sunday Assembly religious? Even the assemblers were divided on this question. And frankly, I am puzzled as well. If I strictly adhere to my preferred conception of religion as community, then I have to say that they are religious. However, the flaw of this theory is that organizations not normally considered religious could easily be included in the category of religion. 

          Sunday Assembly fits the community theory, but does not require its members to have any specific metaphysical system. Though, arguably, the de facto metaphysic is materialistic. Nor does it require specific actions, like prayer, meditation, chanting, or reading of a Holy Text outside of the meeting.

        Would I join? Probably not. I do applaud their attempt at a non-religious community, but despite their advertisements, I feel as though my appreciation of religion would cause friction in their community. Though, I will likely visit again to see what they are up to. 

        My next post will be about the Humanist Hub, loosely affiliated with Harvard University, which I think is a better model of what organized non-belief can be. 

          

Spotlight on Humanism and Atheism II: Religion for Atheists book review

In my absence from this blog, I have been reading Alain de Botton’s Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion, the topic of this book review. Unlike the New Atheists, he acknowledges that religion has touched something deep and that secular society can learn from religion. Alain de Botton is also the author of How Proust Can Change Your Life and Consolations of Philosophy, among others.

I am reviewing Religion for Atheists in part due to demand and also because I cannot but conclude that Religion for Atheists is full of potentially dangerous ideas. But I open it up to my readers to prove me wrong.          

140 word summary.

Often atheists vehemently oppose religious beliefs and as a result dismiss the entirety of religion, but faiths can be adapted to build community and relieve bodily and mental suffering. For instance, coopting an older version of the Lord’s Supper to nonreligious settings could decrease loneliness. By ignoring religion’s depth, de Botton argues we have secularized badly. Secular society has avoided simplicity; even the most libertarian among us believe that children need guidance, but most of us believe that as adults we are entirely self-directing. Yet often we find ourselves in need of comfort and guidance. Another problem de Botton addresses is that knowledge is arranged in abstract categories, instead of in ways that would give helpful direction for the alleviation of our suffering. We should build institutions and communities that can give guidance and comfort.

Extended Critique and Analysis:

          

         De Botton’s project is to have secular institutions subsume the role that religion has historically played in society. Religion for Atheists helped form my opinion on how to discuss the humanities in common forums. Specifically, I would like to add de Botton’s use of humanities to alleviate psychological suffering and the bonding of communities, but leave open other interpretations of the humanities, which he seems to preclude.

 I agree with de Botton that we have lost a certain sense of community now that God is no longer a given for society. Since about 1900 the option of non-belief was possible and, at least in the west, increasingly more people have been availing themselves of the option of nonbelief.

The consequences of the ‘death of God’ are often not sufficiently addressed. Though de Botton would likely not sully his project with this historical background (in general he seems to want to remove literature, religion, and many other human endeavors, from its contextual and historical background).

           

         Community building and the alleviation of suffering are what he thinks are the most noble of religion’s goals, and methods for both can be adapted to non-religious societies. So the rituals and ideas that he chooses work on these levels.

De Botton’s program is deceptively dangerous. At the beginning of his book he states that he expects a reaction from religious people, who would object to his taking religion piecemeal, and certain atheists, who would deny that there are any uses for religion. But I think the people who should push back the most against de Botton’s project are historians. Take his proposed organization of museums and university departments as an example. According to de Botton, museums and universities should be reorganized around categories such as relationships and suffering to give us a space to reflect on our human existence. Organizing knowledge solely in this way limits historical contextualization.

Granted he would not remove Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, or any other important figures from the reading list—he does admire them and draws from them. But, a historically contextualized understanding is important to begin understanding how these thinkers operated. Ideas have an intellectual genealogy, and genealogy is very often a human preoccupation. It gives us an understanding of how we got where we are, and perhaps an understanding of where we are going. How many novels, movies, and plays are about rediscovering one’s own history, whether it be the world’s history, a country’s history, or a family’s history? How could we teach history if the goal is to present information only in specific thematic categories?

It would be nice for those steeped in the humanities to have a stock answer that is not self-condescending to the question ‘why the humanities matter.’ But, I think his answer should be rejected because ultimately, if offered as the only answer, it makes the case for the humanities harder. Are we not simply, and explicitly, navel gazing if we expect education solely to help ourselves? Why should we have a department that teaches empathy when understanding people from other time periods has been effectively eviscerated? You can’t understand the novel of the 19th century without understanding the history of the 19th century.

Context matters, unless you are claiming that there is some universal truth that is applicable to everyone. Universal truth was the project of the enlightenment until it got demolished, at least in the academic world, by minorities, feminists (particularly third wave), and postmodernism. The part of me that reacts against postmodernism was rooting for him throughout the book; however, we need a reaction to postmodernism that acknowledges that Truth is often used as a power grab, that there are multiple ways to read a text, and that not everyone can have the same experience when reading a text. De Botton believes we are like children who need comfort, support, and answers. But little attention is given to how such a society is going to be structured to allow this support given our vastly different experiences.  

          

         Thus, it’s not surprising that virtually all of his examples of art and literature come from the pen or brush of white men; though some of his religious examples come from non-Western contexts. In either case, he typically imposes an interpretation onto classical works, such as Madame Bovary being about marriage. His single answer to what literature is for is essentially a sophisticated version of self-help. It helps us live more lifetimes than if literature was not around.  

His interpretation of religious ideas and rituals also suffer from his tendency to provide only one interpretation. De Botton too often takes religious ideas and rituals out of their context and interprets them without acknowledging or asking how people who practice these rituals or have these beliefs interpret their rituals and beliefs. He is presuming the authority to interpret for these people. This is a paradigmatic example of the use of truth as power. In one passage, he interprets the chanoyu, the Japanese tea ceremony, as having exactly the same meaning as the Chinese version without skipping a beat.

In this respect, his project is oddly restrictive. There seems to be no questioning the interpretation once it has been determined. This means that questions about the structure of novels (as an example) are irrelevant and the structure of the question of meaning is predetermined, both for literature and religion.

On one level I am very sympathetic to outsider interpretations of a particular religious ritual or belief. You cannot allow only Hindus (as an example) to interpret Hinduism; however, you also cannot allow only outsiders to interpret Hinduism. We need to have discussions about what functions, if any, these rituals perform for practitioners before we try to interpret and appropriate them for our own use or make general claims about humanity based on them.

          

         The one good thing that I took from Religion for Atheists is that I can now add “How is this helpful to my life” to my list of questions when I read certain philosophers or religious figures. I will also consider asking this question to those who practice various faiths. The religion that is probably the best equipped to answer this question is Buddhism. Many types of Buddhist meditation help individuals become more compassionate towards oneself and others—helping people with the practical aspects of their lives. However, I worry once we start asking what something is for, whether it be religion, art, literature, or (to add one of my own) playing, we forget to enjoy the activity and only start looking for utilitarian purposes.  

Bottom Line:

          

         Whether it be ignoring all of postmodernism, eviscerating the concept of history, or questionably appropriating religious cultures, there is a lot to question in De Botton’s work. I want to be wrong about him. And my gut is telling me that my brain is wrong, but it may just be a hope against hope.   

Spotlight on Humanism and Atheism I: good without God book review

Sloppiness without Godliness

          

           Why should I cover atheism or humanism when they are not generally considered religions? Because there are some atheists and humanists that have developed communities that resemble evangelical churches. In the Boston area there is the Sunday Assembly and the Humanist Hub. Greg Epstein, humanist chaplain, lives in the Boston area and is the author of good without God, the subject of this book review. He argues that humanists should develop community (or a religion alternative) otherwise humanists risk sending them back to religion. He is probably right, but the execution of the book was annoyingly sloppy in a few key places.  What follows is the typical 140 word summary and then The Critique. Enjoy!

140 word summary of good without God:           

          

           Humanism is goodness without God and realizing that womb to tomb is the totality of human existence. Why and how we can be good without God are better questions than whether we can be good without God. Sociologically humanism resembles religion, but humanism differs from religion because it lacks supernaturalism. Humanists believe in subjective values that require argument. Humanism has a proud lineage from Epicurus to Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, and Darwin, to the unknown number of humanists today. Practically, the humanist message is to be passionate about preserving and advancing dignity. Dignity is an awareness that all human beings are human. This requires no God, just an awareness of other’s sufferings and celebrations. Humanism melds a comprehensive philosophy with a deeply practical and ethical social commitment. It is necessary for humanists to act together for the greater good. 

The Critique:       

           The sloppiness with Epstein’s book starts with the subtitle “What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe.” For Epstein, being ‘good without God’ is humanism and for this subtitle to be accurate one out of seven people in the world have to be nonreligious, think about their nonreligiosity, and think about what it means to be good without God. This type of humanism, with its emphasis on ‘good without God,’ is mostly restricted to the Western world. Thus, it’s unlikely that there are a billion or so humanists of this type in the world. Thus, to consistently maintain that you are adequately representing one billion nonreligious is arrogance. Luckily, he does not maintain this position consistently; he tacitly admits that ‘strivers’ those who just worry about getting more things, may be members of the world’s largest religion. Given these problems a different subtitle should have been chosen, perhaps: ‘good without God: What Everyone Needs to Know.’ Though, even this does not capture his call to action in later chapters.

           He is also sloppy in his discussion of science. He uses the phrase ‘the scientific method’ (emphasis added) as he complains that some people do not understand science. It is right and proper to hold science in high esteem, but any good introduction to the philosophy of science should convince anyone that there are multiple methodologies that scientists use, and there is no definitive definition of science. Giving Epstein the benefit of the doubt, his statement may just be poorly phrased. 

           My last example of sloppiness is a logical error. Epstein complains that people believe that you can’t be good without God because you can be evil and believe in God (e.g. Nazis and Bin Laden). This is not baffling. Essentially the first claim implies that all good people are with God, but it does not say that all people who are with God are good people. Thus, even logically, it’s possible for people to believe that you can’t be good without God and admit there are evil people who do their evil in the name of God. This is not baffling and something that many religious people will likely admit.

            So far I have just been talking about sloppiness. But there is some clear content that I find problematic, though not fatal to his project. He states that there are some people (both atheist and religious) who reject pluralism, the usual foundation for interfaith work. Pluralism is the position that diversity in religion is good and that other religious ideas have merit. While the sentiment behind interfaith is great and I would not dismiss the possibility of employment in interfaith work, excluding non-pluralists from the conversation is problematic, though perhaps necessary. But this means that interfaith organizations can devolve into liberal or moderate religious people talking only to each other about their liberalness and moderation. That being said, Epstein’s goal in this section to argue for the inclusion of atheists into these interfaith movements, not to discuss the merits or demerits of pluralistic interfaith dialogue.  

           One excellent point in the book is the observation that we should ask people what they believe about God, not if they believe in God. Asking if someone believes in God is insufficient because there are so many conceptions of God it should make your head spin. Is god omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? Is God the ‘ground of being’? Is God love? Is God a person? And there are many many more. Also, some argue that none of these conceptions do justice to a God that is supposed to be wholly other. Epstein concludes this section by stating that the further removed you are from the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent conception of God the more someone like Rick Warren, famous evangelist, will consider you closer to humanism. And if he thinks you are a humanist, why not at least ally yourself with humanism and some of the nonreligious.  

Bottom line:

                

            Because of the sloppiness, this was a mediocre book. I agree with the sentiment that people should understand science and that people should acknowledge that people can be good without God. One thing that did annoy me greatly was the subtitle. It is arrogance to claim to speak for one billion people. If there was a book about Christianity titled ‘what 2 billion Christians do believe’, I would make similar comments, because the book would end up being filled with exceptions rather than common ground. But Epstein’s book did not really even focus on commonalities, rather it was almost a call for what humanists should believe and do (i.e. create community), rather than what they do believe.