Rick Asks About Unitarians and Unitheism, Are They Similar? If So, In What Ways?--FREEDOM & FAITH IN ACTION Options

[Lindsay]

Rick, I have a great respect for the Unitarian philosophy of religion: Here is a brief outline. Perhaps we could invite a unitarian to join the dialogue here.

http://web.mac.com/mgienke/iWeb/BSEUnitari...%20beliefs.html

BTW, over the years, I have been invited to speak at several Unitarian churches in the Toronto area. I usually use the topic: WHY I COULD BE A UNITARIAN, BUT I AM NOT.

My short answer is: Because the United Church of Canada is so inclusive in matters of theology and faith that I have all the freedom of belief I need within it. The UCC is more into orthopraxy (the practice of agape/Christian/Love--Like the Democrats are supposed to be, Rick) than in orthodoxy
=======================================================

Meanwhile, Check out: http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthrea...32917#Post32917

There I am carrying on a lively dialogue with several atheists/agnostics in a thread by Socratus. I think he is a physicist and a Russian Orthodox. The following is the latest post I made to his thread.

Where and Who is God ? .......

Good dialogue, everyone. If the following comment on the topic is a repeat, I apologize:

Socratus, I know you mean well in raising this question, but, for me, it is a question that I, as a unitheist, would never ask. http://www.unitheist.org

IMO, GOD is not a some 'who' who exists some 'where', like you and I exist. For me, to think of divine Being, the infinite and eternal Now in this way, is to create an idol with the mind.

When Richard Dawkins asks theists: "What and where is your evidence for 'God'" he is asking the same kind of question we have as the title of this topic. In effect he is asking: "Who is, and where is, your God? Introduce me!"

If he asked me this, my answer would be: "Richard your question is like that asked by very young children: 'Daddy! Mommy! If God made us and the world, who made God?'

"Children need to be more mature before they can even ask mature questions and understand mature answers. I trust you are mature and know what I mean when I say: GOD, like the whole of Nature, or Reality, is the every Who and the every Where in which you and I exist.

"Now, as a mature thinkers, surely we can turn on all our physical, mental and spiritual senses. Therefore, to you I say relax, enjoy--and as the scientist you are--continue to help all of us explore this self-evident panentheistic truth. If you prefer to call this truth Nature and/or Reality, go ahead. In addition, I like to use the succinct term GOD. I give you the same freedom of the use of language that I ask of you."
========================================================================

If anyone has Richard Dawkins e-mail, I would love to hear his response to the above.
BTW, I firmly feel that we all have the right to define GOD, God , god, whatever, ion our own terms.

[Hey Hey]

From Sheldrake's review of Dennet's book 'Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon":

The central message of this book is that religion is a product of evolutionary psychology, based on aspects of human nature favoured by natural selection over many thousands of years. Dennett proposes a variety of theories:

First, "sweet tooth" theories. We have evolved a receptor system for sweet things, and in a similar way we might have a "god centre" in our brains. Such a centre might depend on a "mystical gene" that was favoured by natural selection because people with it tended to survive better.

Second, religions might be memes that infect our brains. They are not necessarily parasitic, but could be symbiotic, conferring advantages on those who are infected.

Third, religion might be favoured in sexual selection by females. For example, women might have preferred men who demonstrated sensitivity to music and ceremony, thus spreading genes for religious behaviour within the population.

Fourth, religions may be cultural artifacts, like money. They could have evolved because they make social life more harmonious, secure and efficient. Or else they could have evolved because they enable an elite to prey upon the ill-informed and powerless.

Fifth, religions may be rather like pearls, beautiful byproducts that arose in response to irritants, which then captivated human beings for no good reason.

These theories are evidence-free and wildly speculative. By several criteria, they are pseudoscience. Or they are intellectual games. In any case, Dennett goes on to speculate further. For example, in shamanic cultures, there might have been natural selection for a "hypnotizability gene" that affected brain chemistry, making people more prone to suggestion by shamans, and hence more likely to survive ill health because of a greater placebo response.

He also proposes that we have inherited an evolved capacity for romantic love that has been exploited by religious memes, which could "get people to think that it was actually honourable to take offence, to attack all skeptics with fury, to lash out wildly and without concern for their own safety."