United Deist Church

MOst importantly is that we use thos of all philosophical standings to underatand that 1) mankind must survive 2) In doing so mankind must act with virtue 3) No one person can make the race or humans act virtuously. 4) Only through reason directed toward the greater good can mankind survive.
TO these thoughts I would again mention moderation, fallibility etc etc as I have in my paper on the human consciousness. But The fact that we few can consider and reason through grand schemes shows that there is in fact hope for humankind regardless of current or past shortcomings we must look to the future. The creator does not intervene for within us lay the answers on how to do what is right. Religion or not , human kind deserves to have a coalition or individuals using reason to proper their race aside from political or "religous" practices.

Azillion wrote:

MOst importantly is that we use thos of all philosophical standings to underatand that 1) mankind must survive 2) In doing so mankind must act with virtue 3) No one person can make the race or humans act virtuously. 4) Only through reason directed toward the greater good can mankind survive.
TO these thoughts I would again mention moderation, fallibility etc etc as I have in my paper on the human consciousness. But The fact that we few can consider and reason through grand schemes shows that there is in fact hope for humankind regardless of current or past shortcomings we must look to the future. The creator does not intervene for within us lay the answers on how to do what is right. Religion or not , human kind deserves to have a coalition or individuals using reason to proper their race aside from political or "religous" practices.

I absolutely agree!

Makes me think of this (it is especially interesting for those of the tin-foil hat persuasion)

Georgia Guidestones
MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000
IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE

GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY —
IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY

UNITE HUMANITY WITH A LIVING
NEW LANGUAGE

RULE PASSION — FAITH — TRADITION
AND ALL THINGS
WITH TEMPERED REASON

PROTECT PEOPLE AND NATIONS
WITH FAIR LAWS AND JUST COURTS

LET ALL NATIONS RULE INTERNALLY
RESOLVING EXTERNAL DISPUTES
IN A WORLD COURT

AVOID PETTY LAWS AND USELESS
OFFICIALS

BALANCE PERSONAL RIGHTS WITH
SOCIAL DUTIES.

PRIZE TRUTH — BEAUTY — LOVE —
SEEKING HARMONY WITH THE
INFINITE

BE NOT A CANCER ON THE EARTH —
LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE —
LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE

Yeah, I kinda like Az territory there.

Deists are not the only ones yearning for a rational religion. In Did Man Create God?, David E. Comings MD says that recent findings of neuroscience indicate that "spirituality is hardwired in the human brain". So he believes that attempts to eliminate religion and spiritual expression are misguided.

I haven't read the book yet, but from what I see online, I must agree that, in a literal sense, humans did indeed invent the various imaginary god-concepts in their attempts to explain the existence and meaning of the world around them. In my view, anything we might say about G*D is a crude human interpretation of a "revelation" encoded in the cryptic language of Nature. Consequently, it would be accurate to say that "spirituality" is hardwired in the natural brain, and emerges automatically as pre-verbal concepts in the human mind; which are then interpreted into the appropriate cultural memes of the time and place.

According to my Informationism theory of creative evolution, the Creator of Man embedded a sense of rudimentary morality, and a curiosity about origins by way of the gradual, natural processes of Evolution. From that perspective, G*D is the ultimate Mind from which all forms, and information, and ideas, flow. However, I suspect that the book offers a rational Humanistic Spirituality as an alternative to the various traditional forms of "irrational spirituality".

1. So the question arises, what kind of spiritual expression would Deists advocate within the context of a Deist Religion? How would it be different from a godless Humanistic spirituality?

2. As far as religion and spirituality are concerned, does it make any practical difference whether Man Created God or God Created Man?

3. Where truth is concerned, should we care whether God is a figment of human imagination, or if humans are figments of divine imagination?

http://didmancreategod.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Did-Man-Create-God-Spiritual/dp/1878267728/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222639971&sr=1-1
<< Dr. Comings concludes that religious intolerance, wars and terrorism are based on irrational spirituality where there is an incompatibility between the rational and spiritual brain, where individuals believe that one person's God is better than another's. By contrast a rational spirituality allows individuals of all religions to live in peace. This book is a potentially life changing read for anyone who has ever had doubts about their faith or religion but wanted [rational?] responses . . . >>

One function of "religion" is that it gives faith (or cause for faith), a place to convene with those of common beliefs, and a text of some kind that gives fable like references by which peopel to learn. That book is not what I see as useful. A diest collective would give all but that. For instead of fables to learn from , we use reason and educate the process of reasoning so others can succeed on their own. All else falls into place on its own.

Azillion wrote:

One function of "religion" is that it gives faith (or cause for faith), a place to convene with those of common beliefs, and a text of some kind that gives fable like references by which people to learn.

IMO, religion is about people traveling together on a shared or common spiritual path. With traditional religion that path is usually very well defined, driven from behind by a strict hierarchy of those "in the know" and in many cases walled off to keep "the sheep" in line.

Not every spiritual path is walled off or driven from behind however and not everyone who shares a spiritual path with someone else is a sheep.

Gnomon wrote:

1. So the question arises, what kind of spiritual expression would Deists advocate within the context of a Deist Religion?

Whatever a deist may see as rational I guess.

Gnomon wrote:

How would it be different from a godless Humanistic spirituality?

It might not be any different at all.

Gnomon wrote:

2. As far as religion and spirituality are concerned, does it make any practical difference whether Man Created God or God Created Man?

Maybe it doesn't.

Gnomon wrote:

3. Where truth is concerned, should we care whether God is a figment of human imagination, or if humans are figments of divine imagination?

Perhaps the "truth" is that both things are true.

So whose in charge of maintaining a record of well reasoned truths by which to further the understanding of our world through deist beleifs

No one and everyone.

Azillion wrote:

So whose in charge of maintaining a record of well reasoned truths by which to further the understanding of our world through deist beleifs

And thus begins the problems I have with organized systems of belief.

Not everybody sees the same world, or reality, and certainly not the same vision of spirituality.

Or as one of my favorite authors put it,
"Tiger got to hunt. Bird got to fly. Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?'"

Fact is fact , reason is reason , so long as you say truth then everyone will come to the same conclusion.

Azillion wrote:

Fact is fact , reason is reason , so long as you say truth then everyone will come to the same conclusion.

How come they don't then?

Conclusions are rarely consensus.

Azillion wrote:

So whose in charge of maintaining a record of well reasoned truths by which to further the understanding of our world through deist beleifs

The job of discovering and maintaining a record of Wisdom and Truth was once the responsibility of philosophers, sages, and religious priests or scribes. In our time, those ancient records have become rigid fossils, so they are no longer able to bend and conform to changing conditions. Cultural evolution has accelerated in recent generations, to the point where our cherished beliefs must adapt or extinguish.

Consequently, in the last few centuries, that job of maintaining up-to-date and "well-reasoned truths" has been done mostly by atheistic and materialistic scientists, who have no sacred traditions to protect. But I think the time has come for Science to expand its purview to cover the metaphysical realm of Truths as well as the physical world of Things.

Fortunately, I see signs that Science---especially those disciplines studying the extremities of reality such as quantum mechanics and cosmology---is gradually beginning to view the world less as a materialistic machine, and more like a living organism. And that emerging wholistic, organic worldview is both conducive to and compatible with "deistic beliefs".

So I imagine that the sages and scribes and priests of any future Proligion will come from the ranks of those grounded, not only in ancient myths and outmoded traditions, but in cutting-edge scientific understanding of how the world works on all levels of knowledge. We seem to be at another tipping-point, similar to the 17th century Enlightenment, where a long-successful institution---in this case Science---is forced to make radical changes in order to avoid becoming obsolete. We may be on the verge of a new Age of Reason, which reconciles the artificial dichotomy between Body and Mind, between Physics and Metaphysics.

History, including literature, is a record of what people knew and believed in the past. It is also a record of how that knowledge and those beliefs have changed over time. Instead of resisting inevitable change, a Proligion must embrace it and work with it to produce new understandings and new beliefs. So who wants to volunteer to take charge of recording the changing truths of our tumultuous time? Who will be the scribe of a United Deist Church? Will that congregation of skeptical believers, be formal and hierarchical, or casual and democratic? Stay tuned to see what happens next.

Well, since I have the beginnings of an online Deist church, I must think it is possible. A church is two things: a place of worship or a religious congregation. I don't think a place of worship could work for Deists. I think we can be a spiritual community. I don't know if it can work in a physical setting, but I believe Deism can support a viable online church community.

In a sense, our online communities already are churches. We congregate to talk about our spirituality and our beliefs. That is the beginning of a church, whether we call it that or not.

I just got back from the Texas Freethought Convention. The groups there convinced me more than ever that an online Deist church is very much a reasonable thing to attempt.

Hi Chuck. Welcome to the forum.

cc glad to see you!

My wife and I go to All Souls UU church here in Tulsa. It's actually the biggest UU church in the US and maybe the world. But you wouldn't know it to look at it.

We have a wide spectrum of opinion here ranging from atheist to mystic but Deism is probably the dominant view though most of them don't realize they are Deists!

stretmediq wrote:

cc glad to see you!

My wife and I go to All Souls UU church here in Tulsa. It's actually the biggest UU church in the US and maybe the world. But you wouldn't know it to look at it.

We have a wide spectrum of opinion here ranging from atheist to mystic but Deism is probably the dominant view though most of them don't realize they are Deists!

Yo, stret!

The UU Church is a fine example of a church that can offer a place to congregate and be spiritual even if you are atheist. My problem with the UU has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with their politics. In fact, many congregations are more political activist than religious.

Discussing politics can be very interesting, but I don't want to mix it with religion. It gives me the Constitutional Heebeejeebees.

Aaron wrote:

Hi Chuck. Welcome to the forum.

Thanks. I don't know why I took so long.

cclendenen wrote:

The UU Church is a fine example of a church that can offer a place to congregate and be spiritual even if you are atheist. My problem with the UU has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with their politics. In fact, many congregations are more political activist than religious.

Agreed! It is the political activism that has kept me from formally joining the Valley UU church in AZ, even thought I have participated in many of their activities. I've met many interesting people there, and discovered that they don't all share the same political views. This contradicted my first impression, which was that all of them were extremely left-leaning. As it turns out, it is the leftists that are the most out-spoken. Others seem content to sit quietly by, ignoring the ranting. Unfortunately, I'm not known for "quietly standing by"...

cclendenen wrote:

The UU Church is a fine example of a church that can offer a place to congregate and be spiritual even if you are atheist. My problem with the UU has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with their politics.

Yeah they do tend to be on the liberal side but there are actually some conservatives there too.

It's funny, I found my local UU to be rather a-political. I guess it all depends on the church.

You can also start a Deism discussion group through your local UU through what is called a "Small Groups Ministry".

Quote :

Each small group consists of six to twelve members who gather every two weeks with a facilitator and co-facilitator. Each meeting follows a simple format: an opening ritual, such as a chalice lighting; a check-in time with each person sharing what's going on in his life without interruption; a brief reading leading into a discussion around a topic such as forgiveness, social justice, or personal spiritual experiences; a short wrap-up for comments and suggestions for the next meeting; and a closing reading.

Aaron wrote:

It's funny, I found my local UU to be rather a-political. I guess it all depends on the church.

Very different from the norm. The UU Assoc. of Congregations states plainly that "Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion with Jewish-Christian roots." (emphasis added) Under "Giving Public Voice to Our Values and Principles" they list:

" * We help congregations take action on their values by providing "how-to" resources on advocacy, organizing, public policy issues and the theological motivations for our justice work."

Nothing apolitical about that. The UU Church here in town is highly activist. And ours is a very conservative town and county.

Yes they do seem to be far more politically liberal than my local UU Fellowship.

Aaron wrote:

Yes they do seem to be far more politically liberal than my local UU Fellowship.

Perhaps the difference is the context. Here in my very conservative neck of the woods, the UU is quite liberal and activist. But in relatively liberal Connecticut, such a contrasting counter-force may not be as necessary.


On a related topic, today I was amused to see a sign on a bus advertising the local United Church of Christ (Congregational) as a "liberal" church*. The irony is that the small remnant of Congregationalists in this area recently sold their church building, and are now sharing space with a Baptist church. However, this is the same Baptist church that once offered the use of their facilities on the Sabbath to a Jewish congregation whose building was under renovation. An ecumenical revival???

* Wiki:
Despite the efforts of Calvinists to maintain the dominance of their system, some Congregational churches, especially in the older settlements of New England, gradually developed sentiments toward Arminianism, Unitarianism, Deism, and transcendentalism.

Gnomon wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Yes they do seem to be far more politically liberal than my local UU Fellowship.

Perhaps the difference is the context. Here in my very conservative neck of the woods, the UU is quite liberal and activist. But in relatively liberal Connecticut, such a contrasting counter-force may not be as necessary.

Yes, I was thinking that myself.

Gnomon wrote:

On a related topic, today I was amused to see a sign on a bus advertising the local United Church of Christ (Congregational) as a "liberal" church*. The irony is that the small remnant of Congregationalists in this area recently sold their church building, and are now sharing space with a Baptist church. However, this is the same Baptist church that once offered the use of their facilities on the Sabbath to a Jewish congregation whose building was under renovation. An ecumenical revival???

Yes, I think they are all probably fighting for survival. For many people the NFL and NASCAR have become the new Sunday family spiritual ritual.