The Philosophical Defense: In the previous two posts, I expressed my Humanist Defense of Church using arguments from precedent and sociology. In this post, I'll make a philosophical argument. I also think this is a good time to introduce the Creed.
In order for the Temple to function as a coherent entity, there are a few founding documents that are necessary. While it seems that many religious organizations are headed by a leader who exercises total control, this is not universal. Many church leaders have a great deal of responsibility for resources, facilities and programs, but are limited in their ability to exploit this to their personal advantage. These extremes can be illustrated by a Catholic church, administrated by a priest, who is accountable to his local superiors in the diocese, but who has also taken an oath of poverty and lives on a quite modest salary, though most of his financial needs are met outside of his pay. At the other end of the spectrum, a pastor of an independent church may not be accountable to anyone outside the church. All donations would be accrued tax-free to the Church as a distinct financial entity, a 501c3. But, the pastor can also act as the sole executor of this entity. Though he may not technically "own" the money it accumulates (except for what is explicitly given him as his salary and is taxed as to any other private citizen) he can use it to buy buildings, houses, jewelry, luxury automobiles or whatever else he wants . . . "for the church". As Humanists generally find excess and corruption distasteful and have a great deal of affection for democratic rule, a constitution would be one of these essential founding documents. But, that's not really what this post is about.
The document I really want to share with you, and which is central to my philosophical defense, is the Creed. A creed is a statement of belief. The existence of a creed would greatly facilitate the growth of the Temple as it succinctly states what the community holds as true with regard to morality, supernaturalism and values. A person taking great issue with some point of the Creed would very quickly rule themselves out as a potential congregant. Those who feel strongly about the community will find the document handy for expressing to others, interested in joining or just curious, just what it is that we believe. And, finally, if the legitimacy of the Temple is challenged, we will have an explicit statement of belief that every member of the Temple can point to and affirm belief in.
The Creed might look something like this:
We hold that human beings, as self-aware entities imbued with reason, have moral agency. It is incumbent upon individuals to bear the responsibility for the moral choices that they make. To this end, both introspection and discussion are constructive and means by which rational ethical structures may be erected.
We hold that human life, freedom and dignity are good. It follows that what promotes, protects and preserves these is also good. The corollary to this is that which denies, destroys and degrades these is evil. Where tension arises between these, reason must guide moral choices, informed by the principle that all individual human beings' interests are equal.
We hold sacred the free expression of values and beliefs. Abridgement of expression is an affront to human freedom and should only be tolerated when such expression is likely to cause net, manifest harm. Further, the exchange and examination of ideas provides the crucible in which rational, practicable ethics can be forged.
We hold that the evidence for an afterlife, supernatural entities and spiritual mechanisms is insufficient and inconsistent. If such exist, they are too remote, subtle or inscrutable to take into account. We disregard such possible factors, weighing moral choices instead on their observable or reasonably projected impact on human beings.
We hold the conscience in high regard and object to legal, societal or cultural pressures to make false affirmations of belief. Such coercion is the corollary of and is as detestable as preventing the expression of positive belief. Nor shall we insist on professions of faith from potential members, fellows or any other person. Respectful, peaceful dissent is as constructive as consensus.
We hold that the individual only is subject to judgment. While statistics and demographics may demonstrate disparate propensities in various populations, variations within such groups typically far outstrips those between populations. Thus it is only rational to assess individuals according to their virtues and foibles. Trivial aspects, like gender, race, nationality, ethnicity and sexuality are irrelevant to moral judgment.
We hold to the primacy of reason for revelation of the physical world. Objective observation, mathematical quantification of raw data and logical operations on such data to produce useful information is the most reliable mechanism for producing viable theories on the nature of the Universe and its contents. Such theories, once synthesized, should be subjected to scrutiny in order to be validated or debunked. Any experiments, computations, observations or other support for the theory should be replicable, else the theory remain mere conjecture. In this manner is aggregate human knowledge grown, enhanced and purged of error.
We hold that it is tyranny for the state to regulate the freedom of expression and association of its citizens. A state secular, but tolerant of all peaceful, law-abiding faiths is ideal. Where government interacts with members of any single faith, its interaction should be no more onerous or preferential than that with members of any other faith. Thus, we assert our right to any and all privileges granted by the state to any faith to the Community of Reason as well. Similarly, we claim all protections and exemptions to ourselves as are granted to any other faith community. This includes but is not limited to; legal recognition of marriages performed by our priestesses and priests, legally protected confidentiality between our laity and clergy acting in the capacity of spiritual or ethical advisers, legal protection from termination or workplace hostility based on our religious convictions, access of our clergy to restricted areas regularly accessible to clergy (Intensive Care Units, persons incarcerated by the State, etc.), taxation of our incorporated communities' income as any other church, temple, synagogue and tax treatment of any donations to them as such.
Simple enough? Now, most of the Creed is common sense, or can be derived from the foundational values of reverence for human life, freedom and dignity. But, here's where we get to the meat of my philosophical argument. How do we come to value life, freedom and dignity? That murder is wrong flows from the logical fact that it destroys life. That rape and slavery are wrong stems from their violation of freedom and dignity. But, how do we prove, empirically that life is better than death? How do we demonstrate that pleasure is better than suffering? There is no instrument or formula that can show that dignity and peace are superior to degradation and suffering. We take these values as axiomatic. While we believe them with all our beings, we cannot prove that they are valid. We take them on faith.
While you might think that superstition or the gods are the central characteristics of religion, I assert that the truest commonality is Faith. The gods are diverse, numerous, facets of the same being, changing, eternal, destined for destruction, unreachable or our destiny. Traditions make all manner of contradictory claims about the gods. But, all religions require that their adherents believe something and meticulously tracing all doctrine back to the source, there will come an assertion that cannot be further divided and seems to have no argument supporting it. This atom of belief must be accepted sans evidence or rejected outright. The association of Faith with religion has so much cognitive force behind it that we even refer to religions with the word "Faith". If that doesn't describe a religion, I don't know what does.
No comments:
Post a Comment