A Humanist Defense of Church

In my first post I explained that the purpose of the blog was to incite and host discussion of a Humanist organization explicitly organized and operated as a religious organization.  One of the most interesting aspects of Humanist thought is the fact that not all people are in agreement as to whether this is appropriate.  Indeed, many Humanists vehemently disagree with the idea that a body of people whose ethics, philosophy and perception of the materiel world are essentially identical to their own, should describe such a set of beliefs as a religion.  Though many Humanists, Free-thinkers and secularists are viewed, or even self-identify as, radically anti-religious, my assertion is that it is not the institution of generic religion that they are against.  Rather, they are against oppressive policies of a particular sect, or against the retardation of progress stemming from superstition.  I assert that an organization may be a religion in virtually every way, but not rely on superstition.  Thus, here I give my Humanist defense of "Church", divided into a few, easily digestible parts.

Here is the dictionary (dictionary.com to be precise) definition of "religion".  It gives us a starting point and I'll be referring back to it occasionally to note how things match up.

The argument from precedence:  The idea of a religious organization that disavows superstition is not entirely new.  I almost hesitate to bring this first one up because dear Anton's theatrics are sometimes taken far too seriously, but here we go.  The Church of Satan, founded by Anton Lavey in 1966, hails Satan as emblematic of the exalted self.  Satanists revel in their individuality, sensual pleasure and are unapologetic about acting in their self-interest, not bothering with any pretense to outward benevolence.  Despite all the imagery and ominous phrasing, Satanists of the LaVeyan sect are not under any command from . . . eh, below? to wreak havoc and destruction on more pious mortals.  Quite the opposite, just as a Satanist fully enjoys his own freedoms and individuality, it is anathema to infringe on those of others.  Good Satanists make good neighbors, even if you personally think they are going to Hell. The odd thing is that while Satanists call the prophets of all other gods liars, their don't literally believe in their own Dark Lord.  The Satan is an allegory, a symbol.  The Church's members embrace the philosophy espoused by the organization, including the Satan himself.  But, he is only a symbol, like Lady Liberty, Uncle Sam or the Quaker oats guy.  These are all people that are used to embody certain characteristics and convey a message to the person to whom they are referenced, but there are in no sense real, flesh-and-blood personages nor are they intended to be regarded as such.

The Church of Satan is not unique in this regard.  Closer to my own heart philosophically, the American Humanist Association was founded in 1941 (though the inaugural members of the organization had been affiliated with one another for much longer).  Both, myself personally and the (for now, theoretical) Lake Area Humanist Temple are Humanist in belief.  I won't bother with too many details about Humanist belief as they will be provided soon enough.  But, relevant to this argument is the fact that the organization has a religious arm called the Humanist Society, which ordains clerics it calls "Celebrants".  Many jurisdictions in the United States have recognized such Celebrants as religious clerics as they attend to such ceremonial functions as funerary rites and marriages that have been recognized as legally binding (with the additional registration of papers with civil authorities by which all other religious clerics must also abide).  There are also Celebrants who serve as chaplains for other organizations, one Rabbi Greg Epstein serving as a chaplain for Harvard University. 

Many Unitarian Universalist and Christian churches that are theologically liberal promote the philosophy and ethics presented in (some version of) the Bible.  However, they may not necessarily abide by scriptural literalism.  In fact, some go so far as to express doubt or outright disbelief in the literal existence of the gods.  This may not make much practical difference in either their day-to-day lives or their sermons.  After all, if Jesus was a perfect moral exemplar, shouldn't we emulate his behavior whether he was the son of the living god or just a theoretical ideal?  So the question of whether it is inappropriate for a community of like-minded believers to call themselves a religious community is turned around.  The question is why should we insist on theism to determine whether the community is religious now, after having been so relaxed about it for so long?