This is an interesting perspective from an Evolutionary Biologist.  The emerging field of Evolutionary Religious Studies is fascinating too!

How do Religious Naturalists read the Bible and pray?  God = Nature
How do Religious Humanists read the Bible and pray?  God = Love

I am turning from Christianity to Religious Naturalism and Religious Humanism.  Naturalism believes that everything belongs to Nature as understood by science; Humanism believes that the final authority is in human.  Both Naturalism and Humanism are non-theistic.  The New Zealand Presbyterian theologian Lloyd Geering (whom our Progressive Christian Fellowship (PCF) is studying) points out that the term "God" is a symbol which has meaning only in the pre-scientific worldview: a personal highest being who has created and is taking care of the world, and loves human.  Since Enlightenment, the Western worldview has drastically changed and now the Universe is understood to be impersonal, running according to physical laws.  This causes the term "God" to lose its meaning for modern people.   

I still go to Christian churches occasionally.  Today, I go to my old church, an Anglican church.  When the word "God" is uttered while reading the Bible or saying a prayer, I have difficulty in dealing with that word.  Today, right during the worship, I figured out the following solution:   

When a Religious Naturalist reads the Bible or says a prayer, when the term "God" is encountered, (s)he can replace it in his/her heart by the term "Nature."  Then the integrity of intellectual conscience can be maintained.  Naturalism understands the "God" of the Bible as follows.  Human projects to an external being "God" his/her own feelings of praise, awe, and gratitude towards Nature.  Human then personalizes "God" in order to make "Him" an appropriate subject for interpersonal relationship (a familiar mode of relationship since everyone's infancy) and worship (affirmation of worth).  

When a Religious Humanist reads the Bible or says a prayer, when the term "God" is encountered, (s)he can replace it in his/her heart by the term "Love" or "benevolence."  Then the integrity of intellectual conscience can be maintained.  Humanism understands the "God" of the Bible as follows.  Human projects to an external being "God" his/her own highest values and meaning of life.  Human then personalizes "God" in order to make "Him" an appropriate subject for interpersonal relationship and worship.  Christians often say that Jesus is "Son of God" or "God Incarnate."  In fact, the core of Jesus is Love or benevolence.  Jesus is really "Son of God' or "God Incarnate" in the sense that Jesus fully expresses Love in his life to the extent that Jesus is experienced as "Son of Love" or "Love Incarnate."  "God is love" (1 Jn 4:8,16).

Which word to use, then?  "Nature" or "Love"?  Does this imply that Naturalism and Humanism are two conflicting theories, one worships Nature as God, the other worships Love as God?  My present thought is that: In the realm of Nature, "God" symbolizes Nature; in the realm of human relationship, "God" symbolizes Love.  I worship both Nature and Love.


宗教自然主義者/宗教人文主義者如何讀《聖經》及祈禱？神=自然；神=仁愛

宗教自然主義者如何讀《聖經》及祈禱？神=自然
宗教人文主義者如何讀《聖經》及祈禱？神=仁愛

我正從基督教轉向宗教自然主義和宗教人文主義。自然主義相信萬物皆屬於科學理解的自然；人文主義相信最終權威在於人。無論自然主義或人文主義，都不相信有神，是非神論（non-theistic）的。我們的「進思基督徒團契」正在研讀新西蘭長老會神學家基榮（Lloyd Geering）的神學。基榮指出，「神」一詞是一個象徵（symbol）。這個象徵，在科學前期的世界觀中，才有意義：祂是一位坐在天堂之上創造世界、掌管萬物、與人對話的有位格（personal）至高者。但在啟蒙運動之後，西方的世界觀產生了巨大的變化，人基本上以科學的觀念理解無位格、以物理律運行的宇宙，令「神」這個詞在現代人心目中失去意義。

我間中仍然有到基督教會聚會。我今天返我的母會，是聖公會。在教會讀《聖經》或祈禱，讀/聽/說到「神」一詞時，小不免感到為難。就在今天的崇拜當中，我想出了以下的解決辦法：

宗教自然主義者讀《聖經》或祈禱，只要每次遇到「神」一詞，都在心裡以「自然」（Nature）一詞取代，便何通達無阻，對得住智性良心。自然主義者認為，《聖經》中的「神」，是人把自己對自然界的讚美、敬畏、感恩之情，投射於一個外在者「神」，並將之人格化，以便將「祂」塑造成合適的人際關係（因為人自小便熟識人際關係）與敬拜（表達珍惜）的對象。

宗教人文主義者讀《聖經》或祈禱，只要每次遇到「神」一詞，都在心裡以「仁愛」一詞取代，便何通達無阻，對得住智性良心。人文主義者認為，《聖經》中的「神」，是人把自己心裡的最高價值與人生意義，投射於一個外在者「神」，並將之人格化，以便將「祂」塑造成合適的人際關係與敬拜的對象。基督徒常說耶穌是「神之子」、「道成內身」。事實上，耶穌的核心，就是仁愛。因為耶穌充份表現人心裡的最高價值「仁愛」，耶穌可說是「仁愛之子」、「仁愛成內身」。稱「仁愛」為「神」，耶穌便真正是「神之子」、「道成內身」了！「神就是愛」（約一4:8，16）。

還有一個問題。用那一個詞？「自然」或「仁愛」？兩個詞的出現，是否意味著自然主義與人文主義實在是兩套矛盾的理論，一個敬拜「自然」，一個敬拜「仁愛」？我目前認為在自然界的範疇，「神」一詞象徵「自然」；在人際範疇，「神」一詞象徵「仁愛」。我同時敬拜「自然」與「仁愛」。

Received the following story from a humanist email list.  Later, someone points out that this story might be some 20 years old.  Anyway, the student's remark is so simple and so true:

"Most...religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell."


從一個人文主義電郵清單收到以下的故事。後來有人指出這是二十年前的故事。無論如何，該學生的這句評論很簡單，很真：

「世上一般的大宗教都說你不信它便下地獄。由於世上多過一個這樣的宗教，加上一個人不會信多過一個宗教，所以可以推斷世上所有人都落地獄。」


> HELL EXPLAINED BY CHEMISTRY STUDENT
>
> The following is an actual question given on a University of
> Washington chemistry midterm.
>
>    The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor
> shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course,
> why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well:
>
> Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
> (absorbs heat)?
>        Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using
> Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is
> compressed) or some variant.  One student, however, wrote the
> following:
>
> First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So
> we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and
> the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely
> assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore,
> no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell,
> let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
> Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
> religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of
> these religions and since people do not belong to more than one
> religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and
> death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell
> to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of
> the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the
> temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of
> Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
>
> This gives two possibilities:
>
> 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which
> souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will
> increase until all Hell breaks loose.
>
> 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls
> in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell
> freezes over.
>
> So which is it?  If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa
> during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before
> I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with
> her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure
> that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary
> of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that
> it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore,
> extinct.......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of
> a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting
> 'Oh my God.'
>
> THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.

Many people in the West think that non-believers are ethically inferior to believers (usually Christians).  This interesting book by the Harvard Humanist Chaplain Greg M. Epstein replies to this misconception.

Good Without God
http://goodwithoutgod.info
In "Good Without God," discover how Humanism offers comfort and hope that affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfilment in which we can aspire to the greater good of all.


《無神一樣做好人》

有些人，尤其西方人士，會以為無信仰者的道德標準比有信仰者（在西方來說，大多指基督徒）低落。美國哈佛大學人文主義校牧撰寫的一本新書《無神一樣做好人》，可望掃除這個常見的誤解。該書解釋人文主義如何提供安慰與盼望，肯定我們人有能力及責任去過道德的生活，帶來個人滿足，從而謀求眾生的褔祉。

Some, especially those in the West, might think that non-believers tend to be morally inferior to believers (usually means Christians in the West).  The National Secular Service Day might be a good reply to this misconception.
   
National Secular Service Day
www.secularserviceday.org
As you may know, Sunday, October 18, 2009 marks the first ever National Secular Service Day.  On and around this date, nonreligious organizations all over America (and beyond) will unite in performing acts of community service.

The event is reported by the Humanist Network News of the American Humanist Association:

National Secular Service Day Seeks to Unite Nonbelievers in Public Service 
Oct. 14, 2009
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2009-10-national-secular-service-day-seeks-to-unite-nonbeliev


「國家俗世服務日」

有些人，尤其西方人士，會以為無信仰者的道德標準比有信仰者（在西方來說，大多指基督徒）低落。於是美國的無信仰者將在本月十八日舉辦「國家俗世服務日」，以讓公眾更多認識俗世（無信仰）社會服務團體，以掃除這個常見的誤解。

As I have returned shortly from the ICUU Council Meeting in the Unitarian Centre of Koloszar in early September, I was very excited when I found this video in a UU forum "Faith of the Free".  The video brings back good memories of my visit to the root of the Unitarian movement in Transylvania, a sort of pilgrimage.  The forum host says (which I totally agree):

Not that I can understand anything that is being said in this video, but I still recommend it (at least for the video imagery). This YouTube offers a rare glimpse of the Unitarian church in Koloszvar, (apparently) on the occasion of the 440th anniversary of its founding last year. Included are the church, both exterior and interior, as well as portraits of founder Bishop Francis David and of other people and events in the history of the Untiarian Church in Transylvania. This video runs about 10 minutes, but again is highly recommended for anyone wanting to have a "little better feel" for our Unitarian roots in Europe.

Then I found a related video (slide show actually) of another Unitarian church with very beautiful background music:  

Csókfalva - Erdélyi Unitárius Egyház Zsinata - 2005