In an age when science is regarded as the best method to learn about reality, the most suitable comprehensive approach to life (i.e., religious stance) is the one which is based on Nature as understood by science.  That is Religious Naturalism.  The following Minimal Statement defines Religious Naturalism for us.

More on Religious Naturalism:
Religious Naturalism: www.religiousnaturalism.org
Religious Naturalism blog: www.sacredriver.org (see "Spiritual Practice" for real-life practice)
UU Religious Naturalists: www.uurn.org

Minimal Statement on Religious Naturalism
Religious Naturalism is a spiritual and philosophical orientation arising from profound responses to the wonder and mystery of Nature and its emergent manifestations in human creativity and culture. Its views of Nature are embodied in the Epic of Evolution and informed by scientific inquiry, without reference to supernatural explanations. It emphasizes reverence and gratitude for Nature and a deep regard for all life; it recognizes the imperative of planetary sustainability. It supports efforts that honor ecological and cultural diversity, that promote social justice and free inquiry, and that create a more compassionate, rational world where humans and non-humans alike can thrive.
www.rnstatement.com

 

在這個時代，科學被認為是尋找真相的最佳方法。於是，最適切這個時代的人生哲學（宗教），便須建基於以科學認知的大自然。它就是「宗教自然主義」。以下的「宗教自然主義的最小聲明」定義何謂「宗教自然主義」。

宗教自然主義相關資源（英語）：
宗教自然主義網： www.religiousnaturalism.org
宗教自然主義博客： www.sacredriver.org （關於實修，可閱 "Spiritual Practice" 頁）
UU 宗教自然主義者： www.uurn.org

宗教自然主義的最小聲明
宗教自然主義是一種靈性上及哲學上的方針。它產生自深刻地回應大自然的奇妙與神秘，及其呈現之人類創造力及文化。它對大自然的理解源自科學研究，體現在「進化之史詩」之中，而並不參考超自然的解釋。它強調對大自然的崇敬與感恩，和對所有生命的尊重。它確認必須維持地球的可持續性。它支持以下的努力：尊重生態和文化之多樣性，促進社會正義和自由探索，創造一個更慈悲及更合理的世界致使人類和眾生都能夠蓬勃發展。
（譯自 www.rnstatement.com ）

My wife is expecting a baby boy on 8 Febuary 2010.  So I must brush up my baby-rearing skills.  A great source of information for nurturing a young baby's potential is The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential in Philadelphia.  The Institutes have been serving brain-injured children since 1955.  Their experience eventually resulted in a series of books and materials for enhancing normal children's brain growth.  I am reading the Institutes’ founder Glenn Doman's "How Smart is Your Baby?" which is essentially a guide to enriching a baby's first year of life.  Surprisingly, a passage of the book touches on the philosophical debate between physicalism and idealism* regarding the nature of the mind.  The book clearly favours physicalism.  Page 21 of the book reads:

"It is very important to remember that when we speak of the human brain we are speaking of that physical organ that occupies the skull and the spinal column and weighs three to four pounds.

"We are not speaking of that nebulous thing called 'the mind.'  The confusion between the organ called 'the brain' and the idea called 'the mind' has created problems in the past.

"The mind has defied any agreed upon definition of what it is or what it is not.  The brain, however, is material.  It is easier to study.  We can see it, feel it, and smell it.  We can even taste it if we are inclined to do so.

"The brain is a nice, clean orderly organ whose job is to take in data and process that data in such a way that its owner can relate to his environment appropriately at all times."

Here, the idea is simple.  "Mind" is vague and cannot be defined clearly.  We are simply unable to study it.  The brain, on the other hand, is something which we are able to study.  For something that cannot be defined and we are unable to study, like "mind" and "God," all we can do is to remain silent.  Only for something that we are able to understand, like all physical entities, that we can study and obtain meaningful knowledge of them.

Ancient Chinese wisdom echoes here.  Confucius said, "Respect ghosts and gods, and stay away from them."  Also, "We know so little about this life, how can we know anything about after death?"  Confucius teaches to be reserved and remain silent for vague and unknown things.  Physicalism might not be the only explanation, but physicalism is the only explanation we can understand and handle.  I am a physicalist because I am only able to understand the physicalist universe.

*Physicalists argue that only the entities postulated by physical theory exist, and that the mind will eventually be explained in terms of these entities as physical theory continues to evolve. Idealists maintain that the mind is all that exists and that the external world is either mental itself, or an illusion created by the mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

 
物理主義：「心靈」是大腦現象

我太太很可能於本年二月八日把男嬰誕下。所以，我必須惡補育嬰術。一個重要的資料來源是在費城的人類潛能促進學院。該研究所自1955年已經為腦損傷的兒童治療。他們後來發現他們的經驗可以幫助正常兒童的大腦發展。我正在讀學院創始人格連杜曼博士的《你的寶寶有多聰明？》這本書基本上是一個豐富嬰兒第一年生命的指南。出乎意料地，這本書輕輕涉及關於心靈本質的哲學辯論：物理主義和理想主義之間的爭論*。這本書明顯傾向物理主義。第21頁的內容如下：

「這點非常重要。當我們談到人類的大腦，我們說的是，一個位於頭骨和脊柱之內的，重量為3到4磅的身體器官。

「我們不是說一個所謂『心靈』的模糊慨念。以往，被稱為『大腦』的身體器官與被稱為『心靈』的理念曾經造成一些混淆。

「心靈從來沒有被成功地定義過它是甚麼或者不是甚麼。大腦則不同。它是物質的，更容易被認識。我們可以看到它，感覺它，嗅到它。我們甚至可以品嚐它，如果你有興趣的話。

「大腦是一個很好的，結構有序的器官。其任務是收集和處理數據，以適當地對環境作出反應。」

這裡非常簡單。所謂「心靈」的定義是含糊的，不能明確界定。我們根本無法對其進行研究。大腦則肯定是一樣存在的東西，我們可以研究它。不能被定義和無法被研究的東西，如「心靈」和「上帝」等，我們所能做的就只是保持沉默。只有我們有能力處理的東西，例如所有的物理實體，我們才可以學習它們以取得有意義的知識。

這與中國古代智慧不謀而合。孔子說：「敬鬼神而遠之！」，又說：「未知生，焉知死？」。孔子對虛玄未知之事持保留態度及保持沉默。物理主義可能不是唯一的解釋，但唯有物理主義是我們可以理解和處理的。我是物理主義者，因為能力所限，我只能明白物理主義的宇宙。

*物理主義者認為一切心靈現象都是由物質的大腦產生；心靈並不存在。理想主義者認為只有心靈存在，整個所謂物理世界都只是由心靈產生的幻覺。

The day is November 24, 2009.

From the HUUmanists email list:

Remember that today is a holy day to Humanists, Unitarian Universalists, and all others who hold sacred our rapidly increasing knowledge of our own precious human nature, and especially its relation to the rest of the universe.  One hundred fifty years ago today, on November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin opened the gates of heaven with his publication of "On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," and suddenly a great light shone down upon us all.  Our understanding of ourselves has grown rapidly ever since, is growing today, and will continue to grow forever.  Humanity will never be the same again.
David Schafer

Amen and hallelujah!
Phil

Spinoza was born on this day in 1632. 
Happy Birthday to you, Spinoza.  Another reason for a Humanist celebration.
Gordon Gamm

Spinoza is best known for his Ethics, a monumental work that presents an ethical vision unfolding out of a monistic metaphysics in which God and Nature are identified. God is no longer the transcendent creator of the universe who rules it via providence, but Nature itself, understood as an infinite, necessary, and fully deterministic system of which humans are a part. Humans find happiness only through a rational understanding of this system and their place within it.
www.iep.utm.edu/spinoza

今日大日子！《物種起源》出版；史賓諾沙出生

十一月廿四日是大日子！

UU人文主義電郵列表有人寫道：

今天是所有認為人類知識增長是神聖的人的聖日。一百五十年前的今天，達爾文出版《物種起源》，為人類打開天堂之門，知識的大光突然普照世人。自此，人類對自己的認識突飛猛進；人類從此不再一樣。

阿門！哈利路亞！

史賓諾沙於一六三二年的今天出生。生日快樂，史賓諾沙。這是另一件值得人文主義者慶賀的事件。

（史賓諾沙提出一元論，即神與自然原為一。神不再是一超越者，創造並保守宇宙，而是自然本身，無限而必然，而人是其中的一份子。）

Carl Sagan's book "The Varieties of Scientific Experience" (New York: Penguin, 2006) explains very well what Religious Naturalism is, although Carl has not identified himself or his religious view with this term.  Religious Naturalism approaches religion and spirituality by the way of science.  The words of Ann Druyan, Carl's wife and editor of the book, in "Editor's Introduction," are remarkably in-line with this position:

For Carl, Darwin's insight that life evolved over the eons through natural selection was not just better science than Genesis, it also afforded a deeper, more satisfying spiritual experience. (p. x)

He believed that the little we do know about nature suggests that we know even less about God.  We had only just managed to get an inkling of the grandeur ofthe cosmos and its exquisite laws that guide the evolution of trillions if not infinite numbers of worlds.  The newly acquired vision made the God who created the World seem hopelessly local and dated, bound to transparently human misconceptions and conceipts of the past.  (p. x)

...he never understand why anyone wound want to separate science, which is just a way of searching for what is true, from what we hold sacred, which are those truths that inspire love and awe.  (p. xi)

His argument was not with God but with those who believed that our understanding of the sacred had been completed.  Science's premanently revolutionary conviction that the search for truth never ends seemed to him the only approach with sufficient humility to be worthy of the universe that it revealed.  The methodology of science, with tis error-correcting mechanism for keeping us honest in spite of our chronic tendencies to project, to misunderstand, to deceive ourselves and others, seemed to him the height of spiritual discipline.  If you are searching for sacred knowledge and not just a palliative for your fears, then you will train yourself to be a good skeptic.  (p. xi)

The idea that the scientific method should be applied to the deepest of questions is frequently decried as "scientism."  This charge is made by those who hold that religious beliefs whould be off-limits to scientific scrutiny---that beliefs (convictions without evidence that can be tested) are a sufficient way of knowing.  Carl understood this feeling, but he insisted with Bertrand Russell that "what is wanted is not the will to believe, but the desire to find out, which is the exact opposite."  (p. xi)

Until about five hundred years ago, there had been no such wall separating science and religion.  Back then they were one and the same.  It was only when a group of religious men who wished "to read God's mind" realized that science would be the most powerful means to do so that a wall was needed.  These men---among them Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and, much later, Darwin---began to articulate and internalize the scientific method.  Science took off for stars, and institutional religion, choosing to deny the new revelations, could do little more than build a protective wall around itself.  (p. xi)

To him we were "starstuff pondering the stars; organized assemblages of 10 billion billion billion atoms considering the evolution of atoms; tracing the long journey by which, here at least, consciousness arose."  For him science was, in part, a kind of "informed worship."  (p. xiii)

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」。