Pragmatheism - By Request

[Ouroboros]

Antlerman and I invented a little word the other day, Pragmatheism, which is a combination of Pragmatic and Atheism.

 

We haven't really figured out all the ins and outs of it yet, but I will start posting here what I read into it and I hope A-man contribute his view too. We've noticed that we have very similar views on things so it's quite likely that we'll agree on most on what we define it to be, but it wouldn't surprise me that we'll have to go into head-to-head now and then in some disagreements.

 

Manifesto of Pragmatheism

(raw outline, 1st revision)

 

Here's a definition of Pragmatic:

Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory

 

First of all, Pragmatheism is about how atheism can be lived practically in life. We often have discussions where we have to explain that atheism in itself doesn't have a philosophy about morality or how to live life. In my opinion Pragmatheism does. And I will dive into that more later.

 

Second, you don't have to be an atheist to be a pragmatheist. You can even be a deist, theist and even Christian, because this philosophy is about that you live your life according to principles that can be applied to any belief, or rather regardless of belief. It's a secular view and philosophy, and defines your daily dealing with things just like you were an atheist. In practical terms you live like an atheist, even if you believe in an afterlife. It means that fundamentalists, extremeists and literalists most likely can not believe in pragmatheism. They most likely are too stuck in a Holy Book view of life that requires them to live according to their specific God, and that is not included in this philosophy. A funny thing is that the word "Pragmatheism" could just as well be an combination of the words Pragmatic and Theism as well, so this is a philosophy bridging believers and non-believers.

 

Thirdly, I'm a practical person and I admit that religion can't be destroyed or removed from the human psyche because evolution favored imagination and guillability, so any effort to make people non-theists is futile. Making a society where we live like non-theism but allow people to believe in a God is a diplomatic option, a compromise, a middle way or a necessary evil in a sense. This means pragmatheism supports a secular society where religion is allowed, but not encouraged.

 

(I just woke up and didn't get very good sleep last night. I tried to write a bit more here, but my head isn't where it should be... I think it rolled under the bed... need to get a flashlight and get it out before the dogs finds it... anyway, I have more thoughts about this subject but will append them later.)

[Jun]

Second, you don't have to be an atheist to be a pragmatheist. You can even be a deist, theist and even Christian, because this philosophy is about that you live your life according to principles that can be applied to any belief, or rather regardless of belief. It's a secular view and philosophy, and defines your daily dealing with things just like you were an atheist. In practical terms you live like an atheist, even if you believe in an afterlife. It means that fundamentalists, extremeists and literalists most likely can not believe in pragmatheism.

 

In a word, Buddhism.

[Ouroboros]

In a word, Buddhism.

Yes, I guess. But maybe without any rituals, and no reincarnation?

 

I know my views are very similar to Buddhism, and it's strange that I didn't get that from reading about it, but it grew out from my deconversion and I have the last years slowly learned more about Buddhism and I agree a lot with it. Buddhism seems to have many variations though, and some "denominations" are more religious in their faith than others. I guess our philosophy is more like the less religious ones?

[Jun]

There's no reincarnation in Buddhism and rituals are for the "religious types."

[Ouroboros]

There's no reincarnation in Buddhism and rituals are for the "religious types."

Okay. I seen and heard references to it though, and I'll check with my Buddhist friends. Maybe it's some odd versions that believe that? The more religious style ones?

 

Pragmatheism is a life philosophy that is not supposed to be ritualized or made into a religion at all. It is disconnected from religion. For instance, pragmatheism should not have any temples or burn any myrrh.

[trashy]

In a word, Buddhism.

Yes, I guess. But maybe without any rituals, and no reincarnation?

 

I know my views are very similar to Buddhism, and it's strange that I didn't get that from reading about it, but it grew out from my deconversion and I have the last years slowly learned more about Buddhism and I agree a lot with it. Buddhism seems to have many variations though, and some "denominations" are more religious in their faith than others. I guess our philosophy is more like the less religious ones?

 

It seems to me to have a lot in common with secular humanism as well - could you explain how it is different?

[Ouroboros]

It seems to me to have a lot in common with secular humanism as well - could you explain how it is different?

That is true. I don't know what would be the difference yet...

 

Let us start with how secular humanism is defined and let us compare. Do you have a good definition?

 

--edit--

 

I just looked up on Wiki:

 

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives. More specifically, secular humanism is a eupraxsophy, a non-religious life stance.

 

Pragmatheism is not a non-religious life stance. So it disagree with Secular humanism by recognizing religion as a belief for people and even allows it, since most people probably can't just snap out of the thought of "first cause" etc, but it agree with Secular humanism that reason, ethics and justice should be upheld without religious beliefs.

[Jun]

Pragmatheism is a life philosophy that is not supposed to be ritualized or made into a religion at all.

 

As is Buddhism.

[Ouroboros]

Pragmatheism is a life philosophy that is not supposed to be ritualized or made into a religion at all.

 

As is Buddhism.

Oh. Okay, well, lets say pragmatheism actively and intensively rejects any attempts to build tempels and ritualize anything regarding its philosophy.

 

--edit--

 

And it doesn't surprise me that both Buddhism and Secular Humanism are close to my ideas. Maybe Naturalism might be close too?

 

I read a little about Secular Humanism, and there's other forms, like Religious Humanism and Scientific Humanism (which there's no Wiki-page for), and clicking around I'd say Pragmatheism is more close to pure Secularism, but it's not necessarily based on Humanism. Maybe it's more of a light-weight, less defined as SH? Maybe the definition is Scientific Secularism?

[Jun]

Oh. Okay, well, lets say pragmatheism actively and intensively rejects any attempts to build tempels and ritualize anything regarding its philosophy.

 

That's how Buddhism started out - it didn't stay that way for long though.

 

As Buddhism emigrates Westward it is treated as a religion - an "Eastern religion." The very term "Buddhism" was invented by Western scholars so that it could be lined up with and compared with Western religions.

 

The transformation of Buddhism into a religion obscures and distorts the pragmatic teachings of the Buddha. Buddhism is a godless secular search for truth in life - just-as-it-is.

 

Don't get me wrong, nothing against what you are trying to define.

[Ouroboros]

Oh. Okay, well, lets say pragmatheism actively and intensively rejects any attempts to build tempels and ritualize anything regarding its philosophy.

 

That's how Buddhism started out - it didn't stay that way for long though.

 

As Buddhism emigrates Westward it is treated as a religion - an "Eastern religion." The very term "Buddhism" was invented by Western scholars so that it could be lined up with and compared with Western religions.

It doesn't surprise me at all. The categorical thinking of the western religious monotheism have destroyed many good attempts of good and wise people.

 

 

The transformation of Buddhism into a religion obscures and distorts the pragmatic teachings of the Buddha. Buddhism is a godless secular search for truth in life - just-as-it-is.

And I'm quite a bit of that kind of Buddhist!

 

Pragmatheism (I'll call it PA from now on) isn't necessarily a search for truth in life. I guess, maybe PA is a bit more political in a sense? Not sure... Does truth really exist? Or do we experience life based on approximations and "truth" is just our perfected ideals of those approximations?

 

Don't get me wrong, nothing against what you are trying to define.

No, this is good. I have very little clue what PA is yet, so it needs to be put through fire. So keep on shooting... I might get pissed and irritated, but that's usually because I don't know what's wrong yet. But when I do, it becomes clear and I forgive and forget easy, so don't worry even if it comes to that.

 

(I hope A-man joins soon, because he might take this in a different direction.)

[R. S. Martin]

Well I don't get what is being said here about Buddhism and it not having reincarnation or not being a religion. I took a university course on Buddhism and I know a few Buddhists. In my experience these courses reflect actual life as it is practiced and lived by real people. One of the main goals of Buddhism as I remember from that course is to get off the wheel of death and rebirth. That is reincarnation. One of my former classmates was a Buddhist monk who attended class in a yellow robe. Other classmates knew him outside class in his religious position. A person I knew years earlier converted to Buddhism and went on retreats, consulted with a spiritual teacher, etc. There are Buddhist monastaries. That Buddhism is not a religion seems about as realistic as that Christianity is not a religion. There may be people who carry the name but don't practice.

 

But I asked for a discussion on pragmatheism. HanSolo, thanks for starting it. Sorry for the rant on Buddhism. Couldn't help it. Sorry.

 

What you describe about pragmatheism sounds a lot like my approach--it simply does not matter whether or not God exists. What matters is how we live this one life that we know we get. One of my specialties is asking "why" questions. Here's one: Why invent another label when we already have more labels than we know what to do with? There used to be believers and unbelievers, or atheists and theists. Then agnostic was added to the mix.

 

People can't agree on the difference between atheist and agnostic. The battles over definitions and identifications never cease. They so resemble the religious battles and church splits and constant bickering over non-essencials that never-the-less defined who people were.

 

I like the concept of a term that unites the "middle group" of "soft" atheists with liberal religionists because most of us are more concerned about making the best of this one life we know we get in an ethical manner than with promoting metaphysics. (I don't know what "hard" atheism is like but I would assume uncompromising and not easy to work with across "denominational/political" lines.)

 

Another question: If we have this "middle group," does it serve a practical purpose? Hans, I think you mentioned the word political. Do you see it as uniting people to upset the fundy empire that is ruling the world? If so, I can see a practical value. If not, my question remains as to why another label.

 

Thanks again for the thread and for further expounding your philosophy. I'm taking you at your word when you say you want to be challenged to stimulate your thinking.

[Ouroboros]

What you describe about pragmatheism sounds a lot like my approach--it simply does not matter whether or not God exists. What matters is how we live this one life that we know we get. One of my specialties is asking "why" questions. Here's one: Why invent another label when we already have more labels than we know what to do with? There used to be believers and unbelievers, or atheists and theists. Then agnostic was added to the mix.

I can't answer to "why" we should, because I don't think we have to or should invent a new label. It was more out of "oops" this is a cool label, lets play with it. The why is then answer with "accidental coincident" rather than necessity. A-man said he was a practical atheist, I suggested to call it pragmatic atheist, or pragmatheist, and we both liked it. That's the whole story. Then you had to come and mess it up with asking to what it was... dammit... Just kidding. We're playing with it, and it's nothing serious. But I still like the label...

 

People can't agree on the difference between atheist and agnostic. The battles over definitions and identifications never cease. They so resemble the religious battles and church splits and constant bickering over non-essencials that never-the-less defined who people were.

So maybe this label should be agreed upon that we can't completely agree on its definition? Or will that be to confusing?

 

I like the concept of a term that unites the "middle group" of "soft" atheists with liberal religionists because most of us are more concerned about making the best of this one life we know we get in an ethical manner than with promoting metaphysics. (I don't know what "hard" atheism is like but I would assume uncompromising and not easy to work with across "denominational/political" lines.)

 

Another question: If we have this "middle group," does it serve a practical purpose? Hans, I think you mentioned the word political. Do you see it as uniting people to upset the fundy empire that is ruling the world? If so, I can see a practical value. If not, my question remains as to why another label.

It did cross my mind, yes. To have something that is less stringent of the "I don't believe" or "I do believe" and never will those two meet could be good. A philosophy that can join a larger group, but of course it doesn't take away person beliefs or opinions, but foremost it doesn't agree on agressive ideology that demands adherence... just playing with the thoughts...

 

Thanks again for the thread and for further expounding your philosophy. I'm taking you at your word when you say you want to be challenged to stimulate your thinking.

Heck. It's a new philosophy. I can't know everything! It's new to me too!

[Alice]

Second, you don't have to be an atheist to be a pragmatheist. You can even be a deist, theist and even Christian, because this philosophy is about that you live your life according to principles that can be applied to any belief, or rather regardless of belief. It's a secular view and philosophy, and defines your daily dealing with things just like you were an atheist. In practical terms you live like an atheist, even if you believe in an afterlife. It means that fundamentalists, extremeists and literalists most likely can not believe in pragmatheism. They most likely are too stuck in a Holy Book view of life that requires them to live according to their specific God, and that is not included in this philosophy. A funny thing is that the word "Pragmatheism" could just as well be an combination of the words Pragmatic and Theism as well, so this is a philosophy bridging believers and non-believers.

 

I love this part of the idea.

 

It works for me because I am comfortable with the use of words like 'god' - although I don't myself believe in a supernatural being, I do think that in many circumstances I understand the 'experience' theists describe as God - or attribute to 'God'.

 

I guess my reservations about Humanism stemmed from the wording of the 'Humanist manifesto' - I know this manifesto doesn't speak for all humanists.

[sojourner]

Hans you crack me up

thought to share what just made me laugh

 

Then you had to come and mess it up with asking to what it was... dammit... Just kidding. We're playing with it, and it's nothing serious. But I still like the label...

 

Heck. It's a new philosophy. I can't know everything! It's new to me too!

 

 

once we define something then we tend to begin to have to defend it and explain it, are you sure you want to do this? lol

 

It did cross my mind, yes. To have something that is less stringent of the "I don't believe" or "I do believe" and never will those two meet could be good. A philosophy that can join a larger group, but of course it doesn't take away person beliefs or opinions, but foremost it doesn't agree on agressive ideology that demands adherence... just playing with the thoughts...

 

 

I love how you are committed to bridging a gap in communication as in your stmts above, still allowing people to feel they dont have to compromise their beliefs to try and have a conversation

 

works for me

 

sojourner

[Ouroboros]

I guess my reservations about Humanism stemmed from the wording of the 'Humanist manifesto' - I know this manifesto doesn't speak for all humanists.

My problem with Humanism is that it's an ideal that portray humans as good, and I don't think it really can be done, since good and evil is defined by humans, so of course humans can define themselves as good... always, regardless of what they do. Honestly I'm not even sure humanity will survive, at least not in its current shape and form. To survive, we most likely have to evolve (see Transhumanism or Technological Singularity).

 

 

Hans you crack me up

 

once we define something then we tend to begin to have to defend it and explain it, are you sure you want to do this? lol

So very true. I hope I won't become a pragmatheist literalist and fundamentalist who will go around and knock on doors... We have to make our own Chick Tracts... I just don't know if I can be that dishonest...

 

I love how you are committed to bridging a gap in communication still allowing people to feel they dont have to compromise their beliefs to try and have a conversation

Maybe the gap is just an illusion.

 

works for me

Awesome.

[Alice]

Maybe the gap is just an illusion.

 

I love that - I have a friend who often says, 'the only thing that separates us is the space inbetween - and that's just an illusion'

[R. S. Martin]

Hans, I like the way you are defining and defending it. And no, I don't think you can be that dishonest. You'd have a mental break-down first.

 

Now if nobody had asked somewhere back there "Is there still just the two of us?" nobody--least of all me--would have noticed the fancy new label.

 

Or if I did I would have figured what the heck. Somebody's playing word games. Or maybe it refers to some tv program or character.

 

BUT: "Is there still just the two of us?"

 

Now I am in being trained in the social sciences, which means I am supposed to be aware of social patterns and human motivations. That particular statement was a dead give-away. But that's okay. All it proves is that what I'm learning at school corresponds with real life and that's always good to know.

 

Thanks again for obliging me. I'm not sure where to find flowers but here's some interesting colourful thingies.

Weird, the lol guy lost his colourful feathers when I submitted the post.

[Jun]

I took a university course on Buddhism and I know a few Buddhists

 

Oh my, a "univerisity course" on Buddhism. Gee, you must be right then.

 

In my experience these courses reflect actual life as it is practiced and lived by real people

.

 

Doesn't mean it's Buddhism.

 

One of the main goals of Buddhism as I remember from that course is to get off the wheel of death and rebirth. That is reincarnation.

 

Nope!

 

One of my former classmates was a Buddhist monk who attended class in a yellow robe.

 

And I'm a Zen Priest who wears a black one, so what? Wearing a coloured robe means what?

 

There may be people who carry the name but don't practice.

 

And there are many who practice something altogether different - a religion of sorts - that they call "Buddhism", which it is clearly not.

[Antlerman]

OK, time for the co-founder of Pragmatheism to weigh in, in typical lenghty fashion. Here's some of my thoughts behind it, and what to me it might mean.

 

Humanism in the 80's was really a response to the push in Christianity to drive secularism out of its ranks. You had modern social consciousness amongst Christians coming into the ranks of the Church rising on the heals of the civil rights movement for blacks, and the equal rights movement for women during the 60's and 70's. As the church was being transformed from within toward these values coming in from society, the Church decided it was going to take the more socially conservative approach and preach the good 'ol traditional values of women's places in the home and whatnot other nostalgic garbage. They drove ‘secularism’ out, and Humanism became the new home for them.

 

Humanism espoused human values regardless of creed, color, or gender. It was a philosophy that in essence was all the positive Christian human values, without all the social conservatism crap crammed into it under the name of God. Humanism became in essence the new home for Secular Christians (those who are Christians by culture and core social values - the "Jesus on a good day" Christians).

 

This is why in the 80's while I was a young eager student of the Bible in college, I heard humanism being vilified and demonized as the greatest threat to God ever! It was the system of the Antichrist that would bring about the end of the world!! Why such a demonization? Why such a threat? Because humanism was espousing the same values of humanity that is supposed to be what Christianity taught! But instead of the church being that, the church was becoming this freakish throwback to the f*ing 40 and 50's as an arm of social conservatism! [/rant]

 

Of course they were a threat to them. They appealed to those raised in a Christian culture. They offered what Christianity was suppose to be, but wasn’t! Here’s the rub. For all intents and purposes, Humanism in the West is Secular Christianity. It’s all the “Jesus on a good day” Christian values of ‘love your neighbor,’ and ‘do unto others’, that most church attendees agreed with, without having to pay lip service to all the supernatural god bits or swear fidelity to the doctrines of a religious tradition… or agreeing with their backwards social views. It’s being a Christian, without having to be one!

 

Today however, humanism is really not as distinctive a thing now as it was in the 80's, because those social/human values issues that found a home in humanism, have now found their way into mainstream Christianity by virtue of a new generation coming into power. Right now, even in the traditionally conservative Southern Baptists, the new generation has now thrown out that dinosaur Terry Fox who set the entire tone of the Religious Right in the 80’s to today, out of power in favor of a less politically driven leadership focused more on the merits of personal faith. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html?... (But then on the other side, you have the new Pope Cardinal Ratzinger on his personal mission to drive secular Christians out of the Church and turn the clocks back over 50 years for Catholicism!)

 

So what the hell is Pragmatheism?

 

Aside from it being an off-the-cuff created word, it’s really like what Humanism was in the 80’s. Except as I see it, it’s creating a sort of identity for those who found themselves abandoning conservative Christianity in favor of new philosophies, whether theistic or atheistic, who likewise expose the value of humanistic, inclusive worldview. It’s a middle ground response to radical atheism that say, “OK, so now you’re an atheist. Now what? What the hell’s your philosophy?”

 

Like humanism, it reaches through many disciplines and philosophies and religions, with a central recognition of the value of all humans, regardless of ethnicity, social status, gender, or religious affiliations; that all humans seek the same thing and we are committed to not getting hung up on whether someone calls that thing by the name God, or not, as long as they espouse a philosophy that promotes the betterment of all humankind. It takes atheism and theism and puts them together in the practical ways that works toward the support of the human community and human ideals.

 

In short, it’s basically a new updated word for Humanism because it needs a good facelift. (Well maybe it says more… not sure yet)

[Ouroboros]

Since every decent or not so decent ideology always have a schism and over time starts to develop ecumenical efforts to reestablish its roots, I decided we should get over that 100-s of years of struggle and internal fighting until it all comes together again, and get it over right now.

 

* I TOTALLY DISAGREE!!!

 

* I KIND OF DISAGREE!

 

* Well, I disagree with some...

 

* Maybe we're not so different?

 

* Eh, what the hell, I don't disagree at all. It was just a brain fart. Good post A-man.

 

So, now that's over with. Back to the regular schedule...

[sojourner]

Thanks for that history lesson Antlerman, this is my first experiance with humanism too. lol Im learning all kinds of new info.

 

So in other words and I hope this doesnt sound to crass to the church of the 80's, but the humanism of the 80's lived what the church preached and didnt live. And that ticked them off so out with you, you antichrist.

 

Ive been called antichrist too, anything that christianity is afraid of is antichrist

see its still going on

 

 

 

wow

 

sojourner

[Antlerman]

So in other words and I hope this doesnt sound to crass to the church of the 80's, but the humanism of the 80's lived what the church preached and didnt live. And that ticked them off so out with you, you antichrist.

Sort of, yes. America is really a Christian culture, whether or not people call themselves Christian. It's those value systems that we grew up with an identify with. We're all pretty much the same here, whether we call ourselves atheists or theists. Our ethos is tied to those Western values that Christianity brought to this country, not the social conservative bullshit that uses God as its weapon, but general moralities and world views. It's the power of language systems to mold humanity into its own image. People from China would likely look at me and say I'm a Christian because of this. In fact I'm friends with people from Turkey who are Muslim and you should have seen the look on their face when I said I wasn’t a Christian! It was like they were thinking, "Huh, how can you not be? You're from America."

 

So really, what you have with humanism is those who were not finding a home in the church, but still identified with the basic Christian ethics of the West wanting a new home so to speak, an identity that gave voice to their sense of ethics that they once had in the Christian church before it became this horrible thing using the name of God against those who had more liberal minded social views. The demonizing came when they gave a voice of social justice without the need for God. What else could they offer? They were busy trying to turn back the clock on society, which Christianity shouldn't have been about.

 

Religion is essential something that society hires for itself as an institution that represents its social values. It's like hiring a police force, or a local government. They are the people's servants. As a society changes through natural evolution, that government has to be responsive. It that government steps in and tries to manipulate and engineer that society, it is no longer a servant of them, but a power machine in control of people. And the problem with this is that you cannot stop the forces of evolution. Change will happen. Period. The less you stand in the way off it, the less destruction there will be when the dam breaks open.

 

When you look at the history of God, you definitely see an evolution in how people believed in him; from a vengeful tribal God, to the chief god of many, to the only true god, to the universal god that transcends tribal borders, to the God of Love who became a man to bring us into the Light. Each of these shifts occurred because of the changing needs of the society that believed in him. Is God conservative? Is God a liberal? He can be both. But what really has to happen is that Christianity needs to be responsive to changes in their society they serve and not get entangled into social manipulation. Teach the values of love and respect. Uphold them as the highest ideals. Lead by example, and not by force. And the people will shape and mold their society with these principles in mind. Priests aren't smart enough to harness the forces of social evolution. All they do is create a frustrated and unhealthy society. That's why people turn to alternatives, and the priests and pastor scream and shout about how bad they are, when it's really them who completely misunderstood. Let God be what people need him to be. Like you.

 

Ive been called antichrist too, anything that christianity is afraid of is antichrist

see its still going on

 

 

 

wow

 

sojourner

It's really them blaming others for them being impotent by their own doing. It's like a child screaming to his parent when they don't get their way, "I hate you!" Temper tantrum. Pathetic when adults do this.

[Ouroboros]

Priests aren't smart enough to harness the forces of social evolution. All they do is create a frustrated and unhealthy society. That's why people turn to alternatives, and the priests and pastor scream and shout about how bad they are, when it's really them who completely misunderstood.

It was so good that I had to cut it out and reiterate it. My only extra addition would be that some priests might be smart enough to harness it, but might choose not to.

[sojourner]

When you look at the history of God, you definitely see an evolution in how people believed in him; from a vengeful tribal God, to the chief god of many, to the only true god, to the universal god that transcends tribal borders, to the God of Love who became a man to bring us into the Light. Each of these shifts occurred because of the changing needs of the society that believed in him. Is God conservative? Is God a liberal? He can be both. But what really has to happen is that Christianity needs to be responsive to changes in their society they serve and not get entangled into social manipulation. Teach the values of love and respect. Uphold them as the highest ideals. Lead by example, and not by force. And the people will shape and mold their society with these principles in mind. Priests aren't smart enough to harness the forces of social evolution. All they do is create a frustrated and unhealthy society. That's why people turn to alternatives, and the priests and pastor scream and shout about how bad they are, when it's really them who completely misunderstood. Let God be what people need him to be. Like you.

 

I have to repeat this, I can see much wisdom and truth in this. That is a very interesting view and makes alot of sense to me. In that Jesus is said to have been manifested in the fullness of time! When the people were ready he appeared.

 

And now slowly but surely there is a new shift happening with a more universalist christianity. It really is growing and I think at some point it will gain a real place in the church realm and then it will get all mass produced and yucky. Im glad I got to be a part of it in its infancy before that happens. Just as you Antlerman have fond memories of the infancy of humanism.

 

sojourner