Thanks for educating me on pantheism though, if you could not tell my philosophical reading leans more toward the existentialists.

I have had spiritual experiences, most often like the ancients, with the help of hallucinogens. But I never felt that there was a need to externalize the experience into one of special knowledge of the universe. I always understood that any revelations were internal and dealt with my own psychology and brain chemistry. 

To me though, adding the divine takes something away from the wonder of the universe. Life is so much more precious if there is no divine connection, if we are all just transportation systems for our DNA. Bad crib from Carl Sagan: we are all made of star stuff, and there is not anything in our religions, fictions or imagination that can compare with the wonder of that.

I guess I just see that extra layer as extraneous and removing us unnecessarily from contact with each other. I am sure you see it in a much different way :) and that is ok, it seems we probably agree on much more than we disagree. 

You stated as an axiom that “God is SuperNatural”.  But this is not really a base axiom; it is a statement of belief that you share with several religions.  It is a faith-based belief, as there is no empirical evidence for it whatsoever, and considerable evidence against it.  I do not agree with this belief as stated.  By definition, that which exists in nature is “natural”, and my God physically exists in nature, therefore God is not super-natural.

The distinction between panentheism and pantheism is concisely encapsulated here, though.  Pantheists believe that everything is God, and panentheists agree, but panentheists also believe that there is more – that God is composed of everything and some mystical supernatural other stuff.  I believe Hasidic Jews are panentheists, as are some of the smaller Christian denominations.

I don’t know how to show you that your argument is entirely circular if you don’t see it.  You’ve defined non-existence and supernaturality and god as synonymous, and then said this proves god is nonexistent.  There’s nothing there but a loop.  You started from your conclusion.

Here, I will give you Spinoza’s argument for God, which is often called the Geometric Proof (people who don’t understand it will incorrectly claim it’s an ontological proof, by which you can deduce that they have not read Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy).

axiom: God is the greatest thing there is or can be
axiom: a set is greater than any individual component of the same set
therefore: the set of all things is the greatest possible thing
conclusion: God is the set of all things.

You asked:  So how is your religion distinct from a secular naturalistic viewpoint?

It’s more joyful and inclusive.

I don’t know if you’re ever achieved a spiritual experience, through meditation or prayer?  Science has proved that this experience exists, as a measurable human condition.  And it’s both enjoyable and really good for you, psychologically and physically.  It doesn’t matter if you call it enlightenment, left/right brain recalibration, or a state of grace, but it’s fair to say it’s a condition that secular naturalists aren’t particularly interested in.  By contrast, religious pantheists approach experiential realities as facets of the divine, and welcome spiritual experiences.  Both groups see beauty in nature, but pantheists choose to see divinity also, and see themselves as participants in deity, rather than as supplicants to an external environment, process or entity.

Also, as a pantheist, I get to participate in the rich legacy of human celebration of the divine.  I can read, repeat and enjoy Rumi’s poetry, I can sing many of the great and moving hymns of the Reformation with full conviction, I can read and agree with great religious authors and freedom fighters of the past and take motivation from them, in short I can use God-language without pretense or hypocrisy.  My marriage vows weren’t some fake thing I did to impress other people, they were real promises to God and to my spouse.  When someone gives a thanksgiving blessing, as long as they leave out specific claims (mostly involving Jesus) I can wholeheartedly share an “amen” with the Christians, Muslims, B’Hai, and Quakers in my community.  Being religious means I don’t have to completely reject a huge part of history or humanity.

You also asked:  Why call it a religion if it is indistinguishable from a personal
philosophy such as secular humanism?

Well, I would argue that a religious person has the right to define their religion, and that while you don’t have to agree with them, you’re going out of your way to pick a fight when you say their religion isn’t a “real” religion.  It would be like me saying you aren’t a real atheist – I am willing to categorize you as a particular type of atheist, sure, and I’m willing to point out any inconsistencies in your beliefs; I’m even willing to say that your God is fake and non-existent – but if I start telling you that you aren’t allowed to call yourself an atheist, I’m just picking a fight – either with you, or with the people I think are “real” atheists.  It’s pasting an intellectual facade over a desire for conflict.

I would claim that we have not greatly rewritten basic physics in at least the last 200 years of ‘modern science.’ Sure Newtonian physics may break down at certain extremes, but that does not mean Newton was wrong, just that the technology and advancement was not there to see more of the natural world. What we continue to learn just builds on these basic observations and enhances them with more detail.

Interesting conversation even if we end up agreeing to disagree. :)

All of the many flavors of atheism are worthy of study. Some atheists are also agnostics, because their flavor of atheism (“I have no god”) is orthogonal to agnosticism (“there may be no god at all”). Some atheists are heretic Christians (“God is defined in the Bible, and only that definition is valid, and I don’t believe in that God”). There is at least one explicitly atheist branch of Hinduism, and many atheists are members of religions that don’t discriminate against them. Some atheists – and nearly all theologians refer to this group as “naive atheists” – refuse to agree that the definition of God is the root of theology, and insist that all gods are the same, and that the primary characteristic of god is non-existence. This is not a viable viewpoint from the stance of philosophy or logic, because it’s based on circular reasoning, but it’s OK theologically because theology is the study of what people believe about God. The naive atheist view is prominent on Reddit and among followers of Ayn Rand (I mean no disrespect, I merely inform).

You asked “I would be curious to hear about these religions that are 100% compatible with reality, that espouse no supernatural or physics-defying beliefs. Would you at least confirm that a religion is a set of beliefs?”

My own religion – pantheism – is 100% compatible with reality. So are some kinds of Buddhism and several of the more advanced forms of Judaism. If my religion conflicts with reality, then my religion is wrong, so I figure out how to fix it and make it better. Reform Judaism is pretty much the same way, according to the practitioners I know.

Religion is definitely not a set of inviolable beliefs. That is a feature of many religions, but certainly not all. Rinzai’s famous aphorism, “If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him” tells the Buddhist (among other things) that enlightenment is not something that is externally applied by a preacher or read from a book, it is found inside oneself – through meditation and intense personal study of the nature of reality. At the American Universalist convention of 1803, where this subject was extensively discussed, Noah Murray said that explicitly requiring a set of beliefs was morally wrong, and “It is harmless now – it is a calf, and its horns have not yet made their appearance, but is will soon grow older – its horns will grow, and then it will begin to hook”. Murray’s viewpoint won the day, and consequently the various Universalist faiths have no dogma, no catechism, and no requirement for any set of religious beliefs.

You said: “Even if we do not understand something fully, we can state with fairly high confidence that when it is eventually explained we will not need to fully rewrite our understanding of the basic laws of physics or our definitions of the natural and the supernatural.”

But that’s not science. You have faith, but it’s not based on empirical evidence or inductive reasoning, since both of those contradict your thesis. We’ve fully rewritten our understanding of the basic laws of physics many times since Pausanius’ atomic theory. Unreasoning faith despite all evidence and experience is not part of my particular religion, but it’s a major feature of the “revealed truth” religions I mentioned before, and it’s also a feature of some forms of atheism. You should probably worry about that statement of belief growing horns! ^_^

No, it’s the nightmare relationships where one party is locked in a cage and beaten. In COS’s case, this can be literally be true.

I would be curious to hear about these religions that are 100% compatible with reality, that espouse no supernatural or physics-defying beliefs. Would you at least confirm that a religion is a set of beliefs?

In philosophy it often comes down to definitions, so we can debate all day about what religion should mean, but I think Michael’s point is valid. If you allow religion to be defined in different and internally conflicting ways then the word ceases to have any meaning.

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon_Church_attempts_to_gag_Internet_over_handbook

And unlike astrology, tea leaf reading works really well, because by the time there’s a pattern at the bottom of the cup, the old gypsy woman has spent a couple of minutes talking to you about how you’re worried your boyfriend might be cheating or whether to dump him for that dark handsome stranger, and she’s got a good idea about what _you_ actually feel even if you don’t, and she’s known a lot of people with cheating boyfriends and a lot of people who did or didn’t leave the nice boring guy for the new hottie, and can probably tell you a good story and invite you to come back next week for another session.  (Of course, next week she may tell you that the real problem is that you’re suffering from a curse and it’ll cost a lot of money to fix, and unlike Scientology auditors, she _knows_ it’s a scam.)

Everything in life requires some sort of belief system with tenants that are taken on faith. Religion. Politics. Hell, even the idea that what we perceive is actually real. Faith cannot be the sole definition of religion.

But you’re right, defining religion is problematic. I mean, what we consider today to be religion would be closer akin to the place of philosophy in the classical world (i.e., a way of understanding the meaning of the world, life, and our place in it), whereas religion in that classical context was more of civic function that a set of beliefs through which to understand “how to live a good life” or “what’s it all mean?” 

This is very much in line with some of the things you’re saying – you believe that you can define characteristics of religions you have never studied, because you think you have a basic truth in hand, and that you don’t need to learn anything beyond that overriding truth.  Magical thinking is not restricted to us religious folks, and it isn’t really a characteristic of religion as a whole.  Although it’s certainly common.

Have you considered that if you insist that only one sub-category of religion counts as a religion for you, that’s a faith-based argument, not rooted in objective reality?

You cannot deny that most religions do require some uncritical thinking, some leap of faith.

Although I certainly could deny that, I won’t, since I agree.  The flaw in your proposition is that you are talking about MOST religions, while the original poster said ALL religion.  The qualifiers and plural/singular form are extremely significant.  If I say all people are chinese, and you say most peoples are chinese, we’re not talking about the same things.

All the best religions are 100% compatible with reality, and completely compatible with critical thinking.  It’s really a rather good yardstick for determining which ones are worth being a part of.  Note mainstream Christianity does not fit the bill.

If you can something with no dogma a religion, you can call astrology a science; the term ceases to be useful.

That’s a rather famous fundamentalist Christian argument, which I believe went all the way to the Texas state Supreme Court.  You lost.  You don’t get to have a private definition of religion, even though I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know your outlook is absolutely in line with anti-humanist fundamentalist dogma.  I hope you’ll forgive me for considering you a heretic Southern Baptist, since you believe many of the same things they do?

Incidentally, your definition of “useful” is as limited as your definition of “religion”.

False even-handedness is absolutely unnecessary for every discussion about harmful cults (that may or may not be a “legitimate” religion independent of harmful cult status.)

I knew a cult escapee once who ran away to the ass-end of nowhere and was telling his story to a waitress in a diner there.  When she asked why he put up with the abuse for as long as he did he said “Well, have you ever had a bad ex who…”.  ”Say no more”, she replied, “I get it.”

Cults don’t have to be religious in any way either.  There are plenty of Human Potential and psychiatric cults.

“How has the Lord blessed you today?” instead of “How are you?”

Just respond by saying, “Happy as a succubus sitting on Satan’s cock! How are you?”

I love cheese, would die to save innocent lives, think a sense of both humour and tolerance are basic requirements to be a good person, and am fairly convinced that I/we am/are immortal… but none of this is religion. I could form a club of like-minded folk, but it wouldn’t be a religion until we told people what and how to believe.

This Scientology droid fits in that category IMHO.