Religious identity has always been a big deal in America. Identifying yourself as a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or some other religion, is a convenient shortcut to let others know who you are—whether you’re like them or different—and offering clues as to how to interact with you. But what if you don’t identify with a recognizable religion? What if you’ve quit, or never joined up in the first place, or find yourself in a place on the fringes or somewhere between the lines? What do you call yourself, when the conversation inevitably—if not politely—comes around to the topic of religious identity?

As shown in the recently published Pew Research study, a growing percentage of Americans are growing away from traditional religious identification. I’m one of them, and I still struggle to define where I stand. It’s complicated.

On a recent NPR talk show, the discussion began with those statistics. And then, all call-in hell broke loose, when people began phoning in to describe their own, unconventional religio-spiritual identities.

One woman, who identified herself as an Episcopal priest, protested that the term “Christian” has been “hijacked and “unfairly claimed” by ultra-fundamentalists. She then declared herself to be a “Christist,” which she defined [if I understood her correctly] as a person who follows the teachings attributed to Jesus, without the ritualistic requirements of formal Christianity.

Another caller proclaimed himself to be a “deist.” He didn’t define it very clearly, but he was obviously making a distinction between his beliefs and those promulgated by churches he had tried to participate in.

You get the idea. Religious identity—in a way that strikes me as similar to sexual identity—is becoming fluid and confusing. That call-in show sent me into research mode: I’ve been trying to get definitions for the various shades of un-belief and un-religion.

Today, I stumbled onto an article that offers helpful descriptions [meaning definitions that I can actually understand] of seven of the more popular—and traditional—shades of non-belief. Unfortunately, reading these definitions makes me even more confused about what to call myself.

1. Atheist

The term atheist can be defined literally as lacking a humanoid god concept, but historically it means one of two things. Positive atheism asserts that a personal supreme being does not exist. Negative atheism simply asserts a lack of belief in such a deity. It is possible be a positive atheist about the Christian God, for example, while maintaining a stance of negative atheism or even uncertainty on the question of a more abstract deity like a “prime mover.”

(Hmmm. I’ve been calling myself an atheist for a while, now. It turns out that, according to this definition, I’m more of a negative than a positive atheist. But even that is not a perfect definition, because the author says that negative atheism “asserts a lack of belief” in a deity. I object to the word “belief:” I don’t think that the word “belief” belongs in a definition of atheism. In my kind of atheism, I simply do not accept the premise of a deity. It has nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with thought.)

2. Anti-theist

The term anti-theist says, “I think religion is harmful.” It also implies some form of activism that goes beyond merely advocating church-state separation or science education. Anti-theism challenges the legitimacy of faith as a moral authority or way of knowing. Anti-theists often work to expose harms caused in the name of God like stonings, gay bating, religious child maltreatment, genital mutilation, unwanted childbearing or black-collar crime.

(Well, then, maybe I’m an anti-theist, as well as an atheist, because I keep telling people that I quit religion when I realized that it creates divisions among people and that a shitload of bad things have happened under the guise of religion.)

3. Agnostic

…The term agnostic represents a range of intellectual positions that have important substance in their own right and can be independent of atheism. Strong agnosticism views God’s existence as unknowable, permanently and to all people. Weak agnosticism can mean simply “I don’t know if there is a God,” or “We collectively don’t know if there is a God but we might find out in the future.”
…These definitions of agnosticism, though different, all focus on what we do or can know, rather than on whether God exists.”

(So, it’s possible to be an atheist and an agnostic? Is that what I am?)

One author—Philip Pullman—is quoted as calling himself both:

The question of what term to use is a difficult one, in strict terms I suppose I’m an agnostic because of course the circle of the things I do know is vastly smaller than the things I don’t know about out there in the darkness somewhere maybe there is a God. But among all the things I do know in this world I see no evidence of a God whatsoever and everybody who claims to know there is a God seems to use that as an excuse for exercising power over other people…

4. Skeptic

Traditionally, skeptic has been used to describe a person who doubts received religious dogmas. However, while agnostic focuses on God questions in particular, the term skeptic expresses a broader life approach. Someone who calls him- or herself a skeptic has put critical thinking at the heart of the matter. Well known skeptics, like Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, or James Randi devote a majority of their effort to debunking pseudoscience, alternative medicine, astrology and so forth. They broadly challenge the human tendency to believe things on insufficient evidence.

5. Free-thinker

Free-thinker is a term that dates to the end of the 17th Century, when it was first used in England to describe those who opposed the Church and literal belief in the Bible. Freethought is an intellectual stance that says that opinions should be based on logic and evidence rather than authorities and traditions…The term has gotten popular recently in part because it is affirmative. Unlike atheism, which defines itself in contrast to religion, freethought identifies with a proactive process for deciding what is real and important.

(All of these definitions are making things much more complicated. Probably, many of us on the un-belief spectrum would like to think of ourselves as somehow fitting into each of these categories, because they make us think we’re smarter than the blind-faith believers.)

6. Humanist

While terms like atheist or anti-theist focus on a lack of god-belief and agnostic, skeptic and freethinker all focus on ways of knowing—humanist centers in on a set of ethical values. Humanism seeks to promote broad wellbeing by advancing compassion, equality, self-determination, and other values that allow individuals to flourish and to live in community with each other. These values drive not from revelation, but from human experience.

(Personal anecdote: About 30 years ago, when I still participated—with a large dollop of skepticism—in religion—I was in the presence of a scholarly older gentleman, to whom I expressed my reservations about the Jewish holiday we were commemorating. “I hear what you’re saying,” he said. “You do realize, don’t you, that you are a secular humanist.” I didn’t. But I do now. I just hope that all of these definitions are not mutually exclusive. I really don’t want to have to choose at this late stage of the game.)

7. Pantheist

…Pantheists center in on the spiritual heart of faith–the experience of humility, wonder, and transcendence. They see human beings as one small part of a vast natural order, with the Cosmos itself made conscious in us. Pantheists reject the idea of a person- god, but believe that the holy is made manifest in all that exists.

(At last, I think I’ve found a category that doesn’t fit me. That’s a relief.)

But let’s not forget the deists—most notably America’s founders—

…who didn’t believe in miracles or special revelation through sacred texts but thought that the natural world itself revealed a designer who could be discovered through reason and inquiry.

Or the Naturalists,

..who assume a philosophical position that the laws operating within the natural realm are the only laws governing the universe and no supernatural realm lies beyond.

Or the Secularists,

…who argue that moral standards and laws should be based on whether they do good or harm in this world and that religion should be kept out of government.

Maybe, like the whole notion of the existence of some form of supreme being, it’s just not definable at all, and—except for those who proclaim “faith” and unshakable belief—we all have to learn to live with the vagueness and ambiguity, trying on different definitions for size, and sometimes switching from one to another.

In my ideal world, though, having a name for whatever one thinks about the origin and organization of the universe wouldn’t be such an important part of one’s identity or a getting-to-know you social requirement.

The post The religious-identity spectrum: Is this the new LGBTQ+? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I am troubled by Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] for the obvious reason—that it is apparently going to be used to discriminate against people in the LGBT community [and who knows who else] and for another, less discussed reason, too: RFRA represents another instance of the absurd special exemptions and preferences America grants to religion in general, and religious organizations and beliefs in particular.

Religious institutions don’t pay property taxes—even though many sit on some of the most valuable land in their communities. Our tax laws enable people who donate money to religious organizations to treat them as tax deductions. You can donate a chunk of land to a religious organization and take that as a tax deduction, too.

More subtly, we treat religious officials as though they have some kind of special moral authority and wisdom. We address them, in non-religious settings, with their religious titles. They receive special tax breaks [known as “parsonage”] on their income and church-supplied housing. We begin governmental meetings with prayers, and we invite clergy to lead them, thereby further institutionalizing a role for religion in our legal and political system.

All of this special treatment and—pardon the pun—reverence for religions, their beliefs and practices, and their anointed leaders–has become part of the fabric of American culture. Yes, I understand the primordial American impulse to protect religion—as a part of the founding principles of our country. But I am pretty sure that the founders did not intend for “protection” to evolve into what we have today: the elevation of religious belief above enlightened thought.

What I see in the RFRA is the radical notion—now institutionalized—that religious belief trumps everything—even the principles of fairness and equality. This law represents a major step backward, threatening to undo the hard-won battles for human rights that have helped America evolve into a more enlightened country.

And please note that in Indiana’s RFRA, it is implicit that the religious beliefs being protected are those of one religion only: Christianity—and possibly only fundamentalist Christianity. I doubt that the people who passed Indiana’s RFRA would want to apply its religious exemptions to people who have Muslim beliefs. That idea is not explicity stated in the law, but we all know that it’s there, between the lines.

The hypocrisy is, well, beyond belief. The same people who push for laws like the Orwellian-named RFRA claim that we are in danger of seeing Sharia law imposed on our country. Sharia law, in their view, would be a terrible thing: the imposition of radical, fundamentalist Christian beliefs, on the other hand, would be wonderful.

None of this is breaking news. We have been overtaken, politically, by radical right-wing notions, many of which have their basis in religious beliefs—and much of their support comes from politicians elected by people with radical religious beliefs.

There’s far too much emphasis, in our culture and in our politics, on prayer and belief, and not enough on evidence-based fact and rational thought. We would be a better society if scientific organizations and scientists received the same special exemptions and exaltation as religion.

The post Indiana’s RFRA: Elevating religion over…everything appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s difficult to determine what percentage of the Americans have no particular religious affiliation.  The figure ranges from a low of 15% to a high of 37%.  If we have to pinpoint one number, the commonly accepted figure is 20%.

We might tend to feel that the preponderance of the unaffiliated are atheists or agnostics.  However, that is not true.  In a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project, fully 70% of the unaffiliated simply say that they have “no particular religious affiliation” rather than being avowed atheists or agnostics.  The figure for atheists is 2.4% and for agnostics, 3.3% of all people.

It’s rather remarkable how much noise a relatively small band of acknowledged atheists and agnostics can create.  The noise does not emanate from the atheists and agnostics. They tend to quietly go about their business.  Occasionally they seek legal help such as when asking Congress to eliminate the “under God” provision in the Pledge of Allegiance.  The noise tends to come from the right wing and religious fundamentalists who take particular affront to someone who is not a believer in their God.

Fox News pundit Dana Perino said she’s “tired” of atheists attempting to remove the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, adding, “if these people really don’t like it, they don’t have to live here.”  That’s about as harsh as it gets when a group of American citizens merely want to express their freedom of speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

One of the most interesting dynamics in religion is the large number of people who become dissatisfied with their religion and then stay with their religion anyway, sometimes trying to change it.  Others find another religion that suits them.  The remaining individuals drop out of the religious “universe” or become atheists or agnostics.

Many Catholics have a difficult time disengaging from their religion.  Because there are so many rules and regulations in the church that are hundreds or thousands of years old, modern Catholics have a huge range of issues that they’d like re-examined.  These include priesthood for women, equal rights for those in the LGBT community, accepting pre-marital sex, and removing the vows of abstinence for priests and nuns.  Most “lapsed Catholics” say that these rules just don’t make sense in the modern world.  However many prefer to fight from within to get the rules changed rather than just putting the church behind them and entering another church, becoming non-affiliated, or becoming an atheist or agnostic.

Moving away from the church is also happening in the far-right fundamentalist churches.  In a recent article on CNN on-line, Rachel Held Evans discusses many of the modern but largely unsuccessful ways of bringing young people back into the fundamentalist churches.  She says:

Time and again, the assumption among Christian leaders, and evangelical leaders in particular, is that the key to drawing twenty-somethings back to church is simply to make a few style updates – edgier music, more casual services, a coffee shop in the fellowship hall, a pastor who wears skinny jeans, an updated Web site that includes online giving.

Discussing Millenials and herself, Ms. Evans says:

Many of us, myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions – Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. – precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being “cool,” and we find that refreshingly authentic.

What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.

Many secular humanists tend to believe that it’s either religion or their way.  That’s because seculars tend to believe that all religions share many of the same flaw: incomprehensible stories, rules, and regulations.  Why wouldn’t someone want to leave an organized religion for the freedom of being unaffiliated?  The fact is that most who leave a religion find another one to their liking.  It is indeed a very special person who chooses to be unaffiliated, an atheist, or an agnostic.

The post Do atheists prefer to not be affiliated, or not to believe in God appeared first on Occasional Planet.