The Divine Non-Contradiction Principle and Why it Fails-Refuted

[shunyadragon]

What you did was claim that the UUA was based on agnostic/atheist principles. The Humanist Manifesto is not at the foundation of atheism/agnostic belief, nor is it the basis of the UUA. Regardless, your initial claim that "churches and institutions such as the Unitarian Universalist Church that have atheist/agnostic principles at their foundation" remains in error, as even a little effort to actually read their own information makes apparent. The UUA has as its foundation Judeo-Christian principles.

Of course, I readily acknowledge that UUA draws heavily from humanism. That is still not the same thing as 'atheist/agnostic principles'. Atheists and agnostics can be humanists, but it's not required. UUA principles draw from humanism, but the two are not nearly identical.

There's already a term for "Naturalist Humanism". It's called secular humanism.

Naturalist Humanism or Secular Humanism they both embrace philosophical Naturalism, so does the Humanist Manifesto.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.[

© Copyright Original Source

Your objection is without references to back it. Please provide references not opinions. I provided a sound reference published by a UU publication. There are of course a diversity of believers in different UU congregations, and UU does not restrict membership based on belief. I have been friends of UUs in many cities in the US, and the by far the predominante belief was a foundation of secular humanism, with various alternative beliefs, but I have never meet a traditional theist that is associated as a member of a UU congregation.

One of the most outstanding 'humanist' aspects of UU is that every individual finds their own belief system, and not a 'Source' of Revelation as in theism. Any sort of enlightenment or discovery of our nature. is individual.

[Doug Shaver]

There is nothing foundational about atheism in the principles of Unitarianism.

Are you familiar with the Humanist Manifesto???

Yes. I first learned of its existence when the pastor of the Unitarian church that I attended discussed it in a sermon.

It is fundamentally an atheist/agnostic statement of human morals and ethics.

I could quibble over the characterization "fundamentally," but I'll stipulate it for the time being.

The Unitarians dominated the formation of the document.

Maybe they did, but that doesn't make humanism foundational to Unitarianism. If anything, it could possibly make Unitarianism foundational to humanism.

[shunyadragon]

Yes. I first learned of its existence when the pastor of the Unitarian church that I attended discussed it in a sermon.


I could quibble over the characterization "fundamentally," but I'll stipulate it for the time being.


Maybe they did, but that doesn't make humanism foundational to Unitarianism. If anything, it could possibly make Unitarianism foundational to humanism.

In all my contacts and affiliation with UUs since the 1960's the independent individual expression and search for truth and knowledge is an underlying principle of UU, and expressed in the Humanists Manifesto. This highly individual view of 'truth and knowledge is in it self a contrad'iction with Theism where the search for truth and knowedge is in a 'higher Divine power. This is distinctly a humanist view regardless of whether individual UU members believe totally in 'all aspects of 'secular humanism.'

In actuallity I have the greatest respect for UU and the experiences I have had with their members over the years, but none the less views like 'everyone is welcome regardless of what one believes,' is an illusion in UU as well as virtually all other religious institution unless one endorses some kind of chaotic antidisestablishment institutional anarchy

Also the importance of science whether Philosophical or Methodological Naturalism is essential. Most if not all UU members I have known endorse the independence of science without question whether any Divne 'Source(s)' exist or not.

[robrecht]

In all my contacts and affiliation with UUs since the 1960's the independent individual expression and search for truth and knowledge is an underlying principle of UU, and expressed in the Humanists Manifesto. This highly individual view of 'truth and knowledge is in it self a contrad'iction with Theism where the search for truth and knowedge is in a 'higher Divine power. This is distinctly a humanist view regardless of whether individual UU members believe totally in 'all aspects of 'secular humanism.'

In actuallity I have the greatest respect for UU and the experiences I have had with their members over the years, but none the less views like 'everyone is welcome regardless of what one believes,' is an illusion in UU as well as virtually all other religious institution unless one endorses some kind of chaotic antidisestablishment institutional anarchy

Also the importance of science whether Philosophical or Methodological Naturalism is essential. Most if not all UU members I have known endorse the independence of science without question whether any Divne 'Source(s)' exist or not.

These views may be contradictory for some theists, but certainly not all. I have no data to support the following, but I would not be surprised if the majority of theists would disagree with your dichotomy.

[shunyadragon]

These views may be contradictory for some theists, but certainly not all. I have no data to support the following, but I would not be surprised if the majority of theists would disagree with your dichotomy.

I am not sure where they would disagree. Yes, many in fact many people also believe that some knowledge, revelation and beliefs are individually discovered or revealed, but what unites theists is the fundamental belief in some unifying revelation from God through one or more mediators reveals knowledge that humans must believe in to be somehow saved. This type of belief is absent from UU theology. In fact variations of naturalist or secular humanism without a specific belief in a God(s) or a mediator is what unites Unitarian Universalists.

Another very important point in UU beliefs in general is: What is the source of human morality and ethics. I believe it is pretty much universal among UU believers that morality and ethics are basically naturally human attributes.

[Doug Shaver]

In all my contacts and affiliation with UUs since the 1960's the independent individual expression and search for truth and knowledge is an underlying principle of UU, and expressed in the Humanists Manifesto.

Now you're talking about freethought. That is not the same thing as either atheism or humanism, and so you're changing the subject.

This highly individual view of 'truth and knowledge is in it self a contrad'iction with Theism where the search for truth and knowedge is in a 'higher Divine power.

Theism is the belief that at least one god exists. There is no necessary contradiction between freethought the existence of a god. There is a contradiction between freethought and the God affirmed by historically orthodox Christianity and its Abrahamic kin, but the Abrahamic religions don't get to tell the rest of the world what kinds of gods there might be.

Most if not all UU members I have known endorse the independence of science without question whether any Divne 'Source(s)' exist or not.

It's one thing to endorse the independence of science. It's another to be committed to a scientific worldview. In the UU church I attended, I didn't see much of that commitment. It's one reason I decided I was wasting my time hanging around those people on Sunday mornings.

[shunyadragon]

Now you're talking about freethought. That is not the same thing as either atheism or humanism, and so you're changing the subject.

No, the type of free thought advocated in UU is distinctly humanist, but not necessarily atheist. I never claimed that UUs were all atheist. I do believe that the atheist/agnostic view is predominant in the UU.

Theism is the belief that at least one god exists. There is no necessary contradiction between freethought the existence of a god. There is a contradiction between freethought and the God affirmed by historically orthodox Christianity and its Abrahamic kin, but the Abrahamic religions don't get to tell the rest of the world what kinds of gods there might be.

Correct, free thought is not a contradiction with the existence of God, I never made such a claim. Actually free thought and will has quite a range of beliefs in traditional theism. It is true that in almost all theistic religions limit the possible choices of valid free thought. In the variations of humanism of UU such choices are not so limited.

It's one thing to endorse the independence of science. It's another to be committed to a scientific worldview. In the UU church I attended, I didn't see much of that commitment. It's one reason I decided I was wasting my time hanging around those people on Sunday mornings.

I consider the UU to be overwhelmingly commited to a scientific worldview as far as the physical nature of our existence. What people 'see' in one particular church and other setting may vary greatly.

[Doug Shaver]

Now you're talking about freethought. That is not the same thing as either atheism or humanism, and so you're changing the subject.

No, the type of free thought advocated in UU is distinctly humanist, but not necessarily atheist.

You're supposed to be defending the claim that humanism is foundational to Unitarian-Universalism. Humanists are not necessarily freethinkers, and freethinkers are not necessarily humanists.

I do believe that the atheist/agnostic view is predominant in the UU.

Whether they are or not is irrelevant to your claim about UU foundations.

I consider the UU to be overwhelmingly commited to a scientific worldview as far as the physical nature of our existence.

So what? I do not accept the Humanist Manifesto, but I feel committed to a scientific worldview and to a physicalist explanation of human existence.

[shunyadragon]

You're supposed to be defending the claim that humanism is foundational to Unitarian-Universalism. Humanists are not necessarily freethinkers, and freethinkers are not necessarily humanists.

Never said humanists are necessarily freethinkers, nor free thinkers are necessarily humanists.

So what? I do not accept the Humanist Manifesto, but I feel committed to a scientific worldview and to a physicalist explanation of human existence.

Important questions:

What specifically do you not accept about the Humanist Manifesto?

Do you believe morals and ethics are of natural human attributes, or a source, ie Divine, outside the natural evolution of human nature?

Your overstating an emphasis that 'humanism' as expressed in UU is atheist. I believe humanism has a range of expression in UU and yes, stands at the foundation of UU as to why most believers in UU believe what they do. Yes, diversity is very much a part of UU, but I believe the foundation remains humanism. Polls of UU support my view:

Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Unitarian-Universalist/They-Came-From-Other-Churches.aspx?p=3

Whereas "human reason and knowledge" was called very important by 96 percent of UU congregational leaders who took part in the multidenominational Faith Communities Today (FACT) survey released early this year, the Bible was termed only "somewhat important" by 50 percent and had little or no importance to 48 percent as a source for worship and teaching. God's presence, at best, was sensed significantly by only 25 percent in church and somewhat by another 36 percent.

As for a preferred theological label, among respondents in the FACT survey and in two other polls previously cited, "humanist" always got the most votes. The UUA's in-house survey four years ago asked church members to chose only one label (though some chose more). The top choices were humanist (46 percent), earth/nature centered (19 percent), theist (13 percent), Christian (9.5 percent), with mystic, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu and Muslim in ever-smaller percentages. Another 13 percent picked "other."

© Copyright Original Source

Even within the diversity of UU believers 'human reason and knowledge' is overwhelming dominate.

A side comment on why you no longer attend UU. It is best to support institutions such as UU for unselfish reasons of support the ideals and asperations of the institution, and not for reasons of what one personally gets from this affiliation. I am a Baha'i, and not Unitarian, but I often attend and find fellowship with the group.

[Doug Shaver]

You're supposed to be defending the claim that humanism is foundational to Unitarian-Universalism. Humanists are not necessarily freethinkers, and freethinkers are not necessarily humanists.

Never said humanists are necessarily freethinkers, nor free thinkers are necessarily humanists.

Then why even bring freethought into the discussion?

What specifically do you not accept about the Humanist Manifesto?

My responding to that query would constitute a serious derailment of this thread.

Yes, diversity is very much a part of UU, but I believe the foundation remains humanism.

You've made it clear enough that you believe it. You have not made it clear that you have a good reason to believe it.

Polls of UU support my view:

You don't need polls to discover the foundations of any religion. You need facts about the historical origins of that religion.

Even within the diversity of UU believers 'human reason and knowledge' is overwhelming dominate.

Support for gun control legislation is dominant among American Democrats. That doesn't make gun control foundational to the Democratic Party.

[shunyadragon]

Then why even bring freethought into the discussion?

Degree and role of free thought is an important issue in humanism as differenciated from theism. Theism in one way or another discourages free thought.

My responding to that query would constitute a serious derailment of this thread.

I do not believe so. If you insist I will start another thread on this topic and ask you to respond.

You've made it clear enough that you believe it. You have not made it clear that you have a good reason to believe it.

Huh?!?!?!!??

You don't need polls to discover the foundations of any religion. You need facts about the historical origins of that religion.

The polls are direct reflection of what UUs believe and why. If you took polls of traditional Christian churches, and other religions the results would clearly reflect the doctrines, dogmas and foundation beliefs represented in the majority of the believers.

Support for gun control legislation is dominant among American Democrats. That doesn't make gun control foundational to the Democratic Party.

Completely different issue and changing the subject big time. DERAILING big time.

Your responses here are genuinely dismal.

[robrecht]

Degree and role of free thought is an important issue in humanism as differenciated from theism. Theism in one way or another discourages free thought.

Please be more specific. It may be that you are using an overly narrow definition of theism. For those of us who do not believe that God can or should be defined and who thus appreciate apophatic theology, I think theism, if it is not too narrowly defined, is extremely liberating of the mind from unwarranted opinions. I also don't think humanism should always or necessarily be differentiated from theism. Witness, for example, the Christian personalism of someone like Jacques Maritain and his role in the development of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It may be that those who are bound by their own or others' categorization of too many 'isms' are actually themselves more limited by a desire or compulsion to restrict the free thought of others and thus restrict themselves as well.

Completely different issue and changing the subject big time. DERAILING big time.

I think Doug was merely illustrating a logical point.

[shunyadragon]

Please be more specific. It may be that you are using an overly narrow definition of theism. For those of us who do not believe that God can or should be defined and who thus appreciate apophatic theology, I think theism, if it is not too narrowly defined, is extremely liberating of the mind from unwarranted opinions.

The problem is the cataphatic theology of traditional theism, not the apophatic theology you are referring to. It is the Cataphatic theology that defines traditional Christian theism.

I also don't think humanism should always or necessarily be differentiated from theism. Witness, for example, the Christian personalism of someone like Jacques Maritain and his role in the development of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It may be that those who are bound by their own or others' categorization of too many 'isms' are actually themselves more limited by a desire or compulsion to restrict the free thought of others and thus restrict themselves as well.

First let's back up. You have not been following my posts well, or selectively, maybe not at all. I made it clear the 'humanism' I was referring to was the variations of secular humanism, naturalist humanism, also as reflected in the Humanist Manifesto reflecting in one way or another our human will is natural and the source of our morals and ethics. I also acknowledged there were other uses of humanism not related to the specific references I was using.

Are you actually reading my posts!?!?!?!?! . . . or may be just accusing me of generalizing in a shotgun approach to the discussion.

I think Doug was merely illustrating a logical point.

Not remotely related to the topic.

[robrecht]

The problem is the cataphatic theology of traditional theism, not the apophatic theology you are referring to. It is the Cataphatic theology that defines traditional Christian theism.

As I suspected, your point might have relevance with an overly narrow definition of theism, pertaining only to some forms of kataphatic theology. In my opinion, apophatic theology is a very important part of traditional theism, at least as can be seen very early in Judaism, in Christianity in the East especially, and in early and decisive figures in the Western Christianity.

First let's back up. You have not been following my posts well, or selectively, maybe not at all. I made it clear the 'humanism' I was referring to was the variations of secular humanism, naturalist humanism, also as reflected in the Humanist Manifesto reflecting in one way or another our human will is natural and the source of our morals and ethics. I also acknowledged there were other uses of humanism not related to the specific references I was using.

Are you actually reading my posts!?!?!?!?! . . . or may be just accusing me of generalizing in a shotgun approach to the discussion.

Accusing you? Seriously. Take a deep breath. Let's back up a little further. You divided my post and then seem to have taken what I said about humanism out of context. My point is not about the various forms of humanism, but the effect of differentiating humanism from theism and thus another narrowing of the definition of theism. Jacques Maritain could be described as a very traditional Thomistic theist, and his form of theism should not be excluded from an understaning of theism.

Not remotely related to the topic.

Illustrating the logic of his point, which he apparently thinks you are missing, is centrally related to the discussion. Logic is always of great importance to Doug's manner of proceeding and I appreciate his careful thought process. The subject matter of an illustration need not be related to a specific topic; in fact, it is sometimes very helpful to use an illustration from another field.

[shunyadragon]

As I suspected, your point might have relevance with an overly narrow definition of theism, pertaining only to some forms of kataphatic theology. In my opinion, apophatic theology is a very important part of traditional theism, at least as can be seen very early in Judaism, in Christianity in the East especially, and in early and decisive figures in the Western Christianity.

The cataphatic theology of traditional theism narrowly defines what one 'must' believe, and thus limits free thought as predominately believed by UUs. Again, Traditional Judism is more more strongly rooted (anchored) culture and tradition, and not apophatic theology. In Judaism this not much of a concern to the average Jew.

Accusing you? Seriously. Take a deep breath. Let's back up a little further. You divided my post and then seem to have taken what I said about humanism out of context. My point is not about the various forms of humanism, but the effect of differentiating humanism from theism and thus another narrowing of the definition of theism. Jacques Maritain could be described as a very traditional Thomistic theist, and his form of theism should not be excluded from an understaning of theism.

Again, the type of humanism I am referring to is specific related to the question of what and why UUs believe what they do, and you missed it. We are dealing with average people making choices between churches and why they make these choices. The above is a bit over the head of most believers. To the believers of UU and the humanist preference (94%) as well as the degree of diversity allowed in free thought of UU it is the constraints of kataphatic traditional theism and the exclusive belief you must believe or your not saved that leads many to UU. In the reference cited there is testimony to this effect.

Illustrating the logic of his point, which he apparently thinks you are missing, is centrally related to the discussion. Logic is always of great importance to Doug's manner of proceeding and I appreciate his careful thought process. The subject matter of an illustration need not be related to a specific topic; in fact, it is sometimes very helpful to use an illustration from another field.

I am fully aware of what he was trying to do. The problem is not whether it is related to the specific topic, the problem is that is so far off that it does not relate at all to the logic involved.

As to the logic involved in his example. I have acknowledged that all believers do not always share the same views, especially on specific issues as his example cited. The issue is what forms the basic foundation of a belief system and why 'MOST' believers believe as they do and why.