Well, as a newly ordained priest of the Church of Spiritual Humanism, one of my duties is to preach, no? Well, I’m cross-posting a rant I just put up over on the SH forums, which sums up my beliefs as they relate to SH pretty nicely, I think. It’s long, so bear with me:
I know I’m really late to this party, but I just got ordained a couple of days ago and have been lurking my way trough the forums since then for getting a feel for just what I’d signed myself up for.
Anyway, I just want to take a little quote from one of AndyH’s posts and use it to explain what, to me at least, Spiritual Humanism is and means, and the reason it resonated in me enough for me to want to join:
AndyH wrote:
Now I know for some, it is an important part of their religion to trust god, or the bible without question, but I just wasn?t brought up that way. It?s hard for me to accept. So much for my tolerant, open minded humanist ideals. But there?s a big difference in respecting the spiritual beliefs of others and embracing them myself. So fine, all good then, don?t believe a thing. We immerse ourselves in science and facts and the tangible. Safe, secure, explainable. The rainbow is NOT beautiful it is simply sunlight that has entered a drop of water and it is refracted, and some of this light is reflected once at the back of the drop and exits, being refracted again. The light which undergoes one reflection leaves the drop at a range of deviation angles, but this has a minimum value of about 42o and more light emerges near this angle than at other angles, leading to a bright band. The angle of minimum deviation is slightly different for the different colored components of white light, so the colors are split. This forms the primary rainbow at an angle of 42o to the anti-solar direction.See what I mean? This method does not help me to appreciate or enjoy the rainbow. Or even look forward to encountering one again. It?s like having sex in a morgue. We are human. We have emotions and passion and love. Very little of that can be explained by science and logic.
See, to me, Spiritual Humanism is a way of looking at that rainbow, understanding all the science behind it, and at the same time being awed by its beauty. I can look at a picture of a far away starfield and understand the science behind how they got those details to show through infrared, how far the light travelled, at what speed, what we can learn about the composition of those stars through examining the minutest details of that light… and at the same time I can gaze into it and be swept away by the beauty and majesty of it, and let myself meditate on the sheer massive *size* of the universe. The scientist and the spiritual being in me can both be fed from the same source, and that, I think, is part of what SH gets at. Reason and Spirituality can feed each other, can coexist and become stronger together. We can use our spirituality to inspire our reason, and use our reason to better understand the nature of spirituality, which leads back to the beggining, and so forth, and all the while, we grow wiser and, hopefully, happier.
SH encourages the exploration of spirituality, of religion, or rituals and meditation and, yes, even seemingly irrational beleifs, all seen through the lens of reason. I don’t think the true follower of SH would reject a religious beleif out of hand, just for lack of proof. He would instead seek to understand that belief, see where it comes from, why we cling to it, try and find if there is, indeed, any truth to it, and place value on its role as a helper to our spiritual side. Understanding the ritual significance behind, say, the Christian Mass does not have to lessen your appreication of the ritual. You simply appreciate it in a different way, not blindly, but well lit by the light of reason, able to discern the flow of power in the words, the way that phrases, actions, and objects come together to inspire, heal, or nurture thanks to the meaning behind them. Without assigning supernatural abilities to ritual, we can still be awed and inspired by its power to motivate and heal when used properly, and use those rituals as tools on our path to ever greater understanding of the world around us.
Does that sound like an accurate description of what SH is? At the very least, it’s *my* definition of it, and what draws me to it. I sincerely hope it’s at least compatible with what we all are here for.
Oh, and so as not to be completely off topic, while I know of no real solid proof for reincarnation, the prevalence of belief in it is fascinating, and, as a Spiritual Humanist, I’d basically consider it my duty to try and learn as much about this possible phenomenon as I can. As others have stated, there are some solid scientific principles that can be used in support of some aspects of reincarnation, so it would be downright irresponsible to completely dismiss it out of hand. Even if at the end of the day my studies lead me to conclude that reincarnation is not possible, the journey towards that conclusion, and meditiation and study on the steps that get me there, can be just as valuable as the conclusion itself, and may lead to a greater understanding of the concepts of consciousness, self, and personality than we currently have. I think these are powerful enough reasons not to dismiss it out of hand, and to study it to the best of our abilities. I am not advocating blind belief in it, I’m advocating study and understanding.
As for the apparent contradiction in beliefs between reincarnation and communication with the dead in wiccan and pagan philosophy, others have allready pointed out that the two are not mutually exclusive, and the soul, in these beliefs, can be seen as inhabiting an in-between place for a time before reincarnation, during which they could be contaced. As for the actual validity of these beleifs, that remains a source of debate for most, and a source of scientific inquiry for me.
Entries (RSS)
OK, I’m with you so far. The issue of evidence is a sticking point for me. There were many posts on the forums along the lines of “If you are reasonable, you can not believe in incorporeal consciousness (spirits, gods, etc.)”. Truth is some of these things are things that simply lack reporducible evidence, many no more unreasonable than many of the working scientific ideas. They are simply associated with superstition and therefore rejected out of hand by some. Here’s another question for you: do you belive the totality of the universe is ultimately knowable?
Inasmuch as I beleive that the universe, by definition, contains everything there is or ever can be, and that the definition of universe is much broader than one might think (it can take into account such concepts as the quantum theory of parallel realities), and tempered by such limits as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which places a hard limit on how far our knwoledge of the universe can go due to its very nature, my answer would be a qualified yes. A more compelling, and, in my eyes, correct, phrasing of the question would be: Is it possible for an intellect to know everything that can be known about the universe? Not neccesarily a human intellect as we understand it now, but an intellect with a finite capacity for knowledge? I beleive, again, that the answer is a qualified yes. While our knowledge of the universe can never be 100% complete due to things like the HUP, everything else is fair game, and I see no reason why it would not be possible to know everything that is knowable.
Hi again – just a quick note to Monster:
I see that you ran into some of our stricter members.
The members of the CSH forum come from all kinds of religious and spiritual philosophies. Some are devout athiests (is that an oxymoron? 
), others like myself are agnostics (I call myself an “agnostic with hope”), others are pagan, wiccan, buddhist, taoist, or follow Native American spirituality, and still others from even more diverse paths.
There are times when someone will get a bit too strict with the science and reason stuff – and forget that the term spiritual itself is something that cannot be quantified scientifically. Like everyone else, we have our moments of being fallible humans – spiritual or not, clergy members or not.
Don’t be discouraged if someone seems to be jumping on the “I want proof” bandwagon. For the most part, we accept that whatever beliefs are held by the individual are valid for that person. As long as you aren’t trying to convert anyone, then any barking you hear is much worse than our bite
I hope you’ll come back to the forum and talk to us again. I found when I first got there that I preferred to stick to general interest topics, like politics (and I can go on forever about THAT!), until I got to know the personalities enough to feel comfortable discussing my spirituality. That way, if someone did jump on the skeptic bandwagon right away, I already knew what they believed, and could deal with it without feeling attacked. It worked for me – maybe it will work for you.
Oh, BTW – AndyH is one of our regulars, although she later changed her “handle” to Preceptor. She’s been away for a while, but will be back. I love her writing style – she can talk about the most serious, intense topics, and still say it in a way that makes you laugh! She’s a good friend of mine, even though we live on opposite coasts and have never met.
That’s how CSH is…. Once you get to know us, you can’t help but love us!!