So, does the Being Human Church philosophy constitute a religion?
No – if by religion you mean something that starts with the supernatural and a perfect being(s) then explains how you, the flawed mortal, got to this point.
If instead you define religion as a philosophy that helps you understand your place in the universe and the value of your life – Yes!
The BHC belief structure is rooted in Humanism. We take it as axiomatic that we can only be certain of one thing: I think therefore I am. Everything else is less certain. An important part of starting from this concept is that everything else, all the uncertain stuff, has to be processed through the perspective of I Am.
So considering anything else, including God, is done by an observer via its own perspective. We can observe a third party consider something other than itself, but we cannot step outside ourselves. God, the universe, and everything, is less certain than our own awareness.
We build up and out, starting with an individual. Religion typically does the opposite. Religious beliefs structures usually start with perfection, then build down and in, towards the individual. The way we see it, that “start with perfection” process is actually impossible and starts with the individual doing the work whether or not it’s acknowledged. There just isn’t another way to build a belief structure. It’s a scaffold, not a sky-hook.
The rest of BHC’s belief structure builds off of this point. It ends up looking remarkably similar to what most people think of when they think of religion.
For more on BHC belief structure, click here.
I’ve tried to hash this out before (with Matt), but “I think therefore I am” is not certain. I recently had another back and forth with someone about this on their blog too. You can see the conversation in the comments there:
https://escapingplatoscave.com/rene-descartes-and-the-search-for-certain-knowledge/
Otherwise, I like your building *up* of philosophy and belief, but I still think it begins with an assumption, not a certainty.
I disagree with your assertion that “I think therefore I am” is uncertain for a couple of reasons. While I acknowledge that you could define “certainty” and “existence” in categorical ways and use either/or logic to argue that one must come before the other, I don’t find those methods of thinking to be useful in this circumstance.
You referred to Daniel Dennett’s “Demise of Essentialism” (which I very much liked) in your discussion on another blog. My take away from that was that categorizing things to be maximally precise isn’t always useful. To me, “I think therefore I am” is useful as an acknowledgement of the perception generated by a mind. In thinking the concept of “I,” then I “exist.” These concepts are not categorical or “essential.”
As Dennett argues, essential or discrete cases are often poor descriptors of reality. I don’t think we need to define “exist” in a categorical or essential way where we create a line between things that exist and things that don’t. Therefore, it seems to me that the being thinking of “I” perceives certainty of its “existence” as the alternative to doubt “I” allows for no perceptual foundation for reality and existence. Whether or not it is objectively or categorically certain to a third party is irrelevant to the individual who must start from somewhere.
“I think therefore I am,” then, becomes a useful perspective through which an individual can begin to understand and examine “existence” and what to do about it.
If you consider this to be an assumption (albeit a useful one), then I wouldn’t die on the hill of arguing against that idea. Additionally, we definitely agree that anything beyond existence assumes increasing levels of uncertainty as we cannot be certain of our senses and what we perceive to be “real.” We can (and do), however, triangulate perceived reality through our examination of our senses and communication with what we perceive to be other beings like ourselves. This method of triangulation may not categorically and neatly explain what is “real” or what “exists,” but it does provide us a way to function in our perceived existence.
Therefore, the phrase still seems the best place from which to build our philosophy.
Thank you for the thoughts and feedback. We look forward to your response and future conversations.
I’m not sure how you can phrase the argument “my existence is in doubt” without presupposing that you exist in order to phrase the argument. Like, whatever “certainty” means, it has to mean that. You can’t even wonder what “certainty” means without existing to do the wondering, so that has to be certain.
I would just have to say “my existence” is meaningless. Therefore your usage of the phrase is in doubt.
As for your certainty argument, you’re begging the question by assuming you know what “you” and “wonder” mean.
I hate playing the role of sceptic, but these just aren’t known with absolute certainty. And that’s okay in an evolutionary epistemology built on assumptions rather than some bedrock.
We would argue that each of our individual existences is the only truly known meaning and therefore cannot simply be declared “meaningless.” It is only through the perception of the self that we can interpret the meaning of stimuli or concepts outside of “I.”
If you doubt the existence of yourself, then we may simply have to disagree with you on this one.