Rev. Joe: Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe

I found this a galley version of this book on the library free chart. Appreciate the aim of the book -- not as much to criticize religion and/or belief in God specifically, but to positively provide a sort of "how to book" (though at one point it resists the term) on being good as a humanist. Found the book too much of a trudge and doubt whatever final touches a "clean copy" of the book might have applied changed much there.

Torasco v. Watkins, protecting the right to be a notary public without needing to declare a belief in God, involved a humanist.  He later was involved in a cause that has been cited on this blog:

He became a humanist counselor, with the authority to officiate at weddings in some states. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his challenge to Virginia laws that favored ordained ministers and prevented him from officiating at weddings there.

Torasco was the case that fifty years old had this footnote:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id. at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

I have see the Ethical Culture Society of NY, e.g., label itself as a "religion" though some secular humanists etc. rather not use the label. The book is a bit wishy-washy -- it basically notes that "religion" has a common meaning that suggests a belief in the supernatural and such (even Buddhists often believe in things like reincarnation) that humanism would not include. All the same, some have such broad and ultimately symbolic meanings of "God" (it's "nature" or an "ultimate concern"* etc.) while still being part of "religions." Unitarian-Universalists, e.g., also are accepted as a "religion" even if humanists are involved.  I covered this before.

Still, there are things that come up over and over again and being good without God as well as (especially some of the places I read online) the problems with "religion" is one of those things.  My immediate reaction often is that it often doesn't matter.  A broad meaning of "religion" includes many people, even if it doesn't include every atheist or humanist.  Torasco itself speaks of a "freedom of belief and religion," which would include (like freedom of speech includes the right to be silent) the choice not to have one. Finally, we can consider certain aspects of religion (like conscience or the ability to set up congregations of like believers, be it Catholics or humanists) as a sort of "penumbra" that cannot merely be (see Establishment Clause) left to theists or if you like "coreligionists."**

One thing the book does is show that a person can do "religious" like things while being a humanist -- as seen above, humanists preside over weddings. A good episode of Army Wives involved an officer choosing a sort of humanist alternative to a christening/bris type ceremony. One chapter provides a humanist translation of the Ten Commandments though noting a bit more is necessary for a good life. The overall purpose of life is said to be to uphold and promote human dignity.  These sorts of things where "spirituality" might come up -- that's a word for those who think "religion" is a bit too rule based or something.

A book on the views of different religions on abortion (Sacred Choices)  noted "sacred" is not necessarily deistic -- an example of a newborn child being sacred is cited. A comprehensive view like this with emotional connections, rituals and ultimate purposes to me looks like a "religion."  But, like the book, even if it is not, the term need not be a bad word. Many with a religion are overall good people.  That is the most important thing and though its technique was a bit "eh," the book's heart was in the right place.

So, good luck being a humanist chaplain at Harvard, and it's nice that since the book's writing, you have been married. Not sure about the involvement in yet another reality show though.  No one's perfect, right?

---

* [ETA] I saw a few people criticize Justice Kagan's dissent in the Town of Greece v. Galloway prayer case for ignoring non-theists (it did honor theist separatists) while some noted even their advocate at oral argument admitted atheists couldn't really be covered (later on, a secular humanist provided an invocation).  The concern was notable though she did provide this broad view of "religion":

These are statements of profound belief and deep meaning, subscribed to by many, denied by some. They “speak of the depths of [one’s] life, of the source of [one’s] being, of [one’s] ultimate concern, of what [one] take[s] seriously without any reservation.” P. Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations 57 (1948).

As Epstein noted, more effort needs to be provided to include humanists and the like in the conversation here in regard to interfaith efforts and the like. If some better formulated legislative prayer practice could be allowed in a constitutional matter (a dubious supposition), it must include non-theists. And, as suggested above, it has been done.

** As Justice Douglas once noted:

It is true that the First Amendment speaks of the free exercise of religion, not of the free exercise of conscience or belief. Yet conscience and belief are the main ingredients of First Amendment rights. They are the bedrock of free speech, as well as religion.

See here -- guess I'm a few weeks early for my yearly thing here.