#38562: MBains — 09/03  at  09:03 AM
There isn't any better kind because it includes everything that isn't already nailed down as fact.

My sister is becoming a UU minister. She was catholic before and after I was and she knows and loves the difference between science and religion.

How could I be honest about my self or my species and not tolerate that?

btw, what's coenose? It's my Turing word to post this comment.

#38564: Bob Davis — 09/03  at  09:10 AM
It doesn't really matter which religion the would-be theocrats choose, because once mandatory religion gets into the schools more than half the country will cry foul. The fundamentalist- protestant outreach to right-wing catholics and jews will fall to the wayside so fast it will make your nose-bleed dry up.

That's how we ended up with that whole church-state separation thing in the first place. It would be nice if people understood their history so that we wouldn't have to go through religious wars among christian sects again, but whatever.

#38569: charlie wagner — 09/03  at  09:44 AM
Paul wrote:

"I can respect a belief system that tolerates and encourages freethought."

I guess that's why you abide *me*, right?

Or does that respect for freethought end when your beloved neo-darwinism is threatened?

#38571: Alon Levy — 09/03  at  10:00 AM
Have you forgotten the Unitarian jihad, PZ?

#38572: PZ Myers — 09/03  at  10:03 AM
"Coenose" is a fossil assemblage.

Of course I haven't forgotten the Unitarian Jihad. It's time for them to take action.

#38574: charlie wagner — 09/03  at  10:06 AM
Paul wrote:

"if the US is to endorse a state religion, it ought to be Unitarianism."

The US ought not to ever endorse a state religion.

I investigated Unitarianism back in the 60's when I stopped being (insofar as I was able...I guess I still have that indelible mark on my soul.) a Catholic. What good is a religion that has no dogma? Why have any religion at all? It's nothing more than a social club, as far as I'm concerned. Thankfully, I hooked up with Bertrand Russell and learned how to think for myself. Now, I follow no dogma, adhere to no tenets and worship no God. And I like it just fine.
My kids never got a word or religious propaganda in their lives and insofar as I can tell, they're intelligent, caring, humanists. Turned out just fine, indeed. Their minds were not brainwashed with any kind of political, religious or scientific dogma and they are not what I was for many years: a recovering catholic.

"I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking. I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious. I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty… I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect. I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech… I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run. I believe in the reality of progress. I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.
H.L. Mencken"

#38575: Llelldorin — 09/03  at  10:08 AM
Mr. Wagner, I see no evidence at all that Dr. Myers is failing to "tolerate" and "abide" you. Note that your account still exists, and you continue to post here. I don't see your posts disemvoweled.

"Tolerate" does not mean "agree with." We can simulatneously tolerate you and think you're utterly wrongheaded.

There is also a distinction between free thought about subjects where no empirical evidence can possibly exist, and free thought in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence.

#38576: — 09/03  at  10:15 AM
Charlie,
Your belief system does not tolerate or encourage freethought. That why you spend so much time preaching here and at Panda's Thumb. You are quite insistent that we see it your way. These are blogs where people discuss evolution, and all are free to post their ideas, regardless of how belligerently or irrationally they present said ideas. I've read your posts at Panda's Thumb and you certainly don't endorse freethought. You believe our intelligence is derived from elsewhere, and is thusly shackled by some sort of constant intelligence that binds our thoughts. That is your right.

You should note, however, that love of freethought is exactly the reason rational people abide you. If you truly believed in freethought, you wouldn't concern yourself so much with the fact that other people are bound for hell. The intelligent designer you believe in gave us that choice. Why can't you just accept that some of us have chosen poorly in your eyes. Why must you shepherd us to heaven? Honestly, I think your compassionate efforts would be spent more wisely in places other than evolution-themed blogs. Of course that's just my freethinking opinion, which you are free to ignore, as always.

P.S. I have yet to see "neo-darwinism" threatened in the slightest.

P.P.S. But it appears Llelldorin put it much more succinctly than I have.

#38579: charlie wagner — 09/03  at  10:27 AM
Llelldorin wrote:

"Mr. Wagner, I see no evidence at all that Dr. Myers is failing to "tolerate" and "abide" you."

Nor do I.

What ever gave you that impression?
Paul has been most gracious in putting up with my iconoclastic ramblings and political rants.
I have said before, and I will repeat it: This is Paul's blog and I'm a guest here. Any time he says that he doesn't wish me to post here, I'll stop.

No one has the credentials to lecture me on freethought and tolerance. I've talked the talk, but I've also walked the walk. I'm happy to respond to people who disagree with me, but only above a certain level of civility. But I really don't understand myself why I abide Paul. He's been most unfriendly and insulting to me on past occasions. But I still see a glimmer of hope. He's obviously intelligent and well informed and a fairly good writer. We only disagree on one point.

"From beneath his slouched hat Ahab dropped a tear into the sea; nor did all the Pacific contain such wealth as that one wee drop." Herman Melville

#38580: Jim Harrison — 09/03  at  10:27 AM
If we've got to have an official religion in this country, Unitarianism isn't a bad choice since at least some of the congregations have decent coffee and one god at most is more economical than three gods at least.

#38582: — 09/03  at  10:37 AM
Have we all forgotten that the one and only true religion is Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Ramen.

#38586: — 09/03  at  11:10 AM
Yet you, Charlie, seem wholly unwilling to enlighten us on what that point even is. Freethought is not about credentials. That much should seem clear. Afterall, the President of the United States of America, high credentials indeed, seems to possess little freethought.

You can practice all of the semantic gymnastics you like, but the fact remains that, in all the time you've been posting on these blogs, you've never offered a shred of evidence to anyone to support your extremely vague suppositions.

Charlie:
"But I really don't understand myself why I abide Paul. He's been most unfriendly and insulting to me on past occasions. But I still see a glimmer of hope. He's obviously intelligent and well informed and a fairly good writer. We only disagree on one point."

First of all, don't abide Paul. Just leave. No one will fault you for leaving us all unenlightened. There's no glimmer of hope until you provide any kind of evidence for your position, whatever it is. You only disagree on one point? What point? For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what is your point?

You believe that all of this nonsense and bickering is brought about by intelligence? That seems a little hard to support, as you must have noticed by the reactions your receive over and over again. So do us the favor of supporting it, instead of references vague credentials and acting, in general, like a magnanimous prick.

#38588: pdf23ds — 09/03  at  11:28 AM
I think a better choice than Unitarianism would be Universism (note, not Universalism, a.k.a. Unitarianism).

#38590: — 09/03  at  11:56 AM

the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving

Even though I have no interest in joining a Unitarian church, I can respect a belief system that tolerates and encourages freethought.

I'm a bit confused here. You seem to be praising a quote that encourages monotheism, while at the same time giving lip service to freethought. Is monotheism an official Unitarian position, or was that Jefferson's own preference?

#38592: charlie wagner — 09/03  at  12:02 PM
Jason Blundy wrote:

"...in general, like a magnanimous prick."

Does the word "oxymoron" mean anything to you?

For all in whose heart dwells respect,
who follow the wisdom and compassion of the Way,
May your life prosper in the four blessings
of old age, beauty, happiness and strength.

#38593: Jim Harrison — 09/03  at  12:08 PM
There's no more evidence for one god than for zillions of 'em; and, as Paul Feyerabend used to write in his lucid moments, the presumption that monotheism represents progress relative to polytheism is simply one of those unexamined statements that everybody makes without reflection. That said, I've found that Unitarians have a much greater sense of humor about their doctrines than more traditional faiths. In this respect they're like the Buddhists I know who are perfectly well aware that the karmic law is as much a matter of faith as the immaculate conception but don't get all huffy about it.

#38594: PZ Myers — 09/03  at  12:10 PM
Freethought is a superset of atheism, agnosticism, and deism -- it doesn't exclude religious belief. It's just only allows religious belief that rejects dogma.

#38610: Matt Austern — 09/03  at  02:08 PM
I haven't studied up on the history of Protestant sects around the time of the American Revolution, but that quote suggests that Jefferson meant something different by "Unitarian" than what we usually mean today. It sounds like he didn't mean a particular church, but more a general theological school: non-Nicene Christians who reject the Trinity.

#38611: — 09/03  at  02:08 PM
Indeed, I know "oxymoron." Do you know "sarcasm" and "colloquialism"? You know, I almost left the line out, knowing it would be the only one that would register. I take the prick part back, since it is both insensitive and superfluous.

Besides, it takes away from the fact that you continually come into the comment section of evolutionary discussion weblogs claiming to know more than everyone, yet never give any evidence that enlightens us as to how Intelligent Design gets us from point A to point B. Most of us just don't believe that our own intelligence logically projects to the universe at large.

But why should I believe I can be effective when those smarter and more informed than I have already failed despite their best efforts...

#38617: — 09/03  at  02:58 PM

Is monotheism an official Unitarian position, or was that Jefferson's own preference?

Unitarianism goes back to the early centuries of Christianity. In the first 300 years after Christ there was no settled doctrine of Christ's nature: God, part of a Trinity? Or good man adopted by a unitary God? In 325 AD the emperor Constantine invoked a council at Nicea to settle the issue. The council decided on the Trinitarian position; the Unitarians were immediately branded as heretics, and a few were burned at the stake. The religion survived, though, mainly in central Europe.

In the American colonies the Congregational Church was the semi-official religion of the upper classes. About 1750 there was a conservative revival, known as the Great Awakening. In reaction, some of the younger, more liberal theologians wrote position papers, some of which incidentally questioned the divinity of Christ. For their pains they were denounced as "Unitarians".

By 1820 some of them decided to run with it, preaching "Unitarian Christianity". As congregations split, courts were sometimes asked to decide who should get the building. In one famous case the liberals won, prompting the conservatives to say "We kept the faith, they kept the furniture."

During the Civil War the Unitarian Church, still theistic, was among the leaders in the abolitionist movement. By the 1920s the church was moving toward humanism. Nowadays earth religions are gaining adherents. So Unitarianism is as much a religion as Congregationalism, if you use the proper taxonomy. There is no central dogma, although a mild spirituality is acceptable, depending on the congregation. You are responsible for your own beliefs, though theological conservatives would not feel comfortable. Most of us, by no means all, are politial and economic liberals.

John Wendt
Brother Chainsaw of Quiet Reflection

#38619: — 09/03  at  03:01 PM
Follow-up that was cut off:

So Unitarianism is as much a religion as Congregationalism, if you use the proper taxonomy. There is no central dogma, although a mild spirituality is acceptable, depending on the congregation. You are responsible for your own beliefs, although theological conservatives would not feel comfortable. Most of us, by no means all, are politial and economic liberals.

John Wendt
Brother Chainsaw of Quiet Reflection

#38637: Ron Sullivan — 09/03  at  06:04 PM
We have a friend who's a UU pagan -- clergy, too. So it would seem they're pretty flexible.

She did a Unitarian exorcism for us once, of a room in our flat. Involved some gestures with an athame, some things I've since forgotten, leaving a bit of incense burning in a box of sand, shutting the door, and the lot of us going out for Thai dinner.

Damned if it didn't work, too. I did some of my best writing in that room. I think the Thai dinner had a lot to do with it. I don't think that's obligatory, but I'd recommend it.

#38657: Brian S — 09/03  at  11:05 PM
Watch out PZ - I'd bet that's one of the many many fake Jefferson quotes. No time to research it right now though, and I can't get your hotlink to work to see the original.

#38660: — 09/03  at  11:45 PM
I don't know if its faked. Unitarianism has apparently been prominent enough among the presidential-candidate classes that we've actually had four Unitarian presidents (both Adams', Fillmore, and, alas, Taft). Its fairly likely that those listed believed in the oneness of God, may have believed in human free will (over predestination), and had a hankering for religious toleration. (With help from Wikipedia)Un addition, the website famousuus.com has this to say about Jefferson's views:
"Like many others of his time (he died just one year after the founding of institutional Unitarianism in America), Jefferson was a Unitarian in theology, though not in church membership. He never joined a Unitarian congregation: there were none near his home in Virginia during his lifetime. He regularly attended Joseph Priestley's Pennsylvania church when he was nearby, and said that Priestley's theology was his own, and there is no doubt Priestley should be identified as Unitarian. Jefferson remained a member of the Episcopal congregation near his home, but removed himself from those available to become godparents, because he was not sufficiently in agreement with the trinitarian theology. His work, the Jefferson Bible, was Unitarian in theology..."

It really should be said that the Unitarianism of Adams/Jefferson (perhaps)/Adams/Fillmore/Taft is still a far cry from present-day Unitarian-Universalism, which comes in a wide variety of flavors. Most UUs I know are humanists, but there are UUs who still observe Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, etc. practices, and may also put stock in those ideas.

Its correct to say that UUs don't have a dogma-- but if you want to call Unitarian-Universalist churches a social club, I simply happen to think that having a social club devoted to fostering the free and responsible search for truth and meaning is a pretty good idea (... and where can I sign up? Oh wait, I'm already in!). Actually sounds like a pretty good basis for a society, as well. I don't really see any good reason why *not* to make Unitarian-Universalism the state religion, since it doesn't rule anything out, and it prescribes respect for some other very good ideas besides.

This is an idea whose time has come. If you cannot accept it now, it may be politely brought to your attention in the near future.

Brother Machine Gun of Enlightened Reason

#38684: — 09/04  at  10:54 AM

Jefferson was a Unitarian in theology, though not in church membership.

Since the Unitarians have no dogma, just what exactly does that mean? Couldn't literally anybody qualify as a Unitarian using such criteria?