Welcome to the website, I'm glad that you're visiting!
Q:
What is Ex-Minister?
A:
A skeptical
paradox. Ex-minister
is a unique brand of religious skepticism within a
non-believing movement. What’s unique is that it genuinely
respects and appreciates good religion knowing that society would
miss it if it were gone.
Skepticism
shouldn’t be hostile towards religion. I entered the movement as a
former minister. Although I no longer believed the creed, religion
is much more than doctrines and dogmas; it’s a cultural phenomena
and a way of life for the majority. Rather than fighting religion
over metaphysics (study of existence) and epistemology (study of
knowledge), I believe we ought to be focusing upon ethics (study of
action) with an eye towards goodness.
The common
good is the intention of religion and secularism when properly focused; lets
keep it that way. The dualism of secularism & religion should
forge a better world; Ex-minister’s work is to keep them from
foolishly dueling.
Q:
If you like religion so much, why be critical? Seems like your
positing a hypocritical stance, why not shut things down for the good
of religion?
A:
Why take a negative view of criticism? Every decent Bible school
teaches Biblical criticism in its Hermeneutics classes. Those that
are ineffective are likely to produce fundamentalists; those that
teach it well are likely to produce common good difference makers in
society.
Religion
has its own paradox; we call it fundamentalism. Virtually no one
objects to a good citizen whose belief in God makes them a better
person. However, the “wrapped too tightly” crusader invokes consternation
to those around him. Simply put, no fundamentalists – no
Ex-minister.
What
is true in love is also applicable with religion; the group 38
Special expressed it well in the lyrics of its hit single “Hold on
Loosely.”
“Hold
on loosely…but don’t let go….if you cling too tight
babe…your gonna lose control”
The
problem with religion & skepticism is that some cling too
tightly to it and become truth crusaders. Rather than being a good
thing, it denigrates into a belligerent destructive force that
invites a never-ending circle of retaliation. Religion isn’t the
problem; Fundamentalism (skeptical and religious versions) is what ails
us.
While
you didn’t ask me, someone needs to be critical of skepticism as
well or else
they will continue to wreak unfettered
havoc upon religion. Someone within skepticism needs to “have the
back” of good religion and do some of their “dirty work” for
pragmatic, common good reasons.
Q: What do I
consider to be the most important issue we face and how do we resolve it?
A: The toppling
of our “institutions of convention
and morality.”
Will
Durant solemnly warns that the tussle
between secularism and religion ultimately destroys society. The
clash he mentions is already in process, I don’t want it to end is
chaos. We should learn from history and seek to make sustainable
adjustments. If we do, it is a win – win situation for everyone.
If we don’t we’re in deep trouble!
The
forthcoming calamitous clash is what will happen if oblivious
secular truth crusaders aggressively continue to disregard
roadblocks. While there are peacemakers within religion, secularism
forges ahead and is poised for the kill! Secularism doesn’t want
to hear or think about this as a problem.
Secularism is non-chalet
and smugly confident that they have the answers for a post-religious
society. Personally, I’ve witnessed a post/ non-religious society
in the former Soviet Union (Latvia) and see it as undesirable and
woefully insufficient. A secular humanist lifestyle is great for
those prepared for it; but I don’t see society as apt or anywhere
near ready to accept it outside of Scandinavia. While my summation
may disappoint my humanist friends, I think we have to better
develop the “institutions of convention and morality” that
Durant speaks of.
If we were to
someday solve this dilemma, I’d then concur that we are ready and should
expedite our secular pace. At this point, we are not even close! How
far away are we? Those institutions of convention and morality extend
beyond the church, they involve our screwed up systems of justice
that should ensure equal opportunity in a democracy. The spiritual
problems of greed and pride are vast. Where is the willpower to
implement justice? Poverty is high in unjust societies; I see
religion filling a great need in these locations and is thus a
friend to mankind. Why fight religion when we should be fighting for
justice?
Q:
What has disappointed you thus far? How can former
ministers make a difference?
My vision for
Ex-minister has been to set the tone for likeminded (religious friendly) former
ministers out of the pool of clergy departing from the faith. Turns
out that my vision isn’t as desirable as a combative
rebuke/attitude towards the faithful is amongst my peers.
I’ve
rationalized about what has held us back, but I must admit that I
have failed to clearly communicate what I believe and what I’m
asking others to do! Perhaps my peers just think I’m trying to be
nice towards religion to win them over; truth is that conversion of
the faithful isn’t that important to me. Cultural aspects are at
the top of the pyramid; it is the key issue!
I don’t
think we should be seeking the destruction of the church! I think we
should develop a statesmanship/diplomatic type of secularism and
affirm a friendly dualism with religion.
I’m not
asking any former minister to follow me; I’m asking them to use
their creative ministering talents and join with me to find ways to
solve sacred and secular problems.
Now that my
intentions have been clarified, it remains to be seen if they are
deemed to have merit amongst my peers. All along I have been
swimming upstream with minimal secular encouragement along the way.
Time will tell if my intentions will have to look towards non-clergy
to man them out of default.
Q:
What’s your tangle with atheists?
A:
It’s a family disagreement. Maybe they were adopted? (LOL) As
strongly as I disagree and dislike the destructive course of action
that many atheist leaders trod; we do agree with each other about
living out our lives without any religious revelation telling us how
or what to think.
Our
movement customarily scoffs and
brow beats people that I want to find a way to talk with. I
think the majority are sabotaging our opportunity with an attitude
that isn’t conducive for dialogue. It’s not important to me that
I convert the faithful. If they want to come, read and “kick the
tires”…I don’t have the compulsion to “drag them down the
aisle”. While I subscribe to my secular humanist viewpoint, it
isn’t something to be packaged and evangelistically marketed to
humanity. We should keep it friendly, make ourselves approachable
and allow the reason we so strongly affirm be the attraction. Does a
pretty available girl fail to get noticed in society? Skeptical
evangelism can be hideous!
Q:
Do you want to change the world?
A:
Wait a second…Jesus was the one that changed the world. Where I
come in is with his followers that can’t follow instructions and
take it to extremes that we find to be unacceptable.
Conversion
isn’t important to me, making a contribution is. If someone comes
and gets something valuable or that they need here…great! Someone
that wants to change the world starts with the premise that someone
else is wrong; I’d say that they are at different locations on the
road of life searching for ways to better themselves. I’d rather
teach a man how to fish than to give him the fishing pole or a fish.
Q:
What is your ideal world?
A:
It’s a moot point, we have to start with our current
situation and work from there. Life is what we make of it. Nurture,
compassion, love, commitment, education, justice, opportunity, and
values shape it. God loves us and I believe that “he” wants us
in turn to love others. This I believe to be intuitive, it
shouldn’t require a book to tell us of the story. I am at peace
with those that think it does!
Ex-Minister:
What it is not about!
Politics.
I’d like for you to see the chart below and think about it.
Skepticism obviously labors in the first three branches, but my take
is that both religion and skepticism should meet and work together on
the ethics level. I don’t want to exceed my boundaries, but if the
fruit of a positive secular – religious dualism informs the fourth
level (politics) then something good has been accomplished. Too many
automatically jump to the fourth level without any input from the
foundational first three. I’ve chided misguided religion for going
there; skepticism shouldn’t go there either! I’m looking for
solutions upon the first three levels. If I go to the fourth level of
politics, it will most likely be for matters of justice, otherwise I
know my place!
Introduction to the Five Branches of
Philosophy
Philosophy
can be divided into five branches which address the following
questions:
|
Metaphysics
|
Study
of Existence
|
What's
out there?
|
|
Epistemology
|
Study
of Knowledge
|
How
do I know about it?
|
|
Ethics
|
Study
of Action
|
What
should I do?
|
|
Politics
|
Study
of Force
|
What
actions are permissible?
|
|
Esthetics
|
Study
of Art
|
What
can life be like?
|
There
is a hierarchical relationship between these branches as can be
seen in the Concept
Chart. At the root is Metaphysics,
the study of existence and the nature of existence. Closely
related is Epistemology,
the study of knowledge
and how we know about reality and existence. Dependent on
Epistemology is Ethics,
the study of how man should act. Ethics is dependent on
Epistemology because it is impossible to make choices without
knowledge. A subset of Ethics is Politics:
the study of how men should interact in a
proper society and what constitutes proper. Esthetics,
the study of art
and sense
of life is slightly separate, but depends on Metaphysics,
Epistemology, and Ethics.
|
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/FiveBranchesMain.html
