Secular Meaning Maximalism

I have a confession to make. I’m a maximalist about the meaning available to those with a secular worldview. But what does this mean?

Firstly, I’m a maximalist as a secular humanist because I believe that virtually every ounce of meaning that humans have ever experienced remains available us today with or without beliefs in the metaphysical or supernatural.

This follows from my belief that humanity is itself the source of all the meaning human beings have ever experienced throughout history or ever will experience. And if we are indeed that source, then who can take such human meaning away from us? No one, other than we humans ourselves.

Now since "all the meaning" includes all categories of human meaning including from religion itself, all the meaning that religion offers, like religion itself, was created by human beings. It‘s just more "human meaning" created by humans. And as such, it remains available to us, its source.

To put this another way, I believe that we are just as capable today of creating this type of meaning as those who created our major and minor religions in the past, old and new religions alike. We have everything available within us that they had for the creativity and intuition to do so.

And just like them (e.g. the biblical literary tradition), we are free to do it - not by unnecessarily reinventing the wheel from scratch but - by riffing on, evolving and adapting that which came before us for our updated purposes (as scholarship shows the biblical authors did in relation to the cultures and religions and stories and ideas of those around them to invent their own tradition).

Religious meaning is one flavor of meaning created by humans and as the source all human meaning, we have access to it just like all the other flavors of human meaning we have experienced and invented across time.

Critically to defend my point, such religious meaning remains accessible to us without taking its ancient precepts literally. It’s best teachings, where agreed with, can still be memorized and celebrated. Its mythic stories, like modern films or books of fiction, can be recited, experienced and (even) psychologically transform us without being literally believed (again, like modern art can impact without belief).

Anything worth saving from humanity’s religions can continually be salvaged, redeemed and adapted to grow with us - including its love of community built around reflecting, affirming and living out shared values and/or beliefs together (e.g. such as in the Unitarian Universalist tradition's shared values approach to religious community.).

We can do all this and more without deluding ourselves into believing anything that we don’t think actually makes sense.

Boundless Imagination

As someone committed to critical thinking and skepticism (from a secular humanist perspective), I don’t find myself with the luxury of assuming the hope of an afterlife. That said, there is one luxury I continue to have that covers many bases beyond what my literal beliefs provide: the conscious use of the imagination.

Like the recent hit mobile game, Pokemon Go, I find that using my imagination can augment my daily reality in emotionally meaningful ways. And to be sure, amidst the secular minded community of humanists, skeptics, atheists and the like, I am far from alone in this.

We continue to enjoy watching films, reading fiction, playing video games, augmented reality games/apps or fantasy table top games like D&D. We read bed time stories or play make believe with our kids while playing with their toys with them. And these are all examples of consciously using our imagination that does not require actually believing in anything supernatural nor anything else that we‘re not convinced is real.

And to make clear the broad scope of my point here, I now have a simple question : are we skeptics limited to only using our imagination when engaging with - or using - commercially published products and experiences? Of course not! As we also create and author many of these imaginative products and experiences ourselves. But even this wouldn't fully flesh out what I mean here, since such activities may have a commercial or at least public purpose in the end, which we are also not limited to when using imagination to augment our lives.

Can we not just as easily consciously use our imagination in any and all ways we find valuable to enhancing our lives? (Like a make believe game to get your kids to clean their room with a time challenge). I would argue we both can and already do and that in fact, imagination is the original augmented reality of humanity. And this tool for augmenting the meaningful experiences humanity has remains available to the more skeptical amongst us - by simply remaining conscious and honest when using our imagination is what we’re doing.

And to make clearer still the great boundless freedom in what I am saying, I will speak plainly. If religion is ancient human software, born of the imagination to augment our reality (and I believe it was), can it not yet have value to us like fictional storytelling does to those who don't take said stories literally? Of course it can.

Much like reading fiction, suspending disbelief in a movie theater or playing a video game, religion can be engaged with and experienced - and even augment your private thoughts and experience - all without believing in its precepts literally. One need only believe in, like with these other experiences, its fundamental value to enhance your human experience to do so. And as some of the most impactful stories in our history, it's not hard to find a reason to do so.

But let's take another example: One skeptical person may enjoy winding down and relaxing by watching a comedic show or film about obviously fictional characters (as many of us do). But imagine if another person preferred using their imagination to pray to a god that they don’t believe in but find comforting like playing a cozy video game before bed (like Animal Crossing).

Assuming that both are fully aware that they are using their imaginations here, is one not just as reasonable as the other? And given the one praying lacks any actual belief in the supernatural, is their use of the imagination not also secular in this fundamental respect?

And can not one indulge in such activities that involve the imagination habitually - like the nightly tv watching that many of us indulge in - without ever losing site of the fact that the content we are engaging with is still not literal reality? Yes, of course. And yet, do we not embrace such emotionally-rewarding experiences regularly as an end it itself and without an ounce shame or embarrassment? But then why would content, where also religious in nature, necessarily need to be any different? In fact, many of the sci-fi, fantasy, supernatural thriller type shows people indulge in - and suspend disbelief for - already have religious elements all their own.

Skepticism: A Generous Orthodoxy

My goal here is to be as generous as I can be given my secular humanist commitment to skepticism. But in reality, I believe all I‘m really doing here is seeking to be consistent - rather than hypocritical - about the fact that skeptics and atheists already consciously use their imagination all the time, often purely for the subjective experience that fantasy and fiction offers as a worthwhile end in itself.

And here, I would only add that religion, where similarly approached without intellectual delusion, needn’t be a reflexive exception to the rule (despite any hard feelings some of us may have and still be perhaps a tad bit biased against religion as a whole by). To the contrary, all is consistently fair and safe when repositioned as a part of conscious and acknowledged imaginative play (or suspended disbelief).

Better yet, I believe that religion should be reclaimed by the humanist as a part of our cultural inheritance as mere human beings. It is, after all, a basic part of the human experience and human we remain. We can continue to selectively participate in and celebrate it like other imaginative and communal activities (like going to the movie theater or a broadway show or a game of dungeons and dragons).

By such means, we secular minded persons may seed as little of our cultural inheritance as possible to the religious fundamentalist as their exclusive domain. To be clear, my belief is that we needn’t seed to them exclusivity over anything more than one thing alone: delusion itself.

Defining Secularity's Scope

When I say I am a Secular Humanist, I mean that I don't believe in the supernatural or hold to any set of religious doctrines. On the other hand, if Secular Humanism is to be deemed a religion, I would only clarify that I hold to no doctrines of any religion that involves a belief in divine beings or any invisible beings (e.g. ghosts) or any metaphysical beliefs otherwise (e.g. law of attraction, etc).

None of this prevents those like me from taking inspiration from the world's religions and their sacred texts, rituals, histories and traditions. Instead, we remain free to take the "good" and leave the "bad" from every facet of human culture and history. Better yet, we can learn both the positive and negative lessons alike that these offer and celebrate this as part of our great and rich inheritance as human beings - which I'd also call a fundamental facet of my Humanism.

But I also take things a step further than this, as suggested above: I count myself as free to participate in religious practices and even drink of its perspectives and beliefs experientially as a conscious exercise of my imagination (again, like watching a fantasy film or playing d&d). I can even participate in such activity communally, as long as I do so honestly, without deceiving other participants about the nature of my beliefs (again, like any other shared exercise of imagination).

I can be enchanted by imagining the magic of the world through the eyes of religious mystic (where all beauty speaks of a god or gods' magnificence). I can enjoy worship music imagined through the eyes of the worshipper. I can count the good vs. evil drama of the world as seen through the eyes of a religion not my own - and even which I consider superstitious - as amongst my favorite fantasy worlds to regularly visit (right up there with Tolkien's Middle Earth). I can revel in Christian hard rock music in a way not so unlike others enjoy Dungeons and Dragons: as an enjoyable Fantasy.

I can mine and squeeze our religions for every ounce of meaningful experience they can offer me up to and stopping only short of the point of actually or literally believing what they express presumptuously and unless otherwise backed by unbiased research (as the sociological value of some of their moral precepts perhaps could be - giving them also a secular justification and value - e.g. Enlightened-Self-Interest.).

I can even imagine how nice it would be to be reunited with loved ones in an afterlife today, tomorrow and perhaps even on my death bed (sparked perhaps by replaying my favorite memories of them in my mind), not unlike those in countless religions have in the past, if I care to do so. And I can enjoy and find comfort in this experience like I do watching a film, all without literally believing it to be so.

All these things I can do - and more - without violating my Secular Humanism or commitment to Skepticism (or the strict materialism my objective beliefs are currently limited to as a result).

A Religious Humanist?

Now, I should probably acknowledge that the above may in some sense make me a religious Humanist in the eyes of some and not merely a secular one. Fortunately, I am not against being called "religious" in every respect of the word (though in the past, I may have been). To be clear, I've come to what in the past is a perspective that may for many years have appeared foreign to me: I do not care to ever dogmatically commit to cutting myself off from this or any other rewarding part of my human nature and the human experience unnecessarily. Nor do I care to allow fundamentalist religion to claim as exclusive that which in my worldview rightfully belongs to us all, as the heirs of our ancestors.

As humans, are we merely objective truth machine robots that we should limit ourselves to skeptical and analytically thinking all the time? Should one think and speak only in cold and technical scientific terminology? No metaphor, no poetry and certainly no expression of biased human emotion, perhaps? Or are we not obviously human beings having a subjective and emotional human experiences first and foremost? And as such, are we not rightly equipped with more tools for life than merely those which equip us with the benefits of cold reason and logic?

In terms of objective truth, I am only committed to this: believing only things I have good reason to think are true and avoiding beliefs where I don't, to the best of my ability. However, I am not committed to limiting myself to only one of humanity's tools, science, or even only one category of tools, the analytical. No, I will gladly use every tool at my disposal as far as I can do so with consistency.

Science, for example, is a specific tool with a specific purpose and that purpose was never meant to satisfy ALL that we are or need as subjective human beings. After all, scientific methodologies often seek to remove subjective human bias and emotion, to do its best in pursuing the objective truth. But how many people in their right mind would recommend removing subjective bias and emotion from one's entire life and every thought throughout the day? No one I would ever consider worth listening to, I promise you.

Borrowing from Religious Worldviews

Finally, for those who would accuse someone like me of "borrowing" from their worldview by enjoying or being inspired by their religion in some respect, I have a few key points in reply.

Firstly, where a conscious exercise of the imagination is involved, we could all similarly be accused of "borrowing" from the worldview of the author of every fantasy book or that of the creative behind every film or series or the mind behind any other form of fiction we indulge in (video game, table top game, etc). And while it is true, such a matter is never raised as an accusation for good reason - and would rightly be dismissed for its silliness.

Second and perhaps more importantly, while in the religious worldviews of some, they may believe that some set of literature and religious beliefs is unique and special in its divine inspiration and others unavoidably less true and devalued by comparison (or even perhaps worth avoiding for being demonic or wicked). That limitation to one set of texts and doctrines as "perfect" is a part of their worldview, and not at all a part of mine. I say again, in my worldview, I am limited in no comparable fashion. Instead, I'm free to count all human culture and history - including all literature, religious and otherwise - as my inheritance as a human being, to learn from the good, bad and ugly wherever it is us any value or use.

And thirdly, while I find my reply thus stated as adequate, I would be remiss if I did not also note that it fails to mention all the scholarship that convincingly shows how the authors of the biblical traditions, Old and New Testament alike, "borrowed" and adapted the stories and motifs and ideas of the cultures around them to create the biblical narratives and doctrines. To then be critiqued for "borrowing" from someone else's worldview - as so often is this case - specifically by those who believe in a faith of the biblical tradition - could not less meaningful to me - other than as an example of unintentional hypocrisy and an indication of their ignorance of their own religion's origins.

But again, valuing, learning from and in any way cherishing our shared cultural inheritance as human beings is no vice in my Humanist worldview. It is a virtue to be forever admired and celebrated.

Conclusion

To conclude, I am a Secular Meaning Maximalist. And this is what I mean when I say this.