The Naked Truth about Religion and Colligion

Colligion Vs Religion

(Colligation Compared to Relegation in an Easy-to-Understand Chart)

by Lloyd Harrison Whitling

SML189 Hit Counter

One of the weaknesses of atheism is its reliance on words handed (or forced on) to us by theists. Many philosophies and studies of science use the same word for different and unrelated purposes. That leaves us with a task of puzzling them out and ending up with a scatter-chart full of interpretations with little accord. Each new atheist to puzzle his way into our ranks must endure that task, and must choose between adopting one view or another or else facing the world from a position of uncertainty (which many of us praise, but which leaves most of us feeling vulnerable to the accusations hurled at us from bedrock theists).

There is no definition of atheism or secularity that satisfies every atheist, that agrees with those outside our ranks, or that enables newcomers to realize their own atheism with any easy finality. Even whether atheists disbelieve in gods, lack belief in gods, or are simply without belief in gods gets hotly debated among ourselves. To disbelieve or lack belief implies there is a god of some kind that we are resisting, some insist, but to insist that we are simply without belief does not satisfy questions of the kinds that deal with religious views on subjects like nihilism, apathy, amorality, "faith" in science or nature (scientism), or "What is atheology?"

The search for our own terminology has led to diversion in our ranks, with the creation of such programs as the Brights, the Universists, and a mishmash of humanisms that may be entirely religious, secular, or somewhere in between. All of that for a position that, in itself, offers no credos but does rely on certain principles not readily recognized. We must define the differences between philosophy and theosophy under a heading meant to serve only that purpose.

Philosophy, someone said, is a child of religion. Although convinced that religion is philosophy gone awry, we can acknowledge that and, that being the case, philosophy is of a later generation of thought advanced over religion. Philosophy peers where religions impose taboos: As is so often true, children may share some of their parents’ characteristics while displaying traits of their own over which the parents issue their ongoing disapproval.

Children are natural skeptics and philosophy results from skepticism. Religious parents strain to train natural wisdom out of their children and induce the premises their own forebears had trained into them, to replace it with unbendable altruisms. Inasmuch as they succeed, religion gets instilled into the mental practices the child learns. Children unable to overcome their fear of parental authority resist going beyond it to draw their own distinctions, to question the sources of such knowledge, or to follow up on their wonder about anything they deem questionable. Children incapable to gain such perceptions will never feel the wonder of their more intelligent peers, and will accept without any reluctance that which might seem unresolvable, and make it their own facts of life.

Children with the acumen to wonder about details that do not mesh, stories about the improbable that others seem to believe, about why older people seem determined to keep them from asking certain kinds of questions, and why they are made to perform certain kinds of rituals with no apparent purpose, will often (but not always) become secular in their orientation toward reality.

In the following table, Colligation and Relegation are the actions and colligion and religion are the opposing results. Since the Arabic religions are most common, their most commonly-expressed creeds are those represented by the table. Others will have to learn to speak up or remain obscure.

Colligion, collections of diverse facts, themselves collected into a meaningful assemblage.

#	Colligation (Colligion) The colligious person:	Relegation (Religion) The religious person:
1	…brings isolated facts together to build a unique and useful picture of reality.	…professes faith in a cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion inherent to belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers usually regarded as creator and governor of the universe, inherent to a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the anecdotal teachings of a spiritual leader.
2	…recognizes facts as being about testable ideas and verifiable statements.	…recognizes facts as approved statements from authorities that authorize how something should be thought about or understood, accepted or rejected.
3	…recognizes truth as a workable understanding of reality.	…recognizes truth as revealed in the anecdotal stories passed down from history.
4	…recognizes Nature as the testable source of factual information.	…recognizes priests and other religious leaders as the unquestioned source of factual information.
5	…understands facts as compilations of knowledge that stands up to refinement and correction as the amount of it increases.	…understands facts as irrefutable information presented in approved literature from people in authoritative positions.
6	…has faith in and relies upon himself.	…has faith in and relies upon the anecdotal stories inherent to his creed, as interpreted by others delegated to positions of authority.
7	…knows that science is based on a reliable method of testing and verification.	…knows that science is a medium that aims to depose religion and mock its credos by holding them up to ridicule.
8	…knows that the five natural senses must be depended on for survival and personal welfare.	…knows that the five natural senses are subject to impure lusts and questionable motives, and so must be subdued and restrained for maximized comfort and welfare in the next life.
9	…knows that continued learning and refinement of knowledge requires one to change his/her mind about things quite often.	…knows that continued learning requires unquestioning acceptance of hard doctrines that might not always be defendable in the outside world.
10	…knows that where disagreements occur between various philosophies it is because humankind still needs to advance and refine its knowledge and understanding.	1 …knows that disagreements occur between various sects and cults, the others are wrongheaded disbelievers who will one day be punished for their sins. 2 …knows that some truths are questionable because of the mysterious nature of God that mankind can never understand or comprehend.
11	…rejects information as untrue or questionable that cannot be tested and verified in natural environs.	…rejects information as untrue that cannot agree with the cult or sect’s approved scriptures and canons.
12	…remains skeptical of unfamiliar ideas and information until such time as supporting evidence is available.	…remains skeptical of unfamiliar ideas and information until such time as it has been compared to the authorized scriptures and canons.
13	…knows that Nature is composed of the concrete and the abstract, but that even the abstract is subject to verification; that which is tangible is concrete and that which is intangible can be utilized in common practices.	…knows that Nature is worldly and subject to evil but that the supernatural cannot be made to conform to human demands for proof that seek to diminish the stature of God, and that it is beyond human reach for testing and experiment.
14	…knows that hearsay does not provide reliable information upon which to form a basis of belief.	…knows that hearsay from an approved authority wipes away all doubt and can be believed without reservations.
15	…understands evil as acts which intentionally harm human beings, especially when the perpetrator of those acts stands to gain from them.	…understands evil as acts and influences that go counter to the wishes of a god or those who represent a god, including properties and artifacts dedicated to the god.
16	…recognizes human beings as a distinct species and a product of evolution.	…recognizes human beings as a special creation put in charge of this worldly domain.
17	…regards information as a source of discovery and new knowledge and to refine or correct old knowledge.	…regards information as source material to prove a point or make an assertion about or defend what is already known.

Of course there's much more to it, and you can be sure all of the table can be argued against, but it also demonstrates the importance of being able to graphically depict not only the differences, but also the failures of religious thought directly side by side so that the breadth of them becomes obvious. The name itself, colligion, can be argued against as not being what colligation is all about. Perhaps most secular folks will think it unimportant at best. But, think of it: How do we talk about the differences between ourselves and the religious? How to we talk about what all the various secular philosophies hold in common, and get beyond arguing over the differences that define each of them? Under what heading do we place the information that can be compiled that shows ourselves to not be religious, to not be guilty of the thoughtless acceptance of secondhand ideals, to not be guilty of being willing accessories to religious crimes committed against humanity, to not be guilty of the willing acceptance and pardon for the molestation of millions of tender young human minds?

Atheism, agnosticism and theism are all about states of belief in god or gods. Name yourself that and defend yourself against all kinds of accusations that are nothing about the difference between a rational and irrational understanding of reality. To name yourself a secular person goes some ways toward avoidance of that, but still does not place you out of harm's way as to your definite manner of thought. To call yourself irreligious or unreligious does not picture you as a positive, sensitive, thoughtful, interested and active user of the scientific method in all modes of thought and action. To acknowledge yourself as amoral, as some insist has to be true, says nothing about the principles you live by. According to what method did you develop them, and realize them to be correct? We have no name for that until now.

How, then, can we even talk about what we need to talk about without becoming victims of distraction inherent to bending semantics and trying to make words of religious origin fit where they don't belong. To adopt the word 'colligion' for your own vocabulary requires you to change nothing else. You can remain a 'humanist', a 'naturalist', a Bright, atheist or agnostic, realist, materialist or Buddhist monk, and still learn to recognize which parts of your beliefs and conclusions about existence are factual, and which remain tentative. You now have a set of words to headline the difference: 'colligion' and 'religion'. Take a step in a meaningful direction.

The purpose the word 'colligion' serves is to give emphasis to the fact that secular thinking relies on a method totally different from that of religious thought, and that it acknowledges the human being as a natural part of the universe, and not some special creation serving some unknown purpose except that "revealed" to all sorts of different, diverse interpreters but never to anyone else. The methodology of colligion can be learned by studying the chart. The word does not have to be bent or twisted to make it fit a meaning. To defend an assumption with it is to misuse it. Science determines the nature of colligious belief. The religious will accuse us of scientism, but the scientific method defines practices dedicated to gaining accurate information that remains forever unavailable to them. Scientism refers to nothing more than the theory that investigational methods used in the natural sciences should be applied in all fields of inquiry. The wholesome idea of that, like so many other things, sounds evil only when it slips across a fanatic's tongue.

[ Return to Page One] [Next Page] [Previous Page]

"To deny a right to the experience of pleasure is immoral unless that denial can be justified by a valid presentation of how pain will result from that experience in an amount that would render the expected pleasure regrettable; or, if it can be shown that pain will be induced in others innocent of any involvement. The role of science in moral issues should be to test that, predict that, and find harmless ways to demonstrate that."

— L. H. Whitling in the eBook, Secular Morality —