|
'Colligion' rolls across the tongue with the same ring
as 'religion', but with a specific different meaning that can be inferred
from the dictionary. They are opposites, antonyms, each specifying a
formal gathering and identification of knowledge and truth that the other
despises. It would seem they would paddle the ship from opposite sides and
so propel us quickly toward the future.
But, alas, such cannot be the case. They run in different vessels,
toward opposite directions, and often ram each other in the process. Their
stated goals may seem the same, to know and present to their followers the
truth. How and where they dig for it, and the way they recognize what they
perceive to be truth, causes them both to set forth truths in opposition.
How could anyone realistically expect them to ever work in concert?
Can you picture atheists of the future asking each other "…and what is
your colligion?"
Well, don't, because if 'colligation' means what the dictionary says,
there is only one nature, and testing that nature yields but one set of
facts. If it is actual facts that are brought together by an explanation
or hypothesis that applies to them all, then the picture each person gets
of the result of that ought to be pretty much the same (sort of like
everybody can understand why 1+2=3 without any argument, because that is
factual). Where atheists differ in their opinions, that is material from
some process other than colligation. It belongs not to colligion, but to
hypotheses generated from opinion. To get beyond that, I think, is what
secular people and atheists ought to be aiming for.
To get there, we have to understand that all information is not
"facts". Some of it is inferences, some of it assumptions, some of it
opinions derived from unusual experiences, some of it is outright lies,
and some of it is just plain wishful thinking. All of that needs to be
held in some kind of mental limbo until it has been verified somehow. Few
of us are good at that, none of us have been trained that way, and all of
us have had to act on choices we might rather have not been forced to make
until we had better information.
Yes, our skepticism makes us seem like herding cats to deal with. But,
most of us have become atheists as a result of our own colligious actions
and choices: We wanted the truth, could not find it in religion, and
learned to look for it in Nature. Colligion relies on critical thinking
while seeking verisimilitude; it is not just another synonym for atheism,
humanism, agnosticism, or the like. It is a name for the results of
critical thinking that differentiates those results from the commonly
accepted altruisms and platitudes with which various human causes get
advanced or defended.
We may feel defensive about our failures, and be hard-headed when
others try to show us how we have erred, but you can be damned well aware
that we will be convinced only by the same natural answers that led us to
atheism in the first place, and that if/when we change our minds about
something, we know good and well why and will be able to defend that new
position with greater facility that we could the old one. We do that
because we have learned some facts that we can rely on. We have increased
the amount of our colligiousness. That colligiousness flows into every
corner of our minds as we encounter new obstacles put up to make us defend
ourselves, and other information gets revised and corrected according to
new facts as we learn them. That is the opposite of religion, and we have
never had a commonly known word with which to talk about that. Colligion
may be a close synonym to science, but most of us cannot consider
ourselves qualified to call ourselves 'scientists'. We may call ourselves,
hence, 'colligationists'.
And, though we are hard to teach, we are proud when we learned
something new and grateful to our mentors. You betcha! That is why we
continue to argue particular points with other atheists even though
sometimes it irritates the hell out of us and them (use secular
definitions for 'hell').
We
waste a lot of (most of) our time arguing over nuances and interpretations
of words and terminology that does not even belong to us. We try to make
religious words fit our unreligious needs. That is what complicates what
ought to be simple. If we could abandon all terminology originated in
theism (or, better, limit their meanings to a strict, minimal statement)
and learn how to say what we have to according to a strictly secular
vocabulary, we could accomplish great things. If we say anything about
some kind of god, that does mean nothing because (speaking from a strictly
secular viewpoint) that is what we are talking about. We understand that
no god equals nothing. We want to be talking about something so we
can accomplish something.
If the
purpose is to avoid a distractive condition, and to acknowledge that as
atheists ourselves, we do not 100% agree on how to deal with the
terminology we inherited from the religious, we can choose to continue
what must be recognized as a losers' practice, or we can choose to correct
that. We need our own well-defined vocabulary distinct and unrelated to
theism, or we will never accomplish anything except to rehash the same old
arguments over again and again with each new person to come along, be they
atheist or theist, agnostic or what.
So,
we have reasons for insisting we develop our own vocabulary. Nihilism,
apathy, immorality are what theists accuse atheists about, and they have
nothing to do with atheism. Is there such a thing as atheology when
atheism has no creed? No! Atheology *could* be about how one arrives at a
position absent of theism; it *could* be about the arguments one learns to
rely on to defend his or her absence of belief; it *could* be about
exactly what atheism is: the absence of theology. Atheology would be as
absent of a creed as is atheism.
The problem is, that does not make sense
and gets us accused of negativity, and that is the gist of our point. Not
making sense is unsatisfactory. Getting constantly accused of things when
we know better is unsatisfactory when we can put an end to much of it.
Being relegated to a position identified with all the "a-", "un-" and "ir-"
words is unsatisfactory. We victimize ourselves by perpetuating the
religious sleight of hand. We do not have a word to describe or categorize
the positive standards we follow. Science is not it; most of us are too
unqualified to call ourselves 'scientists'. That most of us (in spite of
our claims) do NOT use the scientific method in any approved way to arrive
at many of our conclusions forestalls our right to adopt 'scientist' as a
self-description. Yet, science and nature are our mentors.
A Humanist will insist that humanism
offers what we are seeking.
Sure, and a Naturalist would say the same, and a realist, a
Bright, a materialist… That list could go on and on, and include each sect
of all the cults, who think they are dealing with *facts* but are being
led around by their emotions, hopes and wishful thinking. Everybody has
their own definition for all of these things, and for so long as that is
true, there will be no colligion in many groups.
But,
there is an already-existent term for the method that most of us used to
arrive at atheism (except for those who had the misfortune to be raised in
an atheistic home, and so missed out on all the stress and strain of
undergoing indoctrination), and that is the word 'colligation'. Look for
it in your dictionary:
|
col·li·gate
(k¼l"¹-g³t")
tr.v. col·li·gat·ed,
col·li·gat·ing,
col·li·gates.
1.
To tie or group together.
2.
Logic.
To bring (isolated facts) together by an explanation or hypothesis that
applies to them all. [Latin collig³re,
collig³t-
: com-, com- +
lig³re,
to tie, bind; see
leig-
below.]
--col"li·ga"tion
n.
---American Heritage---
...and from the Merriam
Webster's:
Main Entry:colligate
Pronunciation:*k*-l*-g*t
Function:verb
Inflected Form:-gated ; -gating
Etymology: Latin colligatus, past participle of colligare, from com- +
ligare to tie more at LIGATURE
Date:1545
transitive senses
1 : to bind, unite, or group together
2 : to subsume (isolated facts) under a general concept
intransitive senses : to be or become a member of a group or
unit
–colligation \\ noun
If
you underwent the process required to successfully abandon religion and
arrived at a point in your life where you could honestly proclaim
yourself a convinced atheist ("I am convinced there is no god, or that
if there is, it is irrelevant to anything in my life.") then you surely
know what I wrote about. Take it at face value and can see the merit of
it. The word I derived from it, colligion, is a neat counterpoint to
religion and can be an effective stopper for the argument that atheism
is a religion. It is not. Atheism results from personal, enterprising
colligation of facts to the point where the idea of there being gods
personally interested in us becomes farcical. The idea of colligion
being factual conclusions one has drawn as a result of that, versus
religion being beliefs one has inherited from anecdotal information is a
simple, forceful idea.
Now, atheism could
not be called 'colligation'. Atheism is about only one thing: the
conviction there is no god, or that if there is, it is irrelevant to
anything in our lives. That may result from emotional reasons or
colligation, but it is not the act of colligating and emotional reasons
have little to do with facts (remember, this is about facts). That which
results from emotional input is religion at best. That which results
from colligation is philosophy (personal or formal) if and when the
intervening hypotheses and theories have been demonstrated true by
testing and experiment. If those experiments and that testing are about
religious claims versus factual data, then you *may* have atheism as a
part of it.
I perceive colligion to be a secular approach to the gathering of
knowledge, and it is the gathering of knowledge that results in the
philosophies of which atheism is a part. Let's make a very simplistic
chart of barebones definitions for some relevant terms:
philosophy: an assemblage of natural wisdom
theosophy: an assemblage of religious wisdom
wisdom:
insightful understanding of knowledge
knowledge: information available for use
colligation: the gathering of facts to explain something
science:
the approach to and result of testing hypotheses and theories to develop
facts
atheology:
"without theology"
theism:
a creed or doctrine about god(s)
atheism:
"without a creed"
colligationism: the philosophy
that describes human applications of colligation
theist:
one who lives by or espouses a creed
atheist:
one who lives without a theology to espouse
colligationist: one whose
approach to life and knowledge is that of colligation and related
principles.
theology:
the study of religious doctrines
colligion: study of scientific facts while attempting to assemble a
sensible, cogent and true picture of reality; the result of colligation.
religion:
study of theological facts to determine what a religious doctrine
considers true.
facts:
information presented as real or true.
true:
information that conforms with reality, especially if verifiable
real:
genuine and authentic as opposed to imagined or alleged
concrete:
perceptible to the senses
anecdotal: derived from stories or word of mouth
evident:
easily seen or understood
evidence:
material objects and firsthand accounts
Find more secular words here
A
short list, to be sure, and certainly capable to grow, but it points the
way along a shoreline between a vast ocean full of religious dogma and a
small island of facts that belong to colligion. If everyone would hold
to the idea that facts are what can be proven true and that all else is
opinions, inferences, assumptions, opinions derived from
unusual experiences, outright lies, and some of it is just plain wishful
thinking, then there should never be any reason for colligion to
eventually divide into sects and cults making war on each other to
support unfounded doctrines. If only that which is demonstrably factual
is approved as reliable information, and all else can be somehow held in
limbo until evidence is discovered to support a correct version of it,
the island will remain small but stable unless the ocean of religion can
find a way to swamp it.
That could easily happen before this worthy idea can get off the ground
and fly.
Colligious question:
"Is that an opinion you favor, or can you provide evidence to support it?"
|
![[Visit Maeka]](../../images/DMmaeka005[1].gif)
