Pantheism makes the most sense to me and it does not contradict the sciences....
"Belief in a personal god who confers favors on men is based on the doctrine of miracles and revealed truth; it has its origin in superstition and its culmination in a corrupt ecclesiasticism which preys upon the credulity of the ignorant; such a religion is pre-scientific in origin and anti-rational in outcome."
I agree with that quote!
I agree with the characterization of religion they give, but I'm not sure they have rid themselves of superstition and anti-rational thinking merely by declaring it so. And while their affinity for science is admirable, it seems a little contrived. For example (from Rav's list, let's assume it's typical):
1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.
I'm not sure how to reconcile the idea of "Universe" with the idea of "totality of being" without encroaching on superstition.
2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.
The way that matter and energy are connected to life in the tenets of science probably don't intersect this idea, which seems to create the connection in an almost superstitious way.
3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.
This is uplifting, but I don't think it's all of nature they revere. Nature is ultimately what kills us. It has an adverse face as well as the warm fuzzy face of polar bear cubs and seal pups. I doubt if they find magnificent beauty and harmony in the pathogens that are killing people even as we speak.
4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.
Unless they believe Charles Manson deserves equal dignity and respect, then this also seems contrived. I think it's fine if they want to forgive criminals. They question is: is that what they mean?
5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.
The problem here is that we don't normally refer to energy as a substance, but a property of matter. To be in step with science, they ought to reformulate this. And note, body and mind are divided as soon as you go to sleep.
6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.
This seems odd to me because the elements that make us up are not "our" elements, but merely the stuff we ate and drank, plus of course the oxygen we breathed. The cycling they are talking about doesn't just happen at death. It happens moment by moment while we are alive. And while the genes we pass on give us the gift of the people we create, the genes themselves are not ours but our parents, and they are just chemicals, and the way they live on is by random selection during meiosis and fertilization, so it has no magical connection to us as individuals. Note how this idea beaks down when you realize they are excluding all the young, infertile and childless members of their congregation.
7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality.
If they really want to honor reality, then they should strive for accuracy in their statements, as per my remarks above. I also think that having religious feelings about reality encroaches on superstition.
8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.
Ultimate reality usually refers to the highest-level of organization of the universe. If we agree that it is unobservable, then "direct access" is impossible. I agree that they don't need priests, gurus or scriptures, but if they want to get closer to ultimate reality they should be doing so through the instruments, methods and study of science.
9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them.
That's great, too, but if they don't limit their freedom to the laws and methods of science, I don't see how they can say they have upgraded religion to a world view that embraces science. I hope to hear them coming out strongly in defense of the freedom FROM religion usually protected under the laws they support. I would like to see pantheists picketing the next school book committee meeting that plans to steer students away from teaching evolution, or protesting at the next stump speech that rails against global warming. Even just to actively engage the fundies online. Then I would believe that they uphold freedom from religion.
