Something that popped into my head during a discussion on someone else's livejournal:

[xiphias]

Orthopraxy is the DADT of atheism/religion.

It's just a thing that popped into my head; I'm not claiming this as a truth, but just as a thing I was thinking about.

I can unpack that a bit, if you like. . .

Many of you guys are thoughtful, intelligent atheists, and I was discussing the role of religion in the world with one of you, who can identify him/herself if he/she wants to. I was talking about how, regardless of the actual existence of a god or gods, religion forms a structure in which communities perform rituals which help people deal with life transitions, with both joy and grieving. And that the existence of rituals and traditions is, in itself a valuable way for people to deal with stuff, and bring meaning to stuff.

Said person pointed out that a secular group can do that quite as well, and that such a thing doesn't have to be done through religion. Which is quite true. But I argued that, while such a thing CAN be done in a secular context, it generally ISN'T. I can think of a half-dozen religious places within walking distance of my house, all of which are centers of communities that provide that sort of service. But I can't think of a single SECULAR place within a couple hours' drive of my house that does.

The person I was talking to said that that was an interesting point, and has been taking some time to consider to what degree he/she agrees or disagrees with the statement, and, if there IS truth to it, to think about WHY it seems to happen that way.

And I've been thinking about it, too. Because at least two of those six religious places I could walk to don't require their members to have a belief in God -- one's Reform Jewish, one's UU. And while many people do have fulfilling theistic experiences through Reform Judaism and through Unitarian Universalism, neither requires its members to believe in God, and one can gain all the spiritual/psychological benefits of religious observance without such a belief.

Neither of those two religions is big on either orthodoxy or orthopraxy. Let me define terms here, because both of those words have a range of meanings. I mean, I COULD be talking about the distinction between Eastern Rite Christianity and leg braces here. But I'm not.

In this context, "orthodoxy" refers to the condition in which a religion requires a specific belief to be a fully functioning member of the religion, and "orthopraxy" refers to the condition in which a religion requires a specific set of actions to be a fully functional member of the religion.

In general, by the definition I'm using, Christianity and Islam are "orthodoxy-based" religions. Orthodox Judaism, ironically, is NOT orthodox, but rather orthoprax.

There's a long history in Judaism of struggling with questions of atheism. In the Talmud, we've got the sage Elisha ben Abuyah who decided that God didn't exist, after he saw a child fall out of a tree and die because he was fulfilling a commandment for which the reward was supposed to be a long life. Milton Sternberg's book AS A DRIVEN LEAF is a beautiful piece of historical fiction that takes the little tidbits that the Talmud gives about him, and builds him into a full-fledged character. I highly recommend the book.

Baruch Spinoza is another important Jewish thinker who, well, wasn't an atheist per se, but whose view of God was certainly distinct enough to be worth talking about in the same paragraph as atheism.

Now, both ben Abuyah and Spinoza were excommunicated by their respective communities -- and some rabbis tried to excommunicate Milton Sternberg for writing sympathetically about ben Abuyah. Which is what led me to my belief that any work which gets someone excommunicated is automatically worth reading.

Okay, this is all background.

The thing is -- Abuyah and Spinoza weren't excommunicated for not believing in God. They were excommunicated for TALKING AND WRITING about not believing in God.

A century and a half after Spinoza, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk was approached by a congregant who said that he couldn't stop brooding, and was disturbed by dark thoughts. What if there IS no God, and IS no true judgement?

The rabbi said, "And this would bother you?"

The Jew said, "What else COULD bother me? Without a true God and true judgement, what can anything MEAN?"

The rabbi said, "If this is a thing which bothers you so much, then you care this much. You are a true Jew and no harm can come to you."

That's the story that is told. We also know that, at SOME point in Menachem Mendel's life, he himself had a crisis of faith, and went into seclusion for a time. So this story may actually be a way of summarizing his own crisis and how he resolved it for himself.

Anyway, one of the things I take away from this is the idea that one can be a great religious leader even if one's own belief is shaky. Indeed, it's my suspicion that there exists a certain type of religious leader who becomes a religious leader BECAUSE his or her belief is shaky -- not as a way to lie to him or herself, but rather because it's forced him or her to actually THINK about this stuff a lot, and come to an understanding of religion that's actually useful to other people.

But that's the thing about orthopraxy in the sense that I'm using it here: it's not ABOUT what you believe. It's about what you DO. In some religions, it may be that a thing you do is proclaim a belief in some specific form of God -- but the relevant thing isn't that you believe it, bur rather than you proclaim it. So long as you act like you believe, you can be a fully-functioning member of the congregation without actual belief.

And, going back to my FIRST paragraph, way, way up there, that's the thing about the REST of the half-dozen religious institutions in walking distance of my house. UU and Reform are comfortable if you mention that you are an atheist, and the other four, not so much. But if you ACT like you do, you can still be a member of the congregation. You can still participate and get all the emotional/psychological support that one gets.

Given that there AREN'T any secular-based places that do this locally, an atheist might well find it convenient and useful to use an orthopraxic approach and participate in religious life that way.

And most religions won't dig. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." You can be a full-fledged member of ANY religion even if you're an atheist, just so long as you don't TELL anyone you're an atheist.

Anyway, like I said, I don't insist that this is correct, but it's been in my head, so I figured I'd share it with you guys and see if it did anything useful for you.

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

The Roman orator Cicero was quite open about his own orthopraxis. He was an augur -- even wrote a book about it -- who didn't believe a bit of it, and said so in writing. But he conducted the rituals assiduously.

[navrins]

Your main point seems valid enough for me. But along the way, you said something I don't think is true:

religion forms a structure in which communities perform rituals which help people deal with life transitions, with both joy and grieving... a secular group can do that quite as well... while such a thing CAN be done in a secular context, it generally ISN'T... I can't think of a single SECULAR place within a couple hours' drive of my house that does.

I think all of the following frequently fit your stated criteria:

Every school that holds graduation ceremonies. Every courthouse that holds weddings. Most therapists and therapy groups. An assortment of group households, including, I suspect, your own (and many family households too, but I understand you to be looking for things larger than a single family). Many bars and clubs, I think. Many businesses that take time out for birthday cakes and the like.

Is there some other criterion that is important that religious institutions meet and those don't?

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

If I walk into any synagogue, and tell them that I've just had a child or that someone I love has just died, they will offer me participation in a variety of rituals that will place the event in a meaningful structure, and connect me to a community even if I didn't previously have it. If I walk into a courthouse and tell them either of these things, they will give me a form to fill out. If I walk into a school, or a group household that I'm not already a part of, and tell them these things, nothing good will happen. Your workplace may get you cake, but chiefly wants you to work rather than process. A therapist will help people deal, but not connect with a community. Support groups work for specific life transitions, but not the whole set. Bars I'll grant you, although they won't help you grieve or celebrate with your whole family.

On the other hand, I can think of several on-line communities that are not religiously affiliated and would perform the full set of functions admirably. Not sure how that counts location-wise.

[navrins]

So I think the criterion you're hinting at is the ability to *connect* you with a community with which to experience these things, regardless of whether or not you already have one. The religious communities will accept anyone who's willing to participate in their style of ritual, while other communities have other requirements for becoming a part of them.

I'll buy that.

I even think that's interesting.

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

Yes--both a community and a set of ideas with which to interpret your experiences. And for the full set of life experiences. The school, for example, is very good for one transition (graduation) but provides nothing for the others.

One might suggest that some on-line communities do a better job of that last item than most temples. Making Light, for example, is currently observing Dysfunctional Families Day. You could get advice on that topic, of varying degrees of intelligence, from most religious leaders, but you would be relatively unlikely to get dedicated ritual or a community of co-experiencers.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

Well any synagogue do that if you aren't Jewish? Because to be quite honest, if I go to a Church I'm not convinced that I could expect the same treatment.

Interesting point about online communities. :)

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

I suspect that there are synagogues that would demand some sort of proof of your religious or tribal affiliation, because I've never met a religion that didn't have groups of fundamentalist fanatics who wanted nothing more than to better define "them." And I will admit that a bris requires you to promise to raise the kid Jewish, although our son's didn't require us to promise that we'd be exclusive about it.

Churches? Really? I thought the basic mitzah--excuse the term--for Christians was to convince non-Christians to participate in as much Christian ritual as possible and eventually to convert. With the caveat that certain rituals, like Communion, are only for people who've already converted.

So it's an ideal rather than an absolute, but an ideal that I think most temples hold and most schools don't. If you walk into a synagogue and say you are planning to get married, the rabbi should at least talk to you before saying, I don't think the rituals we have here would suit your needs, but here are some things the Talmud says about how to have a good marriage--the school principal, not so much.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

"Churches? Really? I thought the basic mitzah--excuse the term--for Christians was to convince non-Christians to participate in as much Christian ritual as possible and eventually to convert."

I suppose it depends on the ritual we are talking about. I mean, I can't even imagine wanting lots of strangers at my wedding or my relative's funeral, but in the interests of converting a new member then sure, some members of the congregation might attend a funeral to show support.

But as far as just welcoming you in, taking an interest in your life and celebrating recent milestones, I would have thought they'd want to get to know you first. After all, you said wanting you to fill out forms first meant it didn't count and registering with a particular Church seems like a pretty close equivalent.

If you walk into a synagogue and say you are planning to get married, the rabbi should at least talk to you before saying, I don't think the rituals we have here would suit your needs, but here are some things the Talmud says about how to have a good marriage--the school principal, not so much.

When's the last time you heard of someone getting married in a school? *scratches head*

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

I think we're talking a bit past each other, for which I apologize. And it may be because of my particular religious experiences, which encompass only Reform Judaism and Neopaganism. I do know from talking to friends of other religions that it's not always wise to make assumptions about what's universal.

So: dealing with life transitions. I tend to think of there being religious components to these transitions other than the central ritual. For example, if someone you love has died, a rabbi is likely to advise you that the funeral ought to follow the deceased's preferences, regardless of your own spirituality. We're pretty sensitive to things like people trying to baptize our dead, and we try to not to do that. But the rabbi could tell you about sitting shiva or invite you to come to services and say Kaddish, both of which are more about the mourner's needs. He or she might also talk to you about Jewish perspectives on dying and some of the explanations we've come up with.

It is also a mitzvah to provide a minyan--10 adult Jews or 10 adult Jewish men, depending on how traditional the congregation is--to anyone who needs a community with whom to perform Jewish prayer or ritual. Someone you don't know is either part of the tribe or the stranger in the midst of your camp, and in either case you still have obligations.

Paperwork: My objection wasn't to ever having to fill out paperwork (although making someone fill it out before trying out your community seems awfully inhospitable.) It was to primarily filling out paperwork. At a city hall, that is most of what they'll make you do. The only exception I can think of is marriage paperwork in a state that's just legalized same-sex marriage, in which case you will also get ritual and community beyond basic vows, and it's pretty awesome.

Getting married in a school: Navrins used a school as an example of a secular community that would support celebrating milestones. My point was exactly the one you just made.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

I suppose I'm not entirely sure what the benefit is of having your milestones shared by a bunch of strangers. Why is a negative point that secular organisations provide the resources, but not the guests?

Getting married in a school: Navrins used a school as an example of a secular community that would support celebrating milestones. My point was exactly the one you just made.

I think you might have missed my point. There are tons of secular places to get married. Just not a school.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I suppose I'm not entirely sure what the benefit is of having your milestones shared by a bunch of strangers. Why is a negative point that secular organisations provide the resources, but not the guests?

Yes! This is it, exactly. You don't see what the benefit is!

And I think that that, right there, is one of the fundamental disconnects here. Because I do. And I couldn't explain what it is, any more than I could expect you to explain why it's not.

I have a strong suspicion that, right there, we're poking at something fundamental and important, and I don't know what it is. But, yeah, I think that, among my friends, atheists are more likely to feel the way that you do, more so than theists. I don't know if it's a majority or minority of either group, though.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

I suppose being still theists, they see religious groups as welcoming places to be.

As an atheist, I feel that such places make me feel out of place. There's often a presumption that I should hold more conservative views on things, the close-knit way the group works can feel pressuring (though that can be true of secular stuff too, like simply living in a village for example) and of course, there's theological orthodoxy to worry about too.

(On the theological side of things: It's all very well not telling, but at some point people will do the asking and not everyone is going to be happy with a vague ultra-diplomatic version of the truth.)

I've sometimes heard atheists complaining about people having a "belief in belief". I've generally dismissed it because I didn't think their point was expressed very well, but I think it's linked to this. The idea is that there are certain people who support religious groups even if they don't share the beliefs. They think there's something good in things like "having faith" or, in this case, having a specifically religious sort of community. I'm no more going to say there's something wrong with liking religious groups for the non-belief-related stuff, than I am going to say that I personally like the non-belief-related stuff. Each to their own and everything, but until you can name a benefit that stands up to scrutiny, I'm going to remain sceptical.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

I should probably add that there are religious people who feel out of place in their religious community because of the strongly conservative character of their (often mostly elderly) fellow believers. However, they realise that without them there would be even less liberal voices amongst their number.

That's great if you support the religious institution, but if the only reason you are there is for the community then the character of that community matters a great deal.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

That's another oddity: on the whole, the religious organizations my friends and I are part of tend to be more liberal that then general community.

[cellio]

Masons? AA? Fraternities? I'm not a member of any of these so I could be wrong, but I thought all of these had the model of "walk into any chapter of this broader club you're part of and you're home", same as synagogues. An obvious Christian won't get the same treatment in a synagogue that a Jew will; one is a member of the group and one is a visitor.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Well, Masons aren't REALLY secular. But fraternities certainly seem to fit many of the same criteria as religions.

[bercilakslady.livejournal.com]

I would add that you can be a fully fledged member of any religious *congregation* if you are orthoprax DADT atheist. I do not think that I could in all fairness be called a Christian even if I went through the correct motions. I still would not believe in Jesus Christ as my savior, and no amount of acting would make that so.

As an aside, I took a class on Western Religious Traditions many moons ago with an Orthodox-for-lack-of-a-better-word Jew. His personal take, based on a question asked in the class, is that the closest he's come to knowing G-d was to look into another human's eyes. I think that is at least related to the key to all of this, but I'm not sure I can properly articulate how.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Mrmn. The religion of my birth would surely dig.

And also, there are reasons DADT was awful, after all. If one has to constantly lie about who one is and what one believes to belong to a group, how worth it is it to do so? If one has a secret, has to keep a secret, that sets one up to be vulnerable to blackmail and to traumatic expulsion. And so on.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yes. I'm not claiming that orthopraxy is necessarily a GOOD way of dealing with this.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

it's surprising how christian many uu congregations are. by which i mean, i'm sure surprised, after having tried to join a few. (the one that is specifically atheist around here that i know of, is not particularly handicapped accessible and also to be honest someone goes there who it is better for my sanity if i avoid, and the combination of the two has led to me not going back.)

i considered reform judaism, and i considered the society of friends; apparently they're quite content for what you believe to stay inside your head and you don't have to share.

which is to say; i see your point. personally, i get some of that community through fandom and through online communities. but i am looking for more of it. but uu churches, which would seem like the number one winner for someone like me, just aren't doing it.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

re: UU's -- yyyyyeah. Even many of the ones who don't have specific Christian theology are still shaped by Christianity in the style of worship and trappings.

The unprogrammed Friends are as you say; many of the ones with programmed worship (which are more common these days) are way more evangelical.

[jehanna.livejournal.com]

Thirded on UU. I tried that at one point. The congregation I was involved with was fairly active in terms of paganism--functioning CUUPS chapter which hosted rituals on the important dates and so on--but the "churchiness" of the structure bothered me also. That, and I felt like they were trying to embrace everything and in so doing everything felt watered-down to me to the point where I wasn't able to engage with it. It was so inclusive that I was losing too much of the specificity I wanted to be a part of.

I have never found an organized religious group that properly suited me, despite occasional attempts.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

I'm a birthright UU, and have stuck with them, despite feeling exactly that way.

[tendyl.livejournal.com]

I joined a UU church because I wanted the community without being locked into a specific orthodoxy. The style of worship doesn't bother me (most of the time) and it gives me the community I need. But I went to 5 different UU churches before I found one that was less christian than the others. Each is very unique, which is both good and bad.

[gingicat]

The thing is, that the connection sometimes worsens when you get past the superficial.

I can walk into any synagogue (in some cases, only one part of it, but still), pick up a prayerbook, and find meaning. It's at kiddush, when I find that I don't connect, that things are problematic.

I'm dreading going out to my in-laws' shul for Rosh Hashanah. I like them, I like the shul, but my shul time will be spent with the kids and my family time will be spent with whoever they've invited for lunch. Whoever they've invited for lunch is likely to be someone i know and haven't had any luck connecting with in the ten years I've been going to shul.

But secular communities don't do it for me either - for example, there are those who say "we're part of the Tribe" of whatever fannish subset it is, but the worst thing about expecting to come home, even when it's felt like home before, is when it isn't.

And a lot of this feels more lonely as a parent when I'm less likely to be out and about socially and need more from my brief interactions with the outside world.

[kiya]

I actually have a hard time understanding orthodoxy as a standard. I can't see what you believe, it doesn't directly impinge upon my reality; how can I use the unknowable as a standard?

What people do, that matters. And it can actually be observed, which makes it a clearly-to-me superior criterion.

(Quoting a comment made recently to me here, which was quoting someone else: "And I actually had a Hindu say to me once, when I was doing some research out in India, and I asked him what he believed, he said 'Believe? What's that got to do with it? I'm marked out as being Hindu by what I do. Do I perform my rituals? My religious rituals, my rites that I have to do.'")

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

I wish that I could take the words "orthopraxy" and "orthodoxy" and extend their meanings beyond the religious context. It seems like a useful way to categorize actions - e.g. external verifiable actions are "orthopraxic", internal actions (such as believing, feeling, or thinking) are "orthodoxic".

Then I could say something like "requiring someone to follow an orthopraxy which conflicts with their orthodoxy (beliefs) is a form of rape..." which, as it turns out, would be an incredibly useful thing for me to be able to say.

Kiralee

[rebmommy.livejournal.com]

interesting discussion - thought-provoking

[cogitationitis.livejournal.com]

My husband was raised without religion and became a Jew because of the community it provided. He felt it was the most palatable religion out there.

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

I've done this... or something like this... several times, though not in a religious setting. For example, it's the basis for how I manage depression. I wouldn't recommend it for every person in every circumstance, but it's a useful tool to have.


(I think my take on religion is entirely orthogonal to yours, since what I get out of religion is almost always intensely private, and in no way related to having a community).

Kiralee