Can an Atheist be a Unitarian Universalist?
It's been over a months in Minneapolis for me and I still haven't attended the Unitarian Universalist church literally around the block. Literally. I can see the church from my apartment. It isn't that the services are too early. They have two, the later one at 11:30am. However, over the past two years I have felt less comfortable with Unitarian Universalism.
To explain, let's look at the seven principles:
1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person. No real problem here. In fact, I was rather disgusted at the number of Unitarians happy at the deaths of Sadam Hussein and Ossama bin Laden. Growing up Catholic, I was troubled that Judas was to spend eternity in unending torment for carrying out God's will.
As a child, sorting through my things was difficult. Trying to decide what to get rid of, I wondered if God had really sent Hitler to hell. It was hard for me to get rid of things I had made and wondered if an omnipotent deity could really dispose of a creation. Hitler was a horrible person, but the crime was finite and the punishment infinite. Furthermore, everyone said the Hitler was a madman, insane. Would it really be justice to punish someone who could not be responsible for his own actions?
In high school, my brother and I argued (we were both believers at the time) about whether soldiers or their leaders bore the sin of murder during a war. I (reading Henry V at the time) argued that each soldier made the decision and took the action of killing another person. It was a matter of personal responsibility. My brother (in ROTC at the time) argued that the ones giving the orders must atone for the murders as the soldiers have been (and often are) placed in a situation where they will be punished for disobeying.
So inherent worth and dignity I can manage. It has been a trial when living in view of drug dealers ruining their lives, the lives of their customers, and generally damaging the neighborhood. Certainly I have no love of Republicans and sickened that Ronald Regan would be considered a liberal in the current climate. Still, I can manage to see some value in these people, small though it may be.
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations. I have no problem with this. It is a bit trite. Concepts of "justice," "equality" and "compassion" have wide definitions. Consider the death penalty, some see it as justice, others see it as barbarism. How many people could disagree with this without definitions and examples of what these mean?
3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations. Danger! Danger, Will Robinsons! I cannot be encouraging of someone to believe something that is false, especially when it is damaging. This brings us to:
4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning. This is the heart of the matter. Atheists can make their strongest contribution to UUism right here and we are hated for it. People feel free to share their flaky religious mumbo-jumbo, but should an atheist point out naturalistic explanations all of the sudden the atheist is accused of trying to convert people, being preachy, and generally being intolerant.
Wait a minute, you get to say whatever nonsense you want and claim it as truth, but should I try to bring emphasis to the RESPONSIBLE search for truth, I'm the villain? Fuck you!
That's the bitter pill. What atheists have to offer is holding people to a responsible search for truth. I have not met a single UU who holds to the responsible part. It's all about the free search for truth and meaning.
This was driven home by three interactions in Maine. First, there were (and are) a number of people who refuse to vaccinate their children. Despite all the research that conclusively shows no link between autism and vaccinations, they, "prefer to be cautious." Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Not vaccinating is being cautious? No wonder there are outbreaks of measles across the industrial world!
The second was a course I taught titled Understanding Atheism. A friend who attended that course and is now in seminary (why do so many UU's I know go to seminary?) said, "now I know how to talk to atheists! I just have to talk about a higher power, not God." No, I don't believe in a higher power. We could could have quibbled about what is meant as a "higher power," but I was short on time. I said I didn't think there was any entity or being that set up, directs, or is reality.
This leads to the third, which is making the comment, "if you don't think your religion is superior, then why follow it?" I was deluged with a flood of metaphoric clap-trap about finding ones own path, yadda, yadda, yadda. It dances around the issue of the deities. Over the past 500 years, the deities seems to have gone soft. It seems they have had a change of heard regarding the strictness of doctrine. Centuries ago, we would be in fear of being damned to an eternity of hell (or a long time in purgatory for the Catholics or having a very bad incarnation) for tolerating other religions or not dying in battle or not making the right sacrifices or building a fire on a day it was forbidden. Oh, and don't forget the horrors of sending our dead leaders off without virgins and slaves! Has/have god/s change his/her/it/their mind(s) on all this? Which is more likely?
There are also several other tricks such as defining a deity or god so broadly that the word has no meaning. Why should these be defined any differently from how our ancestors understood gods? It is especially nonsensical for those who claim the age of their faith as supporting its validity. Think of what this argument is saying to those who don't believe: Our faith is an ancient faith, but we have a different understanding of what gods are, how they should be worshiped, how the soul is judged, and what happens to it after death, but it's still the same religion.
To learn more about how the arguments for belief sound to non-believers, consult Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence
This is probably why the UU's get a bit itchy when atheists try to contribute to the "free and responsible search for truth and meaning."
The rest of the principles are really not a problem:
5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large. Though to be honest, I haven't seen the three UU congregations I've attended use this. Many times, the committees engineer things to avoid there being more people running than offices. Also, with the rise of the TEA Party twits and the Religious Reich trying to turn the United States into a theocracy, I'm less enamoured with democracy than I once was.
6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all. Unattainable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the effort.
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. Which is good, but I'm glad that I never ran the risk of contracting small pox and have spent time in Maryland without worrying about malaria (although the scarlet fever and lyme disease did suck).
So that's it. Much as I enjoy the UU community, it seems that what atheists can make the greatest contribution is in an area no one wants them. It disrupts the peace, love, joy, and harmony of the Happy Tree Friends by interjecting responsibility, reason and comprehension.
To explain, let's look at the seven principles:
1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person. No real problem here. In fact, I was rather disgusted at the number of Unitarians happy at the deaths of Sadam Hussein and Ossama bin Laden. Growing up Catholic, I was troubled that Judas was to spend eternity in unending torment for carrying out God's will.
As a child, sorting through my things was difficult. Trying to decide what to get rid of, I wondered if God had really sent Hitler to hell. It was hard for me to get rid of things I had made and wondered if an omnipotent deity could really dispose of a creation. Hitler was a horrible person, but the crime was finite and the punishment infinite. Furthermore, everyone said the Hitler was a madman, insane. Would it really be justice to punish someone who could not be responsible for his own actions?
In high school, my brother and I argued (we were both believers at the time) about whether soldiers or their leaders bore the sin of murder during a war. I (reading Henry V at the time) argued that each soldier made the decision and took the action of killing another person. It was a matter of personal responsibility. My brother (in ROTC at the time) argued that the ones giving the orders must atone for the murders as the soldiers have been (and often are) placed in a situation where they will be punished for disobeying.
So inherent worth and dignity I can manage. It has been a trial when living in view of drug dealers ruining their lives, the lives of their customers, and generally damaging the neighborhood. Certainly I have no love of Republicans and sickened that Ronald Regan would be considered a liberal in the current climate. Still, I can manage to see some value in these people, small though it may be.
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations. I have no problem with this. It is a bit trite. Concepts of "justice," "equality" and "compassion" have wide definitions. Consider the death penalty, some see it as justice, others see it as barbarism. How many people could disagree with this without definitions and examples of what these mean?
3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations. Danger! Danger, Will Robinsons! I cannot be encouraging of someone to believe something that is false, especially when it is damaging. This brings us to:
4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning. This is the heart of the matter. Atheists can make their strongest contribution to UUism right here and we are hated for it. People feel free to share their flaky religious mumbo-jumbo, but should an atheist point out naturalistic explanations all of the sudden the atheist is accused of trying to convert people, being preachy, and generally being intolerant.
Wait a minute, you get to say whatever nonsense you want and claim it as truth, but should I try to bring emphasis to the RESPONSIBLE search for truth, I'm the villain? Fuck you!
That's the bitter pill. What atheists have to offer is holding people to a responsible search for truth. I have not met a single UU who holds to the responsible part. It's all about the free search for truth and meaning.
This was driven home by three interactions in Maine. First, there were (and are) a number of people who refuse to vaccinate their children. Despite all the research that conclusively shows no link between autism and vaccinations, they, "prefer to be cautious." Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Not vaccinating is being cautious? No wonder there are outbreaks of measles across the industrial world!
The second was a course I taught titled Understanding Atheism. A friend who attended that course and is now in seminary (why do so many UU's I know go to seminary?) said, "now I know how to talk to atheists! I just have to talk about a higher power, not God." No, I don't believe in a higher power. We could could have quibbled about what is meant as a "higher power," but I was short on time. I said I didn't think there was any entity or being that set up, directs, or is reality.
This leads to the third, which is making the comment, "if you don't think your religion is superior, then why follow it?" I was deluged with a flood of metaphoric clap-trap about finding ones own path, yadda, yadda, yadda. It dances around the issue of the deities. Over the past 500 years, the deities seems to have gone soft. It seems they have had a change of heard regarding the strictness of doctrine. Centuries ago, we would be in fear of being damned to an eternity of hell (or a long time in purgatory for the Catholics or having a very bad incarnation) for tolerating other religions or not dying in battle or not making the right sacrifices or building a fire on a day it was forbidden. Oh, and don't forget the horrors of sending our dead leaders off without virgins and slaves! Has/have god/s change his/her/it/their mind(s) on all this? Which is more likely?
- Deities, as a figment of human imagination, are imagined differently as cultural values change.
- The deities wait until humanity is more mature for more revelations. rather than providing the enlightened inspiration early on which would have saved tens of millions to hundreds of millions from unnecessary pain, torture, and death and billions from the psychological damage from treating unquestioning faith a virtue.
- The deities decided things weren't working out so provided humanity with a new game plan.
- The deities decided to try enlightenment with some people and keep others xenophobic and bloodthirsty, just to see what would happen.
There are also several other tricks such as defining a deity or god so broadly that the word has no meaning. Why should these be defined any differently from how our ancestors understood gods? It is especially nonsensical for those who claim the age of their faith as supporting its validity. Think of what this argument is saying to those who don't believe: Our faith is an ancient faith, but we have a different understanding of what gods are, how they should be worshiped, how the soul is judged, and what happens to it after death, but it's still the same religion.
To learn more about how the arguments for belief sound to non-believers, consult Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence
This is probably why the UU's get a bit itchy when atheists try to contribute to the "free and responsible search for truth and meaning."
The rest of the principles are really not a problem:
5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large. Though to be honest, I haven't seen the three UU congregations I've attended use this. Many times, the committees engineer things to avoid there being more people running than offices. Also, with the rise of the TEA Party twits and the Religious Reich trying to turn the United States into a theocracy, I'm less enamoured with democracy than I once was.
6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all. Unattainable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the effort.
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. Which is good, but I'm glad that I never ran the risk of contracting small pox and have spent time in Maryland without worrying about malaria (although the scarlet fever and lyme disease did suck).
So that's it. Much as I enjoy the UU community, it seems that what atheists can make the greatest contribution is in an area no one wants them. It disrupts the peace, love, joy, and harmony of the Happy Tree Friends by interjecting responsibility, reason and comprehension.