THE FAITH OF AN ATHEIST
Rev. W. Bradford Greeley
For whatever reasons, we have very different capacities for tolerating the unknown. Some of those who are adopted, live a lifetime without needing to discover who their biological mother or father is. Others can't live with that unknown and are compelled to track down their parents.
Some of us will sign a document without examining the fine print. Others have to read every last word--to know exactly what they are signing.
When I go off on a trip, however much I promise my spouse we'll hang loose and follow our noses, I still need to know where we are going and where we are spending the night. Some need to know what the agenda is, where the money is coming from, why their partner is feeling that way or, who is in charge. Others of us don't need to have that kind of information to be ready, comfortable and happy.
Growing up or maturing is about finding a balance in our personal lives between the known and unknown. We have differing needs to fill in the blanks. Most of us besiege the world with "why" at an early age. As a teen we add: when? --can I do this and go there? and who? --loves me, hates me? And then as adults we get to "What am I going to do with my life?" "What is life all about?" and "Where is the meaning in all this?"
Giving it a slightly different twist, as the years go by we ask ourselves how much we want to know and how much we do not want to know--how much do we want to confront the unknown.
Experience has taught us the simple wisdom in the observation that "what we don't know won't hurt us"--but also, its fallacy. Time thrusts upon us more and more uncertainty, insecurity and ambiguity.
An inquiring mind will create them, but experience and awareness force even the least curious of us to carry the burden of the unknown. It is a heavy burden for some, one to lighten in any way possible. Culture and religion have always had major roles in helping people deal with the unknown--in helping fill in the blanks. Societies in which the major questions and mysteries of life are authoritatively answered gain stability, power and longevity. Understandably, they work hard at doing that.
The history we remember tends to focus on the times when "knowns" change. But the pharaohs of
The known was "enthralled" by the custom, tradition and power of the controlling culture and/or faith. To be sure, doubt and revolution were about and created history.
•Questioning Yahweh was a great Hebrew tradition--and great forays into the unknown resulted.
•Moses and Buddha, Confucius and Jesus and Mohammed all offered new insights into the mystery of life and, by implication or direction, questioned the established wisdom of their times.
•The Reformation doubted the "knowledge of the day" and up sprang Unitarianism and the other early Protestant faiths.
•There was the gentle pen of the poet Emily Dickinson:
Faith slips--and laughs, and rallies--
Blushes, if any see--
And asks a Vane, the way--
Much Gesture, from the Pulpit-
Strong Hallelujahs roll- (yet)
Narcotics cannot still the Tooth
That nibbles at the Soul.
And,
"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see-
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency.
•And the saucy wit of Woody Allen:
“Is knowledge knowable?
And, if not, how do we know?”
The needs most of us have for security and certainty have kept culture's form strict and religion's definitions tight.
Catherine and I were at a dinner party a while back where we were all challenged to name the 10 most influential people in human history. The referee was Michael Hart who wrote a book on the top 200 most influential folks. We quickly got most of the top names, tho’ not in Hart’s order. In Hart’s list 5 of top 6 = religious leaders. Few dispute influence of religion on human development and life in past 2500 years. But latest of these religious figures is Mohammed, 1400 yrs ago.
only the western ones are "theistic".
Judaism, Christianity, Islam are theistic religions, i.e. monotheistic.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, and Confucianism are not. They are polytheistic or non-theistic.
Thus fully 40% of world religions are not theistic. So the world in general is not anywhere near as theo-centric as our part of it seems. Its been only relatively recently that "other", non-theistic points of view have been even voiced let alone developed any influence in our culture.
The first avowed atheist publication was dated 1700. Before then any avowed atheist was very quickly a dead heretic. But in 1700, Baron D'Holbach printed "The system of Nature" --tho' even he did it under the pseudonym of someone who had recently died. His exploration and questions clearly developed a non-theistic view of the world and human faith.
In 1826, a Richard Carlile left a quotation defining an approach upon which much of modern rational religion is founded: "Finding no one to answer the question (What is God?), having no answer of our own, we have found that an honest enquirer-after-truth can and should proceed without the use of the word God.” Charles Southwell in a quotation that has survived from 1842 defined atheism as--not denying the existence of God. Nor did it affirm that there were no Gods.
Rather, he observed the burden of proof rested on the theist to establish that God did indeed exist. These early atheists defined one definition of the term.
The other definition is more likely to be voiced by theists. Annie Besant, a late 19th-early 20th century radical reformer & atheist in
This is the other definition of an atheist: one who does not believe in the prevailing definition of God and therefore asserts: God does not exist! If I haven't lost you completely, lets take a quick look at agnosticism before we look more closely at the faith of a UU atheist. Thomas Huxley coined word "agnostic" in 1869 (I mention the dates to show how recent this thinking is). It's Greek roots are: "not" and "know" and its literal meaning is some aspect of reality is “unknowable". We generally mean by an agnostic one who withholds judgment because no judgment can be made since the data is not knowable. Huxley defined it as a method, not a creed.
Stated positively, Huxley said it meant always following the intellect in matters of theology.
Stated negatively, it meant not pretending conclusions are certain if they are not capable of demonstration. Agnosticism is a most congenial approach to theology or death for no small number of UUs.
But, back to atheism. The advent of
Just recently several scientists have jumped into the theological fray with vengeance. Sam Harris has written The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Richard Dawkins has written The God Delusion. A month ago Robin M. Henig had a major article in the NYT Mag on “
Evolutionists and Darwinians like Dawkins are trying to understand how religion, based on ancient and error prone mythical stories, could have offered the kind of survival that would make it last so long and well. Dawkins states baldly that normally any adaptation as full of falsehood as religion is would have become extinct in no time. Harris is a good deal harsher.
He sifts T’n history and Islam today and rues their effect
•on their followers,
•on those who do not follow their true path and
•the potential these two enormous possessors of divergent “true paths” have to create murder and mayhem on our tiny globe.
He abjures the failure of the civilized world to offer any serious critique of Pope John Paul II who stopped the distribution of contraceptives to prevent AIDS in
Nor is he faint hearted when it comes to a objecting to a religion that promises paradise and countless virgins to those who will blow themselves up with as many infidels as they can for the greater glory of Islam. He sees such belief as fundamental to Islam. Just as the Inquisition was fundamental to T’nity. He employs the moral and the reasonable to evaluate what faith in God and Allah are doing today and asserts that we must not turn a tolerant eye to such actions NOR the beliefs that drive them. We cannot and should not accept such faith-based actions as acceptable and none of our business -- strong medicine for we UUs who have pioneered religious toleration.
In earlier centuries, such points of view would be quickly silenced. We have at least reached a time when Harris and Dawkins can make it to the bestseller list. And no small number of UUs can nod with a feeling of deep appreciation. Which, is not to say that some UUs, perhaps you, are not horrified by such heresy. I happen to largely agree with the perspective of Harris and Dawkins. And have for some time. At the very core of the issue is the question of truth. And for most of my life, I have found no reason to believe in the literal truth of Ancient religious documents. To use only the Old Testament or the New, the Upanishads or the Koran, the Reg Vedas or the Analects of Confucius to decide
whether a female can make a good minister,
or a zygote is a human being,
or two males or two females should live together intimately and raise children,
or people should be divided into indivisible castes,
or women should vote or wear particular garb,
or African Americans should be slaves,
or stem cell research should be allowed
is, to put it nicely, ill conceived.
To put it bluntly, it is utterly stupid – that is to say, unreasonable – it flies in the face of common science and wisdom. I certainly wouldn’t want a doctor to use a 19th century medical text to treat my cancer. Equally, I don’t want the world held hostage by a political or religious figure who uses a 4th century text to treat AIDs. I am still, since my earliest years in a Unitarian Sunday School, unwilling to consent to the revelation theory of truth. The belief that special knowledge can be revealed to an individual, a group, or a race is the foundation of western religions. And fundamental to this notion, of course, is the existence of a “revealer.” The Word, the message, the truth comes from Yahweh, God, or Allah via special messengers. So I stand before you this morning, leading worship as I did in UU churches for almost 40 years, letting it slip that I do not believe in God. I do not believe in a Supreme Being, creator of heaven and earth, omniscient, omnipotent, all good and everlasting GOD. This puts me in a very small minority of people in this land I call my own [founded by a bunch of Unitarians & Universalists many of whom were deists].
The latest Newsweek poll indicates more than 90% of US citizens believe in God;
more the 50% in the Supreme Being God;
60% believe in the devil and hell; and
70% believe in angels, heaven and life after death.
Some of you, undoubtedly, have clearly different definitions of God than the Supreme Being one. But we should be very clear, however much we want to grow our own version, this is the one that prevails in our country today. So this is what we are talking about when we use the word. Emerson’s Oversoul is not the God of the western world. If there were an Inquisition tomorrow, belief in a non-being force in nature and the universe which authors order and hope would not save you from the rack. So I am an atheist; one who finds no credible account of God.
The proported evidence lacks persuasion for me. I have had no near death experience, experienced no miracle (except all the natural one’s common to our lives – birth, love, a starry sky, a brilliant sunset, the 2nd movement of Mozart’s piano concerto in C (K 467)), never had a “prayer” “answered,” or learned a convincing proof of the existence of God. Obviously, declaring one’s atheism raises some other interesting and important questions about life and the living of it.
Let me describe something of the faith of this UU atheist and thereby describe very broadly what the humanist/atheist branch of our family, here at South church and through out the Association, looks like. Prejudices against atheism, which are rooted in our culture, obscure the religion of which an atheist is capable. One does not have to believe in a Supreme Being to find comfort, support, courage and insight in a worship service. One does not have to affirm a belief in deity to feel awe, inspiration or mystery in life. One does not have to maintain obeisance to Almighty God in order to be humble and believe in the existence of things unseen and higher than self.
One does not have to worship God to be able to lead a life motivated by the good, the true and the beautiful. Dawkins is eloquent here in showing how the moral intuition & behavior of atheists are no “lower” than those of theists (as reading pointed to). The UU atheist believes that death marks an end to personal existence. The arms of no deity (or devil) await the soul after death. That is a cold and fearsome idea for many, way beyond their comfort with the unknown.
But for the atheist, it has the comfort of truth in the face of the impenetrable mystery of death.
However, this does not mean that an atheist would not seek solace and encouragement after the death of a loved one. Quite the contrary. The ministerings of a religious community, including a memorial service, would be essential and appropriate. For the UU atheist such a community and such a religious service speak to needs more real than theology. The religious atheist believes that life needs constant examination and evaluation; that the moral ideals taught by Jesus and other great teachers of ethics need constant attention and personal affirmation. To this end the activities and services of a UU society meet important needs for a person who calls him/herself a religious atheist. The worship services, the study and discussion programs, the religious education, the social concerns and the socializing serve vital aspects of human need whether a belief in God is present or not. We UU atheists have as deep a need for a religious community as those who profess belief in God.
As Harris notes in our reading, mystery IS and human happiness requires spiritual experience, ethical behavior and strong community. We desire the opportunity to celebrate our beliefs in the warm and supportive atmosphere of a community of shared value and commitment. And just as surely, we need the stimulation and challenge that such a community provides as we continue the process of developing better answers to the eternal questions and learning to better practice love and compassion which needs to be universalized in every religious tradition.