highly recommended
If you would like to read an excellent article on Dick Dorkins' omnibus barnstorming by a nice, peace-loving, intelligent Christian I would strongly suggest you go to Simon Barrow's page in THE GUARDIAN.
Personally, I would rather get the citizenry to drag Dorkins to the nearest river, tie him to a ducking stool and dunk him until he is very sorry and promises to go to church every Sunday AND help with the coffees afterwards. But then, that's why, quite rightly, they have not put me in change of the church munitions store.
But back to those bus slogans. The "stop worrying and enjoy your life" bit I find more problematic. Not because I want people to worry and not enjoy life, but because for so many people it is really difficult to do this right now. Which is why the real message that needs to get out there is about encouraging one another in active compassion.
That, surely, is something we could all agree on? Compassion – an identification with the suffering of others so that you feel the need to alleviate pain and challenge injustice – is at the heart of the best kind of humanist thinking and living, and also the best kind of religious thinking and living.
Indeed, the New Testament suggests that those who go around proclaiming that they love God while actually hating their sisters and brothers (in modern times by bombing them or condemning them out of hand) are actually liars – their religion is false, and they haven't got a clue what they are talking about when they use words like "God" and "love".
I actually posted a comment on Simon's thread. This is it:
I consider myself a Christian humanist from a long tradition that stretches back to before anybody had committed the concept of atheism to paper. The humanist part of my faith is, in essence, pretty much the same as the humanism of atheists who claim the description for themselves. Perhaps, if we started to use the word "humanist" in an exact way, without attaching it to belief or non-belief, Simon's wish that thinking, non-belligerent people of all faiths and none should come together for the good of the least among us, would be one step closer to becoming a reality.
When I am asked what "sort" of Christian I am, what tradition I adhere to, the only answer I am totally comfortable with is that I am a humanist. I really would love to see the formation of a "New Humanist" movement that would include "thinking, non-belligerent people of all faiths and none," in which the worthiness of the flesh and all creation is celebrated and where, together, we would strive to rise above our baser instincts to heal the world and its population that both religionists and atheists have damaged so much in our quest to become something that is not human.
47 comments:
I endorse the reading of the article.
Oh.
Right everybody, just ignore what I said. I obviously misread it or something. Sorry to have bothered you.
Perhaps it is that your own commendation is insufficient, MP. Otherwise why would God have invented "Amen"?
So you don't need to define yourself by my approval then?
I've already plugged one of your posts on my own little blog this morning, that's enough, and you know fine well that my sentiments are with you.
Dick Dorkins. I love it. :)
Thanks Simon.
Unusually for a blogger I don't encourage debate from outside our community and so I try to avoid headlines and names that would get picked up by news-readers. Of course, I also have fun coming up with the pseudonyms.
By the way, I read your Ekklesia bulletin everyday (that it is sent) and it launches a lot of intelligent debate here. Which is again unusual.
Quoting from Madpriest: would love to see the formation of a "New Humanist" movement that would include "thinking, non-belligerent people of all faiths and none," in which the
worthiness of the flesh and all creation is celebrated and where, together, we would strive to rise above our baser instincts [...]
Sort of like the Unitarian Universalists, kind of? :)
I really would love to see the formation of a "New Humanist" movement that would include "thinking, non-belligerent people of all faiths and none"...
Wonderful! Sign me up! I've been looking for something that's a bit more concrete than the vague-sounding "I'm spiritual, but not religious" meme.
Amen. Thanks MP for both highlighting Simon's (as usual) exceptional writing and for the New Humanism plan. You're definitely onto something.
I like that broad humanist idea. I'm in.
REmember I also came up with the idea of dividing atheists like me from anti-theists like Dorkins.
But I like the unifying idea of humanists better. Always better to join the positive than cut off the negative.
Meanwhile, proving that you have the same battle in reclaiming "Christian" from "hater": some Mormon over on the Friends site posted in the comments to my marriage post that he wishes me the best and doesn't hate me but still supports Prop8.
I think lots of otherwise well-meaning Christians suffer cognitive dissonance about this.
IT
Wonder what you Brits think of your Scandanavian neighbors. From the perspective of the U.S., their "gentle agnosticism" looks darned attractive:
"To a certain jaded sensibility, what makes Scandinavia particularly magical is what it lacks. "There is no national anti-gay rights movement," writes Zuckerman, "there are no 'Jesus fish' imprinted on advertisements in the yellow pages, there are no school boards or school administrators who publicly doubt the evidence for human evolution ... there are no religiously inspired 'abstinence only' sex education curricula ... there are no parental groups lobbying schools and city councils to remove Harry Potter books from school and public libraries ... there are no restaurants that include Bible verses on their menus and placemats, there are no 'Faith Nights' at national sporting events ..."
Louis Bayard writing about Phil Zuckerman's Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment.
note: link to article at Salon is on Louis Bayard's name or go to http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/10/22/zuckerman/
People who eat lutafisk just might want to reconsider how gentle they want to be with their agnosticism.
Mad One, as chance would have it, in my neck of the woods, when one identifies oneself as an Episcopalian who attends our diocesan's cathedral and also happens to be gay, most others, for good and bad, apply your definition of a "humanist" to that individual. That, of course, is one of the reasons when it becomes necessary to reveal such information, I always identify myself as an "Episcopalian," and at least for now, never an "Anglican."
In my experience KJ, it is unlikely that the average Estadounidense in general, and Washingtonian in particular, knows that Episcopalian = Anglican.
So why confuse them with the facts?
I think that it is like working with children; only answer the question which the child asked, do not answer the question which the child did not ask.
The problem with modern Unitarianism as a solution is that although it allows freedom of belief, it cannot, due to the logistics involved, provide the worship experience for every belief. However, any Christian humanist should take note of the Unitarian model as Teresa is right to identify it as a good example of a moral life applicable to all people who are not encumbered by the legalism of their religion or ideology.
I was hoping my blog readership would start to come up with a better slogan, but frankly they aren't a patch on the crowd here, so I wondered if anyone here had any ideas?
In fact, given the success in bankrolling MP's new computer, the money for a bus advert shouldn't be too far out of reach. Especially if its an ad in Newcastle: £5 and a bottle of Brown Ale ought to cover it.
Count me in... I'm sure I can afford a bottle of brown ale.
/me Wonders if I put 'New Humanist' on my facebook profile whether I'll get a lot of funny looks...
Thanks, MP, for that cogent - and somewhat accurate - assessment of Unitarianism. IMO, we are broadly humanist (and accepting of beliefs ranging from Atheist to Zoroastrian), with a cosmology that makes sense.
So, how 'bout it?
New Humanist potluck, anybody?
[Yuh-oh. I can New Humanism's first schism coming: meat or meat-less at the potluck?]
Surely it's possible to have both on the same table, JCF, and enjoy eating together even if one plate is meatless and the other carnivorous.
Or is that too demanding a test for the big tent? ;-)
IT
I would be a bit worried about a carnivorous plate; does it eat people?
Potluck? Practically a sacrament. I'm in... though I'm reminded of Dar Williams' song, "The Christians and the Pagans" --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Xdk4PujOE
You know, Christian Humanism is everything the evangelicals aren't. Which is why it is particularly correct.
-Marcus of Borg (my daughter Sushi seems to be logged in at the moment)
I'll join.
To be honest, Marcus, I prefer the name "Sushi." No offense intended, but it's a lot sexier.
You named your daughter Sushi? Are you related to Sarah Palin, by any chance?
"The problem with modern Unitarianism as a solution is that although it allows freedom of belief, it cannot, due to the logistics involved, provide the worship experience for every belief."
Yes. And that's why it doesn't really try, but does something completely different during worship.
I do belong to a UU organization myself, and am involved with a local UU pagan group.
Hi, not strayed this way before but wanted to comment on something. I noticed the fairly liberal use of the phrase "of all faith and none". Could this be extended to "of all faith and none and those that think faith is an intellectual cop-out"? In which case I would be quite happy to join you in your New Humanism endeavour.
Haven't read Simon's thing yet but I probably will. Dick Dorkins: hilarious: thank you.
As for an alternative slogan: my favourite so far is a conversation:
"There may or may not be a God, but there is almost certainly a rabbit."
"Not any more, I just ate it. Sorry. Was tasty though."
Suddenly, the Eucharist makes perfect sense...
Martin
I accept that religion can be regarded as a cop out but I think intellect is irrelevant in this. I expect most believers are intellectually lazy but then so are most atheists. One of my heroes is the atheist, Peter Singer, who I regard as an intellectual giant. On the other hand the laziest thinking I have ever come across can be found in "The God Delusion."
Anyway, it doesn't really matter as the first rule of New Humanism is non-proselytising. We're hardly going to save the world if we spend all our time trying to persuade each other of the errors of our belief systems unless they are errors that damage the humanist cause. And in this respect belief or non-belief in the gods is not relevant, only how we behave because of our beliefs or non-beliefs.
Looks like I'll have to stay outside the big tent, stumbling over all the guy ropes and making scary shadows on the tent walls when it's night-time. Hey, it's pretty crowded out here, it must be all those atheists and humanists.
Yes, you'll probably be more comfortable on the outside with your certainties than with a bunch of people who have no idea what's going down.
It's not comfort I'm after. I enjoy the fresh air.
Good.
But if you are so certain why do you keep talking?
Perhaps I envisage a bigger big tent. It's bigger than yours.
Hang on, I thought I was in the tent and you were outside in the fresh air. Now, you want a tent as well. Ah well, whatever. You have the biggest tent if it will make you happy. To be honest I don't give a shit. I've spent my life being in the minority within the minority. After a while size becomes unimportant.
No, I've gone off the idea of a big tent solution. I'm going build myself a bunker and lob bricks at your tent.
How about we all agree to meet up around a barbecue in no-one's land (I'd say no-man's land but these days that might be misconstrued as sexist) and throw a party? No brick lobbing, no hideouts in tents, no bunkers, just open sky... unless it starts raining, in which case we all nip back to to the nearest tent...
BBQ veggie options available, of course.
Oh. Just re-read earlier comments. I think I'm just reinventing the pot-luck...
Fine. Just like Hitler.
But please, don't shoot your dog.
Oh yeah, great, Pilgrim.
We will exist as a new movement for about twenty minutes before everyone falls out over what sauce (or not) goes with BBQ. Ah well, at least it would be over something a lot more important than whether god exists or not.
I see Godwin's law has just been breached. Farewell, I'm off to a grown up space.
Well, there was nothing vindictive about it, Martin. I was just taking the piss out of you like I have been all day. You are such an easy target. In fact, I'm sorry you're leaving.
Ah well, whatever, as you say. Was worth a try, I thought. Kinda like Jesus riding a jackass into Jerusalem or something (me being a jackass, that is: I have no messianic pretensions, just plenty of mess).
Changing the subject entirely, have you heard that Apple have donated $100,000 to the 'Say No to 8' campaign? I always knew Apple were cool. Nice to know my iTunes payments are going to something worthwhile:
Apple Hot News
Does this mean all those Evangelical Apple lovers will switch to Microsoft overnight?
Cool?!!!!!
I ordered my new iMac off them last Thursday and it still hasn't arrived yet. Great machines - great ethics - lousy logistics.
Shoulda done like I did and visited the Apple Store. Great fun. Went back two hours later after they'd done my RAM upgrade and they gave me someone else's MacBook Pro - worth about £800 more than the one I'd just paid for.
Two honest for my own good, I took it back. Worth it for the hilarity of the looks on their faces as they realised they'd given my low-end machine to the guy who'd paid for a posh one...
Remember, this is your "highly recommended" thread.
RE: "Apple have donated $100,000 to the 'Say No to 8' campaign"
I wish some company or wealthy person would donate at least that much or more to "No on 2" here in Florida; the Sentinel was reporting it might very well pass.
Insert much frustration here.
Post a Comment