2009 was the first time I saw the phrase “Science flies you to the Moon. Religion flies you into buildings.” I saw it because it was on the side of a bus with moon landing for one side, and the grisly deaths of September 11th on the other. In researching this ad, I read many comments against it posted by humanists, atheists, and scientists. One said that it’s illogical since both events - getting to the moon and flying into buildings - used science (the technology of airplanes). Another said that they appreciated science as a method, not as an ideology. Still another said that the best way to bring atheism out of the closet was not by condemning religion, but by being respectful while voicing their own points of view. My initial reaction to the ad, in seeing the painful images of the twin towers crumbling, was a snarky come-back: Religion brought you Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Science brought you eugenics. My point being that it doesn’t matter which power-structure you choose, religion, politics, science, there will always be the temptation of corruption with power. Thankfully, many in all arenas choose to do good with the power, but, in all arenas, there have been spectacular failures which we strive to not repeat. And this is where we as humanists step in. We are free from dogma, from idolatry of both science and religion; we can discern what to do. The “New Athiests” are only new in that they are intolerant of religion. Their other ideas - that religion ought to be critiqued and people do not need a deity to be good people - are not new to us at all. The idea of a western religion without a supernatural ruler can be traced in our religion back to the 1830’s, when the Universalist minister Abner Kneeland declared himself an atheist and was jailed for two months for his differing views of God. Epstein says, in his 2009 book: Good Without God: What a Billion Non-Religious People Do Believe, that the new atheists have limitations on how to address the emotive or intuitive aspects of life, but are to be commended for seeking to right the wrongs of religion. Their efforts allow non-theist individuals to feel good about themselves and be willing to be open. This liberation is important to younger people and those under intense family pressure to believe. Like many philosophies and theologies, there are aspects of these new atheists that are worthwhile and others that we can not support. Our religious tradition recognized a long time ago the need for reason in religion. We, and not the intolerant new atheists, have the right thing to offer society, the right thing to offer scientists, skeptics, atheists, humanists; people who simply can’t believe what they’ve always been told to believe. And it is not at the cost of putting down other religious traditions or faiths. We are a movement born in America’s 19th century that supports intellectual engagement with christian traditions and contemporary intellectual resources. And as opposed to other christian traditions, we’re characterized by affirmation of personal and collective experience, systemic social analysis and open theological inquiry. We are more than the dismissal of other faiths. This point is well put by Rev. Dr. Kendyl Gibbons, Minister of the First Unitarian church of Minnesota: “(We) exist because it is not enough to arrive at a position of having rejected traditional religious dogmas. If we are not continually growing in wisdom, compassion, and responsibility throughout our lives, then humanism is a mirage; a lifeless and powerless faith stance. Only if it summons us always to greater human dignity and a more fully human life does it deserve our loyalty, and offer sustenance to others and to our children.” What follows are some examples of humanism that summons greater human dignity, ideas published mostly in this decade. They answer major questions: If we don't have a supernatural thing to pray to, then to what do we give thanks to? And if there isnt a supernatural force watching over us, then why do we change? What unique advantages does religious humanism have over fundamental religion or fundamental atheism? If the bible were interpreted through a humanist lens, how would that change its meaning? This is a small sample of new (Ii'm talking 2009 in 3 out of four of these)religious humanist thinking that is responding to our ever-changing world. First, I’ll talk about Aronson, a humanist naturalist thinker. The following is a review of one of the major points of his philosophy: “Aronson responds to the question of how can humanists properly feel gratitude for life without believing that there is an ultimate meaning for it assigned by a divinity, a being we can express thanks to? Aronson replies by highlighting our complete connection to the natural world, our utter dependence on the planet and all her resources, biological and social. Given this heritage, we should feel grateful for those antecedents, stretching back into the primeval past and out into our current environment, that give us our existence. We can “educate our sense of gratitude by becoming aware of our own sources”.
Even if there’s no ultimate intention behind nature, we need not suppose that the world is therefore absurd: “We belong to an order, a life system, which, however blind and indifferent to us as individuals, gives us our collective and individual possibilities”. Aronson is also notes that awareness of our physical and social interdependence is obscured by what he calls the Western “autonomy myth,” radical individualism, the idea that we are essentially self-made selves owing little or nothing to surrounding circumstances. That since I’ve made it, so could everyone if they just worked harder. This allows us to blame the victim and evade our share of collective responsibility. Discarding the myth pushes us in the opposite direction: toward an expanded sense of self and solidarity which reinforces the moral imperative of achieving human rights and economic security for all, not just a privileged few. Even though we might be disillusioned of utopia, we can nevertheless be inspired and energized by the call to equality”. (via http://www.naturalism.org/Aronsonreview.htm) Another great humanist thinker is Henry Nelson Weiman. He asked the question: What can transform people in such a way to save them from the depth of evil and bring them to the greatest good which human life can ever attain? This question addresses the issue of what makes us change. If the religions we’re familiar with relies on a supernatural power as a reason to become better people, what makes us change to be better? Part of his answer was creativity. He believe that people were transformed through creative events - defined as the reorganization of a person to have new, deeper meanings in relationships with others and the world. The creative event is the same as personal and cultural transformation. We can prepare for these deeper meanings in relationships with others by being aware of richer meanings, communicate with others about them, integrate these new meanings into ourselves, expand and appreciate the world by enlarging its meaning, and by widening and depending community and increased interrelatedness. Epstein, the author I mentioned earlier, is another modern humanist thinker. His 2009 book said that he believes that only the religious humanism can solve some of today’s greatest challenges because we embrace pluralism. To be pluralistic, religious humanists have to have religious literacy, interfaith cooperation, and be fully inclusive. He hopes for interfaith cooperation on issues that can not be addressed by one group alone. He gives examples like separation of church and state, anti-torture, arms reduction, and poverty reduction. He observes that some secular humanists are better about debating rather than create ritual, culture, and community. He offers many ways for humanists to be more religious in his book. One changing demographic of our society is the increasing diversity of our country. It’s no surprise then that African Americans have humanist champions who have contributed major theological advances. One of these is Anthony Pinn. In his book, Living and Thinking Like the Children of Nimrod, he first reclaims the character of Nimrod in the bible. Nimrod, who is interpreted to have dark skin, was a great hunter who controlled the kingdom of Babel and ordered the construction of the Tower of Babel. In the bible story, the tower of Babel was built too high and God stopped workers from being able to complete it by giving everyone a different language so that they could no longer speak to each other to build the tower. The tower’s building has been interpreted as the sin of hubris, of trying to be like God. Pinn says “Nimrod, who became a cursed figure in theological circles, challenged the constructive and technical dominance of God, thereby threatening the the cosmic framework of the universe...Nimrod is credited (or cursed depending on one’s perspective) with shifting the human gaze away from the heavens toward earth and human potential. (He) can serve as a powerful mode of existential and epistemological reformation for African American Humanists...when a hermeneutic of humanism is applied, takes on new dimensions of importance...he sought to extend human creativity and maximize human importance. Recognizing the risk inherent in such a movement against established tradition, Nimrod celebrates human ingenuity.” Pinn’s book is a testament to the achievement of African American Humanists whose thinking should have a lot of influence on religious humanism. These four thinkers present new religious rituals and fresh perspective to age-old religious and humanist challenges and achievements. There are many more that belong to our tradition. These thinkers give deeper and richer meanings to our lives than refutation of the status quo. UU minister David Caufman describes our tradition’s position: “Unitarian Universalists are again in the middle; we honor out doubts but allow for a variety of mystical beliefs. We credit objective experience, but we want emotionally satisfying philosophies so we look for meaning in subjective experience as well.”
Or as Michael Heller, Roman Catholic Priest, beautifully says, “I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence.” In our tradition, we should recognize ourselves as religious humanists. As Malcom Ferrier says “One often hears the term ‘secular humanism’ with the strong implication that Humanism has no component of sacredness. My Humanism glories in the wondrous joy of human feeling and expression; in that way it is intensely sacred and religious. I think many people would say humanism is a religion in that it is a set of guiding principles to direct life choices.” It is important in our tradition to use reason to see what is true to us. As we do this for religious philosophies, so we must in our thinking of intellectual contributions. Critiques that tear religion apart also destroy our religious pluralism and humanism. We offer more to society than tolerance. Very simply, we offer society goodness and love. Our Unitarian humanist roots says we must believe in the general goodness of people. We believe that people often make the right choices. We believe this in the face of fear, even irrationally, in spite of the news flooding our eyes and ears with constant images of human horror. And our Universalist humanist roots says we must love. Our religious pluralism doesn’t just tolerate other religious traditions, we love them. We celebrate them. We learn more about them. We want them in our church and want to hear about their journey. That’s our church tagline - many journeys, one congregation. We know that to ponder life’s most pressing questions and work through tragedy we must come together as a community. Not only to ask each other what it’s all about, but to celebrate the remarkable achievement of our tradition. It matters very deeply to us what someone believes because we, at the heart of it, want to know about it and support it. We must love it, even if it is not right for us personally. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross once said: “People are like stained-glass windows. They sparkle and shine when the sun is out, but when the darkness sets in, their true beauty is revealed only if there is a light from within.” This is what makes us glow. All this lovey dovey goodness stuff gets rightly criticized. We get called a fair-weather religion. It does no good, they say, to believe that everyone is good when horrors like September 11th abound. It does no good to trust society at large when we constantly hear that it is not with the 24/7 news cycle. We are told that we can not love people who flew planes into buildings, and that their religion is what drove them insane, and we can not love that religion or any religion. Our religion is not a fair-weather religion. It takes real courage to look these critics in the eye and tell them that it does do good. It does do good to believe that after September 11th that the world is still a good place, full of love. This is because only when we have love and understanding can we begin to heal from tragedy. This is our faith. This is what we believe. This is where we create our unique meaning. Against darkness, this is the light from within. Respecting the integrity of each of our sources and honing our own commitment to the source from which we draw meaning in a pluralistic religious community is a central task in our faith. As the minister Kit Ketcham says: “Each of our sources gives us a springboard from which we can offer spirituality and service to our larger community. Each of us probably has our preferred source, the one most important in our own religious life. May we respect and revere the wisdom of each source, together a bright rainbow whose colors represent multiple angles and beams of light, and may we always remember that our deepest roots lie in the warm soil of human love and compassion.” Make it so.