Can an Atheist be a UU?

[Trey of Diamonds]

Not my question, came from this article:

Can an Atheist be a Unitarian Universalist

The article is about the book A Chosen Faith by Forrest Church and John A. Buehrens. The author of the article shows that the book has a decidedly anti-atheist slant. I found that to be very surprising and certainly my UU church doesn't show any of this negativity towards the many atheists who are members of our church. Has anyone here read the book, I haven't yet, and care to comment on it? Did the author of the article misread?

 

[Lucian]

No, I haven't read the book, though I guess I should now. One needs not even read the book to see that the article's writer is misrepresenting what is said. The quote from the book that is on the article does not claim what he claims it does. He leaves out important words and only gets tangled with a couple of expressions, losing the meaning of the text. It's not against atheists, but militant atheism. If the writer believes that he is one of those that is spoken about in the quote, one who wants to rid us of religion, then he would not really be a UU.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

There is another negative review on the book as well. I was hoping someone who had read the book might chime in to let us know what they think. Guess I'll have to go get a copy and read it myself. This was probably a plot to sell more books.

 

[Matthew78]

I haven't read the book so I will decline comment on it. But I would say that an atheist can be a UU if the atheist isn't antireligious. An atheist can be a religious naturalist and have a feeling of deep reverential awe towards the universe, how it operates, how it originated, and how they are a part of it. I would guess that this is what a religious naturalist might feel. But, yes, definitely, an atheist can be a UU. I dont think the UU church would welcome the attitude of folks like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, though.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Ok, so part 2 of the article came out today.

Can an Atheist be a Unitarian Universalist?

In part 1 the author had written to John Buehrens and now we have his reply printed. The article writer takes great offense at Buehrens reply but I don't understand why. I thought the letter, while maybe blunt, was fairly reasonable. Am I wrong? Since I'm not an atheist I might have missed something.

 

[Lucian]

Ok, so part 2 of the article came out today.

Can an Atheist be a Unitarian Universalist?

In part 1 the author had written to John Buehrens and now we have his reply printed. The article writer takes great offense at Buehrens reply but I don't understand why. I thought the letter, while maybe blunt, was fairly reasonable. Am I wrong? Since I'm not an atheist I might have missed something.

Thanks for keeping us up-to-date! I also think the answer was quite reasonable, but the writer is apparently still feeling a personal insult that Buehrens has "dared" to use certain words, which he somehow thinks were aimed at him. If he truly believed the same as the militant ones, then it would be bizarre to hang around with the UUs.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Thanks for keeping us up-to-date! I also think the answer was quite reasonable, but the writer is apparently still feeling a personal insult that Buehrens has "dared" to use certain words, which he somehow thinks were aimed at him. If he truly believed the same as the militant ones, then it would be bizarre to hang around with the UUs.

You're welcome. I like to call them Fundamentalist Atheists. Probably not a correct use of the term Fundamentalism but there are a lot of parallels. We have lots of Atheists in our church but none of the fundamentalists who want to eliminate religion all together.

 

[applewuud]

I have read the book, and have met and studied under Rev. Buherens. Someone who has studied religion in a liberal environment and become aware of the different threads that go through history is obligated to point out what he pointed out in his reply, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

In a UU environment, you're free to voice your opinion, but that doesn't mean your opinion won't be challenged. Buherens was responding to a kind of categorical thinking about religion and said, hey, atheists have had their holocausts, too.

As for A Chosen Faith, it's been a while since I read it, but it is part of a growing tendency (and a controversy) within Uniliberalism to move away from a narrow kind of humanism that sees all "spiritual" ideas as being old-fashioned or "backsliding". Buehrens is one of the rare UU ministers who has done a lot of biblical research, and his book Understanding the Bible: An Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers, and Religious Liberals is an effort to take back the bible from fundamentalist interpretations, similar to Bishop Spong's writings in the Anglican church.

I see all these things as stages, myself; you go through a fundamentalist stage, find out what's wrong about that and become a skeptic, learn some of the deficits of a purely rational approach to life, and then open yourself to wonder and mystery without trying to cram it into a well-defined box. That's what the whole "using the language of reverence" debate is about.

 

[Matthew78]

I have ordered the book A Chosen Faith. Now that I know of the book Understanding the Bible, I plan to get that one as well. I have gone through the stages that applewuud has described. I started out as a classical fundamentalist Christian, went through an Evangelical stage, then became a deist, then an agnostic, then an atheist who scorned religion and wanted to be a complete rationalist. I came to conclude that a totally secular and rational life was unfulfilling and that I could find meaning in being a religious liberal. Now, I am a UU and I love it. I am looking for more ways to get involved in the church.

 

[Splarnst]

then an atheist who scorned religion and wanted to be a complete rationalist. I came to conclude that a totally secular and rational life was unfulfilling

How long did this stage last?

 

[Splarnst]

While I think the author of the blog overreacted, I do take exception to this:

We stand for the real, ethical, spiritual core or religion across confessional and tribal.. We have plenty of room even for authentic, non-violent "atheists" or skeptics.

What's an inauthentic atheist? Why the scare quotes? How many atheists has he met who have committed even the smallest act of violence (physical, not verbal) in the name atheism? My bet is zero.

Who the heck is this "author" and inauthentic "writer"?

But I will not allow those filled with murderous hatred of religion…

If anything deserves scare quotes in this letter, it's the word murderous. He just cited actual examples of atheist murderers, so he should know the difference between the Cultural Revolution and teenage nihilism. I doubt he could name—without researching—a single instance of a modern, western atheist attacking a believer because of their religion.

 

[Antiochian]

I have ordered the book A Chosen Faith. Now that I know of the book Understanding the Bible, I plan to get that one as well. I have gone through the stages that applewuud has described. I started out as a classical fundamentalist Christian, went through an Evangelical stage, then became a deist, then an agnostic, then an atheist who scorned religion and wanted to be a complete rationalist. I came to conclude that a totally secular and rational life was unfulfilling and that I could find meaning in being a religious liberal. Now, I am a UU and I love it. I am looking for more ways to get involved in the church.

A Chosen Faith is a good book, although I don't always agree with the authors. They do seem to have a Christian bias, but that's just my input. I had to read it for my Path to Faith class, a requirement for membership in my fellowship.

I was delighted to see NPR journalist Margot Adler mentioned in A Chosen Faith as well. She's a respected figure in the Pagan community, and I had no idea she's also UU!

 

[Matthew78]

How long did this stage last?

It lasted seven years.

 

[Splarnst]

It's been seven years and one month for me. Not that we'd follow the same path, but slightly interesting coincidence.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Part 3, now available.

Can an Atheist be a Unitarian Universalist?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Ok, I read Part 3. Wow. Is it just me or is this guy a bit off?

 

[applewuud]

....

What's an inauthentic atheist? Why the scare quotes? How many atheists has he met who have committed even the smallest act of violence (physical, not verbal) in the name atheism? My bet is zero.

Who the heck is this "author" and inauthentic "writer"?
...

I would say an inauthentic atheist, like an inauthentic Christian or anything else, is one who hasn't really thought deeply or studied opposing positions, or exposed their ideas to criticism of any kind. If someone dismisses an idea or view of the universe before understanding that view (e.g., one who dismisses the theory of evolution but doesn't know anything about genetics, biology, or geology), that's not very authentic.

An example of an authentic atheist who'd be welcome in a UU church would be Bill Maher (the comedian who made the movie "Religulous"). To me, he's an authentic atheist because he knows a lot about religion (not enough, IMHO, but that's another thread). I'd be glad to have Bill preach at my church anytime, because in the search for truth, he's way ahead of a lot of so-called religious people. And, his 2-minute sermons at the end of his shows are some of the best fire-and-brimstone preaching of the 21st century so far. His positions are well-thought-out and stem from his life experience, they weren't foisted on him and he's not parroting the positions of others.

As far as violence is concerned, I wonder what the religious beliefs were of David Adkisson (the guy who shot 9 people at a UU church in Knoxville in 2008)? There's no mention of religion in Ted Kaczynski's biography, either. They may not be atheists, but they're not religious, apparently. Violence seems to be something that springs out of a minority of minds regardless of theology; in the post-9/11 era it's easy to say that religion leads to violence, Buhrens' point is that non-religious societies also express this negative human trait.

 

[applewuud]

Ok, I read Part 3. Wow. Is it just me or is this guy a bit off?

No, I get it. And the comments below his post are worth checking out. He feels like his atheist beliefs are being tarnished or dissed.

But, that's part of the tension of being in a UU environment. Buehrens isn't trying to dismiss him or make him uncomfortable, he's pointing out that the ideas of the "new atheists" don't address some liberal concepts of religion as adequately as they think.

My earlier praise of Bill Maher notwithstanding, there's a world of difference between the supposedly-religious bozos he makes fun of in his movie, and advanced liberal religious thinkers like Matthew Fox, Bishop Spong, Rabbi Harold Kushner, Dr. Rebecca Parker, or John Buehrens. I'd like to see an episode of "Real Time" where he has them (or even one of them!) on the panel.

Buehrens is basically saying, "you're right to criticize religion, I agree with a lot of that, but consider this..." and this guy's taking it as an insult.

 

[Splarnst]

I would say an inauthentic atheist, like an inauthentic Christian or anything else, is one who hasn't really thought deeply or studied opposing positions, or exposed their ideas to criticism of any kind. If someone dismisses an idea or view of the universe before understanding that view (e.g., one who dismisses the theory of evolution but doesn't know anything about genetics, biology, or geology), that's not very authentic.

I don't think your definition of authentic corresponds to actual usage of that word. If you asked a hundred people on the street for a word to describe a student who didn't study hard, I'd bet inauthentic wouldn't appear anywhere on that list. An "inauthentic atheist" suggests someone who is lying about their lack of belief in gods, not someone who isn't fully informed on the subject. If Buehrens meant "informed," then he should have said that instead of suggesting the No True Scotsman argument.

As far as violence is concerned, I wonder what the religious beliefs were of David Adkisson (the guy who shot 9 people at a UU church in Knoxville in 2008)?

According to Wikipedia, Adkisson targeted the UU church because it was "liberal" (and because one of his ex-wives had been a member). No reason to believe he was an atheist, much less than atheism motivated his violence.

There's no mention of religion in Ted Kaczynski's biography, either. They may not be atheists, but they're not religious, apparently.

That you're bringing up killers who merely weren't explicitly religious in a discussion about atheism-inspired violence proves my point: Buehrens has almost certainly never met anyone filled with "murderous hatred toward religion" because they don't exist in modern, western society. His use of the word murderous—when applied to people he's debating with and not to historical Stalinists or Maoists—is unjustified, misleading, and offensive.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Buehrens is basically saying, "you're right to criticize religion, I agree with a lot of that, but consider this..." and this guy's taking it as an insult.

Right, and that makes him a bit off in my book. It's like he's exaggerating what Buehrens said so he can be more mad. Strange. And the part where he now thinks he's unwelcome in his own church because of what someone outside his church wrote in a book is, well, a bit off. He didn't say he had any personal experiences that made him feel uncomfortable. I haven't checked the comments yet, I'll go back and do that. Thanks.