UU Atheists

[EverChanging]

chalice_circle: UU Atheists: An Endangered (and Embattled) Species?

I almost didn't post this article because I didn't want to open up a can of worms, but it's a good topic.

I am new to UU and have only attended one, very small congregation a few times. The services there can vary widely, some so secular that one might leave wondering what it had to do with spirituality or church, and others more spiritually oriented, like the Earth Mass with flower communion.

Overall, the congregation seems to be oriented toward Humanism, and there are at least three other atheists who are members. One of the members, who has become a good friend, probably wouldn't use that label, but her worldview is naturalistic. It was wonderful to meet other atheists there, especially since I'm living in such a conservative area, but I was delighted to meet a Wiccan, too. In fact, I think I would be a little bored with a church full of only Humanists, even though that describes my worldview (though inadequately, as any other term -- I am very eclectic in my spirituality.)

I haven't heard many other atheistic UUs complain about hostility toward their atheism -- it's usually the other way around, and that's why I didn't want to bring up this article. But I admit that, before I became a UU, I read A Chosen Faith: an Introduction to Unitarian Universalism, and it didn't have many nice things to say about atheists. On page 103, skepticism is characterized as a "demonic pseudoreligion," and I recall reading that there are "no atheists in foxholes," a phrase I find untruthful, hurtful, and cruel, whether it was used metaphorically or not.

Overall, my experience with Unitarian Universalists has not confirmed these prejudices, but my experience is limited. Thoughts?

 

[Storm]

My experience conforms with yours for the most part. I haven't read that book, and would have found it inappropriate.

There are many atheists in my congregation, and they feel right at home.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Note first that I am not a UU congregant. I am, however, a nontheist member of a Reform Synagogue, and there are similarities to be found both in the commitment to pluralism and the increasingly evident currents of what might be labeled renewal. So, with your permission, two observations:

1. I was struck by the following:

   Church's Chosen Faith co-author, John A. Buehrens, penned an article in UU World last summer that starts out mildly demeaning toward anyone who holds a negative perspective toward the Christian Bible (e.g., "You ... can’t be spiritually mature or wise by simply rejecting the Bible as oppressive") and finishes by hurling horrific insults at humanists (the last two paragraphs).

   I do not know about the unquoted "horrific insults," but what was quoted impresses me as both accurate and worth saying. Those holding "a negative perspective toward the Christian Bible" who find it "mildly demeaning" should simply grow up.
   - - - - - - - -​
2. Pluralism entails making room for those with whom you disagree. It does not entail denying the disagreement. Where the currents of renewal channel disrespect, the disrespect should be challenged, but the currents themselves have a legitimate place in a pluralist organization.

Pluralism is always a work in progress.

 

[J Bryson]

Reform Jews have quite a bit in common with UUs, so I'm thankful for your insights, Jayhawker Soule.

I can only speak for my church: I haven't noticed the Atheists feeling exceptionally marginalized, or if they are, I haven't heard anything about it. It's important to make sure that they don't, however, as nontheistic humanists have brought much to the table over the past decades, and I would hope that they continue to be active members of our beloved community in the years to come.

I understand the concerns regarding sacred language. However, without the use of religious terminology, we are less of a religion, and more of a somewhat leftist social group that meets in pretty buildings on Sunday. The entire point of religion to me involves tackling the greater mysteries of existence, the purpose of life itself. It's much more difficult to deal with what are essentially religious questions without using religious language.

 

[EverChanging]

do not know about the unquoted "horrific insults," but what was quoted impresses me as both accurate and worth saying. Those holding "a negative perspective toward the Christian Bible" who find it "mildly demeaning" should simply grow up.

I would agree with the above statement in general and don't necessarily agree with everything in the article, though I did find some parts of A Chosen Faith intolerant and demeaning. (I have to add that I understand completely why people criticize the Bible, and they should, though approaching it the same way as fundamentalists do is shallow.) Fortunately, my personal experiences have not confirmed those parts of the book, nor any other atheistic/humanistic UUs I have known or interacted with.

 

[applewuud]

I thought of "Tolerating Atheists" as a (lay) sermon title, with a gimmick to make a point. Are UUs a denomination that "tolerates" atheists as one of the options of religious belief?

The turnabout comes with the reverse: I think the atheists who like to hang out with a UU group need to be, by definition, tolerant of theistic expressions and ideas, as long as they are not cast in the traditional mold of "the one and only right doctrine". If you're an atheist who is really uncomfortable with hearing the words "God" or "Jesus" in any context, or reading or exploring any ideas from the Bible or other traditional religious texts EVER, you won't be happy hanging out with Unitarian Universalists.

By the same token, if you're a liberal Christian who gets upset with anyone questioning the divinity of Jesus, the infallibility of the Bible, or a minister saying from the pulpit that the concept of a personal God seems incorrect to them, you'll probably be more comfortable hanging out at a Congregational or Episcopal church instead of trying to get the humanists to convert to your beliefs. :sorry1:

The "toleration" is of the many different ideas that are out there in the world and being humble about our own ability to judge the infinite from our finite minds.

 

[Inky]

I'm an atheist and UU, or at least I've been going to a UU church for some time, enjoy it a lot and am starting to identify with it. I haven't had much opportunity to discuss my own beliefs in a public UU space, but I've never picked up any anti-atheist bent in regular conversations with church members. It's all been friendly so far.

I've always thought that quote that "there are no atheists in foxholes" is more to the credit of atheism than religion. It's saying people turn to religion in times of extreme stress and confusion - exactly when it's hardest to be level-headed about complex things like theology. (Not that level-headed = atheism always, I just think the way the quote is usually interpreted is ironic.)

 

[Kurgan]

I respect your thoughts even though I am not in your dominion. I find anyone who gets jerked out of shape when one or another religious belief is brought forward. The real purpose of every major religion I know about is to teach the golden rule.

I cannot understand why you take offense to the statment about foxholes. That statement is not meant to be offensive, it simply means that sooner or later we all look up to a higher power. Believe me you can do some serious praying and make all kinds of promises you cannot possibly keep when you are being shot at. I do not care what you believe in, I also think I understand why.

 

[J Bryson]

Considering that there are a good number of atheists in the armed forces, and that it's doubtful that all of them who went into battle in a foxhole had a conversion experience, I'm skeptical of that line.

 

[Storm]

I cannot understand why you take offense to the statment about foxholes. That statement is not meant to be offensive, it simply means that sooner or later we all look up to a higher power.

That's the point: "we all" don't.

 

[keithnurse]

I have been attending a UU congregation for 7 years and there are a significant number of atheists as well as a significant number of theists who are members there. There is a chapter of the UU new age group called "UU Psi Symposium" also. There are low level tensions between the theists, atheists, new agers and pagans but no major fights or arguments that I know of. I has been my experience that spiritual people can suddenly become quite grouchy and argumentative if you dare to question any of their cherished spiritual beliefs, atheists aren't the only ones needing to be more tolerant.

 

[keithnurse]

I think the statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is patronizing toward atheists. It's saying to atheists "yeah, yeah, yeah, I know you SAY you don't believe in God, but deep down inside you do, don't you". It's a way of avoiding seriously grappling with the questions atheists raise about the existence of gods/goddesses.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I think the statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is patronizing toward atheists. It's saying to atheists "yeah, yeah, yeah, I know you SAY you don't believe in God, but deep down inside you do, don't you". It's a way of avoiding seriously grappling with the questions atheists raise about the existence of gods/goddesses.

The saying "There are no atheists in foxholes" is a military observation of human reactions under extreme duress and a generalization of that observation. I don't think the point of the saying is religious in nature but instead to point out a human reaction to fear. Unfortunately, civilians with no experience in the extreme environments that lead to such fear think they can use the saying to justify their own views and ideals.

 

[keithnurse]

Even if "there are no atheists in foxholes" that doesn't that a god or goddess exists.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Even if "there are no atheists in foxholes" that doesn't that a god or goddess exists.

Of course not, but the statement is an observation of human reaction, not one of religious belief. Religious people have attempted to take the saying and use it to justify their beliefs when it was never really meant to be used in that fashion. In other words, they are taking it out of context.

 

[EverChanging]

American Atheists features "atheists in foxholes" every month and there are a number of organizations for agnostic/atheistic people in the armed forces. "There are no atheists in foxholes" just doesn't ring true in many accounts I've read by atheists who have been there.