Reflections on a UU Service: 6/30/13 (Part Two)

After that joke, I felt the sermon got off to a rocky start. As is often the case when non-atheists attempt to discuss atheist ideas, the pastor began the substance of her discussion with a misapplied definition of atheism.

The preacher stated that atheism relies too heavily on an absolute certainty to suit her tastes. While I will try not to be too condescending as a philosophy major, I do find it irksome when people who are not familiar with the philosophical and practical definitions of atheism use a false definition as a straw man to give an unflattering impression of atheist beliefs.

Saying, as she said, that atheism is the certainty that there is no god is not accurate. This sort of statement ignores the distinction between weak atheism ("I have no evidence to believe in a god, so I don't"/"I lack belief in gods"/"I can't say what is out there, so I'll default to not believing in gods") and strong atheism ("there is no god"/"the very idea of god or gods is so ridiculous that I can rule it out entirely").

Also, her portrayal of atheism ignores the common occurrence that many people are both atheists and agnostics - that some people are ambivalent about whether they know if any gods exist, but they choose not to commit to any beliefs about gods and live their life as if there are no gods. This is similar to being a weak atheist.

Many of the things this pastor said about atheism really pleased me. She favorably quoted Penn Jillette's idea of moving beyond atheism, and insisted that non-belief should be a starting point, not an ending point, to inspire action and kindness toward others. The pastor complimented atheists many times, often referring to "the open-hearted atheist", someone who puts themselves on the hook instead of a belief in religion or even the acceptance of atheism as a way to solve problems and care for other people. This line of thinking is a great parallel to the Atheism+ movement that has been building on the Internet within the last year. Saying that you're an atheist doesn't make you a more humane person - that atheism must be a motivating factor to improve the lives of other people. I agree.

On a similar note, the most memorable quote of the sermon was when she said, "Proving a negative is a wasted breath when so many people in the world are suffering." While many people assume that UUs are completely impartial to what people actually believe (and the preceding quote may reinforce that assumption), this preacher was fervent in saying that "beliefs matter", and her test for the benefits of different beliefs is whether they leave "walled gardens" or "open doors" - whether beliefs promote "an experience of wholeness" and evoke "unity but not division".

Now, at this point, I have to disagree with the pastor again. Yes, atheism is not enough to improve people or the world. Yes, beliefs matter. Let's examine, though, some assumptions that lurk behind her point about the preposterous presumptuousness of proving a negative.

Atheists need to be loud, clear about who we are and what we want, precisely because our beliefs matter. When most people assume that it is a good thing to be religious, that religion is inherently a social good, and that religion is required for morality...then there is a great danger that people will use religion to promote fear, bigotry, intolerance, hatred, and division without facing any substantial criticism. Giving religion a blank check is a really good way to make sure that anyone can cover for their actions - no matter how dubious, reprehensible, or spiteful - by wrapping what they do inside the contours of the word "religion".

Further, is unity a good test to determine if a belief benefits the world? Is openness a consistently good quality for an idea? Should we remain open to ideas that stigmatize, and spread prejudice? Should we be open to combinations of scientific ignorance and religious rhetoric that decry evolution and harm science education, malign climate change and wound our environment, or promote pernicious practices with no medical validity but plenty of use for faith - such as homeopathy - that when used instead of proper medical care have at best wasted money and at worst ended lives? We should not be open to the worst of religious ignorance and incredulity, and we should not have unity for the sake of preserving dangerous and unfounded ideas.

I am glad that the preacher favorably quoted Bertrand Russell's three main goals in life: to 1) long for love 2) search for knowledge and 3) pity suffering. I believe that humanity can best achieve these goals not with blind faith, but with open minds. It is far more important for our minds than our hearts to be open.

***

For another good discussion of the relationship between UUs and atheists, see Part I, Part II, or Part III of atheist blogger Adam Lee's accounts of his experiences with UU activities "Can an Atheist Be a Unitarian Universalist?". Note, though, that since most UU congregations are highly autonomous, experiences across different congregations tend to vary greatly.