Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am in an organization (Unitarian Universalism; both a member of a specific fellowship and of the broader national organization, the Unitarian Universalist Association) which annoyingly claims that it is welcoming of atheists, agnostics & humanists, but then turns around and talks about our “shared theological values,” our “faith” and our “religion.”
When UU humanists point out that they do not have “theological values” because they are atheists. The response is “Oh, yes, you do. We all have beliefs.”
In one recent on-line discussion, this talk ”Theology 101” purports to inform us atheists how we really have beliefs just like everyone else.
I have so many problems with this articles, but for the specific topic of this thread, I will note that the author seems to conflate “personal values” with “religious belief.” Yes, we all have values, this doesn’t make them theological, unless we want to engage in what I call “word magic.”
How do you respond when you see the kinds of arguments that are in this (very annoying) talk?
I once engaged with a Unitarian minister out of Atlanta who was very, VERY reactive to atheism and could not abide it that I couldn't at least say his theism was supportable and defensible. I was expected as an atheist in an (at least Southern, Bible Belt) Unitarian church to take an imagined agnostic middle ground where I am simply not sure there is a god, but I couldn't have the temerity to say that I think it highly unlikely, and not an intellectual defensible position. That was a bridge too far.
So I think it depends on the congregation to an extent. My daughter for a time went to a UU church in NC and when I went to a service there one time, the liturgy reminded me very much of evangelical churches, just the their hymnody included songs of Buddhist or Taoist origin and so on, as well as watered-down Christian hymns. I think they have to adapt somewhat to what the locals can abide without their heads exploding.
Here in my upstate NY town they have a small but very ... shall we say, assertive group of LGBTQ people, which is perfectly fine, but to the point that they see or imagine offenses and slights in everything that happens in the church and manage to make it all about themselves 100% of the time. And there's another group of political activists who think less of you if you've never been arrested at a protest -- which is not everyone's cup of tea. So even apart from philosophical / theological matters these congregations can get overrun with particular interest groups. I guess it is human nature.
As to the question of how I'd handle it -- I would appeal to their basic organizing principle, which is that they are covenantal rather than creedal. The covenant is essentially to provide welcoming social support to one and all regardless of personal convictions. The creed would be an asserted dogma, such as "god exists". Hold their feet to the fire (if it's a battle you care to pick) that no one can be held to the dogma of theism even in its most basic form, and this is by design.
Of course, people who push such notions are relatively less progressive and inclusive than the denomination is in principle and are just finding deflections and dismissals to get around the stated objectives of the national organization. If what you're encountering represents local leadership than it would be hard to get that to change. If what you're encountering just represents residual structural bigotry then it is no different than what, say, a person of color faces in the southern US -- that in theory they are free and equal, and in practice, there are dozens of ways to oppress and hold them back. So you are faced with the same thing they are: a slow battle for hearts and minds.
Personally I am not that into the UU congregation here and haven't been there since before the start of the Covid pandemic. My wife keep talking about attending some functions for social reasons, but a combination of personal reticence, introversion and the ongoing pandemic risks hold us back.
I only made it 5 minutes. She is an exJW and using them as an example of following religious doctrine. Technically that is true but groups like the JWs belong in a separate class. She doesn't seem to get it. Also, she calls herself a "seeker" so I can tell she is likely a convert. I'm glad for her she isn't under the Watchtowers thumb anymore but she hasn't gotten over herself.
Clearly to an atheist or an agnostic values don't have to come in the religious variety but some believers can't understand. It wouldn't be the first time humanists have been claimed by Christianity as "irreligious Christians" because the values cross over into concepts like compassion.
I am in an organization (Unitarian Universalism; both a member of a specific fellowship and of the broader national organization, the Unitarian Universalist Association) which annoyingly claims that it is welcoming of atheists, agnostics & humanists, but then turns around and talks about our “shared theological values,” our “faith” and our “religion.”
When UU humanists point out that they do not have “theological values” because they are atheists. The response is “Oh, yes, you do. We all have beliefs.”
In one recent on-line discussion, this talk ”Theology 101” purports to inform us atheists how we really have beliefs just like everyone else.
I have so many problems with this articles, but for the specific topic of this thread, I will note that the author seems to conflate “personal values” with “religious belief.” Yes, we all have values, this doesn’t make them theological, unless we want to engage in what I call “word magic.”
How do you respond when you see the kinds of arguments that are in this (very annoying) talk?
It is an interesting read. Seems like a mix of bending over backwards to be open-minded, while not quite actually being open-minded. But I give them lots of credit for the overall approach of openness.
I only made it 5 minutes. She is an exJW and using them as an example of following religious doctrine. Technically that is true but groups like the JWs belong in a separate class. She doesn't seem to get it. Also, she calls herself a "seeker" so I can tell she is likely a convert. I'm glad for her she isn't under the Watchtowers thumb anymore but she hasn't gotten over herself.
Clearly to an atheist or an agnostic values don't have to come in the religious variety but some believers can't understand. It wouldn't be the first time humanists have been claimed by Christianity as "irreligious Christians" because the values cross over into concepts like compassion.
What? Is that true? By JW, you mean Jehovah’s Witness? Are you sure you are reading my link? If that is true, it is interesting …
ETA: You’re right. I did see that in her bio. Interesting.
It is an interesting read. Seems like a mix of bending over backwards to be open-minded, while not quite actually being open-minded. But I give them lots of credit for the overall approach of openness.
One of the most annoying things about the talk was her back and forth between: “Here you have freedom of belief.” And “no you can’t believe whatever you want.” It’s as if she wants to control what people believe without taking responsibility for being controlling.
Actually, I found the whole piece quite manipulative
One of the most annoying things about the talk was her back and forth between: “Here you have freedom of belief.” And “no you can’t believe whatever you want.” It’s as if she wants to control what people believe without taking responsibility for being controlling.
Actually, I found the whole piece quite manipulative
It sort of reminds me of the AA program, which says you have to believe in a higher power...but that can be almost anything you want.
One of the most annoying things about the talk was her back and forth between: “Here you have freedom of belief.” And “no you can’t believe whatever you want.” It’s as if she wants to control what people believe without taking responsibility for being controlling.
Actually, I found the whole piece quite manipulative
The JWs don't have "freedom of thought". Everyone HAS to not only do what they are told but self police their own thoughts to conform. She doesn't know that not everyone is anal about believing the right thing. People belong to religion for different reasons like social, family, structure... The "truth seekers" tho seem to take everything way too seriously.
If she is using a cult as an example of religion it makes sense she would assume other religions are like that.
Edit:. She's probably using the manipulative techniques of the Watchtower and doesn't realize it.
It sort of reminds me of the AA program, which says you have to believe in a higher power...but that can be almost anything you want.
What is curious about this is what is implied by “belief” or “believe.” It’s actually kind of oxymoronic to say “you have to believe.” I mean, you either believe something to be true, or you have a varying degree of doubt. All of this “try to believe” or having one’s “faith tested” or similar religious phrases all basically imply that someone doesn’t really believe something. If you truly believe something, it just becomes the unremarkable bedrock of your life.
Example: I believe that the sun will “come up” tomorrow. Obviously, I know it is possible that either the earth or the sun could be destroyed overnight, but I do firmly believe that the sun will come up tomorrow. I don’t struggle to believe it or moan about my faith in the rotation of the earth being tested. If I did all these things, I would actually doubt that dawn would break tomorrow.
Belief arises from values. I value speaking the truth, I believe truth is of value. We all have values, we all have beliefs.
Whether it is theological or not is immaterial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
