How about replacing the above with: “Science and rational inquiry which offer powerful insights into the natural world while revealing its awe-inspiring diversity and beauty."
Other have objected that they don’t see humanism as necessarily linked with science. So, we don’t honor humanism specifically, just sciences and the arts (humanistic sources).
Also, this formulation doesn’t makes any claims as to the truth of science, just to its power — realized in predictive theories, transformational inventions, etc.
Finally, instead of saying anything about “falsifiability,” or “verifiability” this just limits the domain of science to the natural world.
I like your wording, @Janet . For me, science is not related to “humanist teachings;” it has power on its own merits. Humanism has been an important source for UUism, so maybe add it to the previous paragraph: “Spiritual teachings from our (Judeo-)Christian origins, Humanism, earth-centered traditions, and other world religions and (wisdom traditions), which inspire us in our ethical and spiritual life, and which center justice and love for one another and for nature.”
@beccaboerger and @Janet I think this is another one where we’re somewhat falling between two stools–science IS also a source of mystery and awe for many of us. But it also provides the benefits of those methods of truth-testing or falsity-proving we’ve been talking around that are foundational to much of the equity advances we still need to make. For climate justices, for addressing so many disparities between groups of humans–the methods of science when not abused are also something we draw on, right? I do get that some people don’t like the “humanism” and “secular” or “science” grouping together, or luimping “reason” in here as well. . .
I think of this amendment and the alternate version from Janet’s congregation as sort of the middle ground for Sources amendments. We have the Sources as they are now, we have the Inspirations as proposed, we have some minor editing of each of these, we have a long and to me quite beautiful effort from @klsteb2 congregation that would be the “longform” direction. I am not sure ALL these can get combined together, but maybe the shortest form ones can, the middle ground ones can, and the longest ones can?
@Janet “Our faith” I did actually suggest removing from my amendment in a couple of my comments above. I suggested “Unitarian Universalism” in the first instance and “our community” in the second instance.
I really like this! It is a good compromise between our current sources and the Article II Study Commissions’s Inspirations.
The only change I would make, is changing the word, “faith” to “religion” or “beliefs” in the first paragraph. While I recognize that many UUs use the word “faith” to mean “belief” or “religion”, non-theists and most people in the world do not define “faith” as “belief”. Most people define “faith” as belief based on a lack of evidence. That’s why many religions say that their practitioners need to have faith because there is not evidence for much of what they believe. While it is fine for people to have “faith”, non-theists like me do not have any “faith” and using that word excludes us from Article II and excludes us as UUs.
Thanks for your comments and appreciation! there are already a couple proposed amendments that sprang from the earliest draft of this one (see #147), and we are working in our Google docs group from the Workshop to combine these “mid-size” ones together, as well as working on other versions people have proposed.
In some of the proposed revisions to the amendment (see comments), I substituted “Unitarian Universalism” and “our community” for “our faith.”
I have worked up an amendment that combines Kerry’s reworked Inspirations amendment and mine #147.
New Combined Amendment:
We are inspired by the full depth and breadth of sacred and secular human knowledge. We honor the pluralism of our lineage, and we discern and build upon the sources of Unitarian Universalism as we move forward, mindful of the cultures in which they evolved.
These sources include:
Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which renews our spirit;
Religions and wisdom traditions which inspire us in our ethical and spiritual life and which center love, justice, and harmony with one another and with nature;
Humanist teachings, which counsel us to honor the verifiable knowledge produced by communities of scientific and rational inquiry;
The creative arts, which reveal to us the face of life’s beauty and joy, its struggles and sorrows, and its enduring truth and meaning, and which open our hearts to emotions of joy, solace, and gratitude.
These sources ground us and sustain us in ordinary, difficult, and joyous times. Grateful for the religious and cultural ancestries we inherit and the diversity that enriches our community, we are called to ever deepen and expand our wisdom.
I may have time later to add editing marks to show how I combined the two amendments, but for now, I can say that I just took Kerry’s reworked amendment and: 1. Changed the first sentence; 2. Changed the second source so that it does not list specific religions and 3. Changed the third source to make it less wordy and to refer to “communities of scientific and rational inquiry.” instead of “the sciences and mathematics.”
I still wonder if the current sources are preferable. I like the action verbs and parallel construction used in the current sources: Our sources move us, challenge us, inspire us, call us to respond, counsel us, and celebrate. I would miss that challenge, that call to action, which I found so moving as a new UU (and still find powerful). I find it WONDERFUL that our sources are present-tense, not something we only look back to but something we continually seek out. I think prophetic people - as demonstrated in, for example, our own Ware lecturers - are a crucial source. But i haven’t seen interest in retaining that source in any of the amendments, and I do really this this version is elegant and meaningful.
Note to anyone following this amendment: The continuing discussion has been moved over to its sister amendment, #147. These amendments derived from the same original first draft (mine) and have been and continue to be workshopped separately, and then merged together, by two different congregations; in an email thread started from the Inspirations workshop; and here on the Discuss site.
Please note: If you liked this amendment, please consider signing the document of support for its new incarnation, #147. These two amendments both started from my original draft (which had been submitted to the Article II Commission in a feedback form), went to each of our congregations separately, and then the two drafts were recombined.
The new Amendment #147 that was resubmitted by the June 5 deadline has been heavily brainstormed and edited by both @Janet and me, doing our best to synthesize and reconcile the full range and diversity of voices, as well as incorporate language both from the current Sources and the proposed Principles.