#85 | Becca Boerger | Categories of Sources

2023 Article II Amendment Idea Submissions Amendment Ideas
21

@beccaboerger, I like suggestion 1. I don’t disagree with suggestion 2, but someone else was the original author of “the Arts” addition, and I know it got a fair amount of support previously, so I didn’t mess with it much (just changed one word, because I like the root and associations of “emotion” more). The closing paragraph does address the joys and sorrows aspect though (and was re-added to this amendment at the request of someone in our congregation).

Personally, I agree with you that feature of addressing both joy and pain is especially true of art, which serves as solace in ways other sources might not and also addresses complex difficulties sometimes more effectively than prescriptive, fact-based, and other nonfiction/less expressive modes do. Would be interested to hear other’s thoughts as this part of the amendment hopefully goes forward.

@drc I think “our thing” is already taken. :wink:

Unitarian Universalism is a religion–for tax purposes and in other ways. Organizations of similar-minded people that aren’t religious wouldn’t be congregations or other religious bodies (but, say humanist organizations, philosophical societies, or what have you.)

UUism is not the only religion that doesn’t necessarily require a belief in God or an afterlife and that welcomes doubt and free inquiry. I personally agree this needs to still be spelled out for us, though, and thus feel strongly about continuing to include a specific reference to our Sources, including secular ones.

“Faith” on its own is not a word I associate exclusively with theistic connotations, although I suppose as specified here, “our faith,” that would be the more usual read. (A really zealous atheist got mad at me when I spoke of an “atheist’s faith” (was thinking of existentialism, for example) and when I said that i am “still atheist in many ways.” Her argument was that atheism is absolute, all or nothing.)

I don’t see us expunging spiritual/religious language from any part of Article II, as that would also violate our freedom of belief, but maybe there are other words that could represent the balance better. Maybe “our religion” in the first instance and “our community” in the second instance? But in my view, regardless of our personal beliefs, we can’t get around UUism being a religion, or then we are talking about something else.

@Janet my wording included reason, science, and mathematics, as well as verifiable, not just “science,” but I agree that “empirical” also gets at a key commonality re these sources. Someone else in my congregation said they don’t necessarily associate “humanism” with science. Possibly we run into as many problems trying to group, label, and succinctly describe secular sources as religious ones—and then what about Art (or the arts)? It is both secular and religious! I am happy with it having its own section, and agree with you that I am fully committed to this being included in the revisions.

(This comment addresses responses including reference to amendment #460; see link.)

2 Likes
22

I completely agree about adding the creative arts as a source! I, too, had never thought of it until I saw it in Kerry’s amendment proposal, but now it seems obvious and essential.

I also like what you say about an empirical attitude toward the world. I would include that in addition to science, though. My personal spirituality derives heavily from the findings of science: the fact that the very elements in our bodies were created by the death of ancient stars; the intricacies of our bodies; theunbelievable findings of physics. When I descibe my personal faith, they are what I speak about first, before my Christian background (which is also an important foundation of my worldview).

2 Likes
23

I love what you say about science. I feel the same way. One of my favorite texts is Adam Lee’s Stardust Stardust - Daylight Atheism (especially part II) a beautiful atheist take on life-after-death, which believers might also find inspiring.

Another issue I just realized last night is that the empirical outlook that underlies science (and to which. I am attached) isn’t actually a “source” or an “inspiration,” it is more an orientation, or an attitude lived out in communities which insist upon certain norms — truth-telling, conscientiousness, communication, humility, willingness to admit one is wrong, recognition of an important, shared, cross-cultural, even universal reality.

2 Likes
24

Hmmm… I see what you are saying, although that is not how I experience reference to the term ‘science.’ I experience precisely the scientific worldview and way of knowing – the scientific method. Perhaps “science and scientific ways of knowing.” But then it goes beyond just knowing – it’s “scientific ways of knowing and interrogating the cosmos.” Not sure how this would all play, but the word “science” itself is very very important to me (as atheist)… Thank you for your comments, Janet!

2 Likes
25

Yes, the exclusion of “science” would be a deal-breaker for me.

2 Likes
26

I couldn’t vote for your amendment for at least 2 separate reasons:

  1. I want science to be added back to the Inspirations, but in your proposal the word “truth” is used only once: “science and other secular sources of truth”. That is inaccurate for Unitarian Universalists, because we are essentially a pluralist religion, so Science & other secular sources are NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF TRUTH. If they were, they would be creeds & we don’t allow creeds.
  2. I don’t want to delete: “that help us to live into our values.”
27

As you may recall, @CSTownsend, we deleted “truth” from our science phrasing, but I actually am one of the people who feel “live into our values” is problematic, not because I don’t agree with the sentiment, but because I think this wording will date really quickly. Maybe there is a more “plain language” way to say the same thing?

Looking forward to seeing as many of y’all as possible at the workshop tomorrow!

3 Likes
28

I’ve rewritten my suggestion, based on many of the comments here and in the workshop:

As Unitarian Universalists, we are inspired by the world’s religions and wisdom traditions, by science and other secular sources of knowledge and meaning, by the creative arts, which open our hearts to life’s joys and sorrows, and by the direct experience of wonder and mystery which expands our minds and spirit. These sources ground us and sustain us in ordinary, difficult, and joyous times. We honor the pluralism of our lineage. Moving forward, we discern and build upon Unitarian Universalism’s sources, mindful of the cultures in which they evolved."

4 Likes
29

Great job! And nice to “meet” you last night!

1 Like
30

I agree. I think this is wonderful both in the content and form. The first sentence is long, and yet it flows …. And you got everything in there!

And, yes, nice to “meet” you on Zoom!

31

I want to share my thoughts about the first sentence (all the while knowing I’m likely irrelevant here).

For me, “inspired by sacred and secular understandings…” is VERY different from “…inspired by the world’s religions and wisdom traditions…”

I know the sentence goes on to define science, and secular sources and other sources…

But for me it is true that I am “inspired by sacred and secular understandings…”

And it is FALSE BIG TIME that I am “…inspired by the world’s religions and wisdom traditions…”

In particular, as an atheist, I am flat out NOT INSPIRED BY THE WORLD’S RELIGIONS. Not. Not. Not. Curiously, I do not have that whiplash reaction against the phrase ‘wisdom traditions.’

Would it loose too much to simply start with…

“…inspired by the world’s wisdom traditions, by science and other secular sources…”

That is, by deleting “the world’s religions”… For me, as a delegate, having “world religions” in there like that is enough to make me vote against it, despite liking very much the rest of the inspirations as written. Just my thing. Surely way outlier.

2 Likes
32

I appreciate your comment, Bek. My reaction is that world religions are an inspiration for Unitarian Universalism. Perhaps it should come later, after other inspirations? Would that make a difference?

33

There are, indeed, several proposed amendments which have very similar themes to this one: #14, #229, #486, #14, #206, #460, #66, #290, #277, #147, #61 all wish to add some key sources/inspirations while retaining at least some of the new language.

It’s hard to believe that a single author could alone write the perfect amendment, so I agree completely that we need some kind of iterative process. Many of these suggestions have ideas that strengthen each other, so if amendments with similar goals and wordings can converge and take inspiration from each other, then we will end up with better amendments and fewer amendments with overlap.

As a scientist myself (I visited your church once before while working at Jefferson Lab in NN), the world’s religions are very important to my understanding of spirituality, and at the same time, I would say that my job as a physicist is to investigate the mind of God. Newton, Pythagoras and those other old white dudes were natural philosophers and would have nothing to say about the secular understanding of the “scientific process” – an enlightenment age idea.

Even if we UUs today don’t want to be influenced by Christianity and mainstream religion, we cannot escape the historical fact that UUism and UUs have been inspired by specific religious traditions. Look at our hymnal: most of the gray hymnal is Christian hymns with different words. It seems audacious to sing Christian melodies and end services with “amen, namaste, blessed be” while also claiming that Christianity and the world’s religions haven’t influenced UUism or UUs.

1 Like
34

Yay! As a fellow atheist I agree. Nope. Not inspired by religion(s). Not at all. “Wisdom traditions,” that I can agree with.

That said, I just don’t think leaving out religion entirely is going to fly with the majority of UUs

1 Like
35

Hi Becca, curiously for me, even this makes it ok: “inspired by wisdom traditions and world religions…”

Yes, you are absolutely right that world religious are an inspiration for Unitarian Universalism - surely… For me, seeing “the world’s religions” first was just shocking but before trying to put it anywhere later in the paragraph, I just switched the order, moving “world religions” behind “Wisdom traditions,” and somehow that really gentled it for me, giving me a contest for understanding the notion of world religions.

That is, I personally am not inspired by the world’s religions, but in the context of ‘wisdom traditions,’ that helps me see the wisdom of religion as opposed to flat out religion religion.

Man, trying to explain this visceral reaction I had is tough. Thank you for reaching back out.

3 Likes
36

I’m not sure what you are getting at in this paragraph. Are you saying that Newton, Pythagoras and other “old white dudes,” even though they were ground-breaking natural philosophers, still believed in God and hence the Enlightenment is inseparable from religion?

If that is the case, I’m not sure it is a very strong argument. Although it is true that out-and-out atheism was rare in the Enlightenment, it is also true that the trajectory of the Enlightenment was toward a rationalizing of religion, deism, unbelief, secularization and ultimately atheism. Why weren’t more Enlightenment thinkers atheists? Largely, I believe, because no one lives in a social or cultural vacuum and there were huge social pressures on people at the time not to be true atheists. (Deism was a great way of essentially having one’s metaphysical cake and eating it too.) Today, there are still social pressures against openly identifying as an atheist, but there are no where near as strong as they were back in the 18th century.

As for Newton, I don’t think his personal beliefs had any bearing at all on his laws of motion or universal gravitation. Besides Newton was also a believer in the occult and alchemy, and I don’t think anyone would make the argument that the alchemy and the Enlightenment were linked in any kind of meaningful way. But again, maybe I am misreading you and you aren’t trying to see an essential link between the Enlightenment and Christianity.

As for Christianity being part of our “living tradition,” I find it strange that on the one hand certain UU leaders are deeply concerned about the whiteness of our tradition and want to move away from that and then turn around and insist that we are a religion with Christian roots. Well, if we can move away from one unfortunate aspect of our tradition, why can’t we move away from other unfortunate aspects.

What bothers me quite a bit (from time-to-time – I am not always obsessing about this) is that UU’s are so stuck on being a “religion.” I would think that a group of intelligent, open-minded, creative people who want to create a better world for themselves and others would first and foremost ask how we are to do that and only secondly insist upon religion. Too often, I find that people take “our faith” or “our church” or our “religion” as a starting point (because – tradition! our identity! we’ve always been like this!) and only then ask how can we make this religion as wonderful as possible.

37

Alec, question – on this quote from your comment, are you taking “the mind of God” literally or artistically/poetically? Just wondering.

and here and in your comment about the gray hymnal, and even the very structure of our services – Protestant through and though – I stand down. you are right. Even if we don’t want to be influenced by Christianity etc, “we cannot escape the historical fact…” Your words lead me to confront my own attempted escape, my own looking other directions, ignoring THAT one, but yes, yes… you are quite right.

Thank you!
Bek Wheeler, UU Fellowship of the Peninsula, Newport News, VA

38

Sorry for the sloppy phrasing – I think the enlightenment is the point where you can meaningfully distinguish science from religion, but the legacy of “science” tries to claim much more than that. I think it’s very important to have something along the lines of “science and reason” in the sources, but I would say that the influences of science is not totally secular, even today. Before the enlightenment, people like Newton (Side note: even if we say that Newton’s Principia began the enlightenment, his own influences would have come from before that, and ironically Leibniz would be a better example) and Pythagoras (notably not Christian) were themselves motivated by religious, mystical ideas, not ideas about “hypothesis, data, conclusion” or “peer review”. I certainly don’t see an essential link between Christianity and the enlightenment or between Newton’s personal relationship with his God and the conclusions of the Principia, but there is a historical one, and for that reason alone, I think it’s wise to be skeptical of the motives of science.

Science, as we understand it now (a system of laws based in logic/math that explains previous observations and predicts future observations), is a very new tradition. It’s a tradition that, like the others before it, claims to have access to truth. Just as we must contend with Christian ideals vs the reality of the Christian church, we must also contend with the actual institution of science which sometimes seeks to preserve certain power structures. We scientists will claim that our methods reveal “Truth” because it can be peer reviewed and repeated, but you can’t get a paper published or funding if you’re just confirming a known result.

I actually think the racial parallels are an okay analogy here. One thing that we (white people) have been asked to wok on is accountability. Accountability doesn’t mean ignoring or denying our past; it means acknowledging the social dynamic that whiteness makes; it doesn’t mean being less white, it means recognizing that all races aren’t being treated equally, even if we believe they should be.

I can acknowledge that I have benefitted directly from systematic racism, even if I try to be an ally, not the least because of the opportunities of my grandparents. UUism has also benefitted directly from the institution of Christianity – an institution that eventually rejected us before we rejected them. The reality of American history is one of racial crimes, done largely by white people, and those that feel that this history reflects poorly on them would like to deny its existence. I don’t find it acceptable for us to deny the reality of our past because it’s no longer who we are. I think it is possible to take accountability for our past and still commit to moving beyond it.

2 Likes
39

I think my answer is “yes”. I could substitute “mind of God” for “machinations of the world”, or “the ‘True’ nature of reality”. I prefer the gods, but “the minds of the gods” just doesn’t sound as good, and sometimes one must prioritize aesthetic choices over thematic ones.

For me personally, my gods are the mathematics. That is, the whole body of all possible mathematics. Philosophers have long speculated about the relationship between god and math, and I propose the relationship is a simple one: it’s an equals sign. It’s intangible, immaterial, and abstract, yet it manifests in every aspect of the physical world. It comes to us a priori (perhaps the only a priori knowledge) as children. It is universally consistent (Ask me about Gödel incompleteness some other time…) and directly accessibly to anyone, yet no one will ever truly understand it. Can one speak of math literally vs. figuratively? I’m not sure I know what the distinction would be for something so totally abstract.

It’s nice to see that some people have included mathematics specifically in their Inspirations rewrite, but it’s implicit already since everything is made of math in the end.

1 Like
40

Well, Thank you!. I LOVE this. Have copied your words to save. For me, inveterate atheist (or maybe it’s just a “no-thank-you-very-much to the Christian cosmology”), I revel in the utter unknowability of it all, the unfathomability of true infinity, beginning, ending, time, space. Wow!!! I LOVE the unanswerability of it all, and I find the usual god explanation boring or just an equivalence to the fact of not knowing. For me, I’ve marveled at physics and astrophysics as descriptions of the structure of existence. And that’s what I hear in you saying mathematics = mind of god. Somehow, this got through my god-recoil. Mathematics, fractals, patterns. Ok! Lots to think about. Thank you.

2 Likes