The Arrogance of Humanism [37:02m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (7)

Presented by: Rev. Dale Arnink, Minister Emeritus

Goal:  to help the curious know a bit about humanism;
to point out some problems for those
who already know about humanism.
–The title was meant to be provocative and thus interesting.

Perhaps drawing a few who might otherwise go out of town for Memorial Day Weekend.
–Like much of current political statements these days, the title is deceptive and only a 1/2 truth.

But Why talk about Humanism anyway?
Because a group of people, self-identifying as humanists, have been letting it be known that they have become uneasy in this congregation.
-Truth is, many congregations and many groups of humanists are having similar experiences of dis-ease.

The problems often manifest themselves around the use of certain  words from traditional western religion:
Such words as prayer, worship, reverence, God, Church, holy, sacred, mystery, soul, spiritual.

I think some of the difference lies in generational differences.
Younger folks, and newer UUs, wonder why the older folks get into such a snit.
What is the fuss about these words?
At the same time, these younger folk may well have their head’s spinning from all the choices and options available in the current, “marketplace of spirituality.”

A lesson in History
1966 Time Magazine cover had an infamous cover of all black background and large red letters which read, “Is God Dead?”

The article inside was about the many leading thinkers who were declaring the death of God.
Christians Gabriel Vahanian, Paul Van Buren, William Hamilton and Thomas J. J. Altizer, and the rabbi Richard L. Rubenstein
were theologians who said God had died;  theologians should know, right?
People from many areas of society chimed in.
My conversion from conservative christianity to humanism had occurred two years earlier and I knew God was dead.
I mention this to indicate that this was an era of skeptical probing, and critical thinking about religion.

Of course not everyone believed God was dead, not everyone was skeptical.

But many of us older folks were at that time steeped in skepticism  Many, like me, had struggled inwardly, had defied our families and communities, to work our way through to a clarity about the falsehoods of church and scriptural authorities;
to freedom from the incredible peer pressure
to be true believers, faithful followers;
to a reasoned rejection of all things supernatural.

We became UU Humanists and found a community of like minds.

But it is my sense that in the decades since, skepticism has faded a great deal and has been replaced, to my mind,  with a great deal of naive and unquestioning credulity.
Well, what did they know?!  In a few more years Harvey Cox and others would predict, even, the demise of churches for sure and perhaps organized religion.
Instead we have witnessed a world wide resurgence of religions.

In this country the marketplace of religions is so full of “stuff” that one hasn’t time to consider them all seriously and so they are, all of them, passively accepted in an attitude of freedom and tolerance, (that’s surely better than Taliban-like attack) accepted as:  ‘If it works for them well and good.”  Truth, deception, falsehood, adequacy, reliability, justification   are issues not raised – until there is newsworthy scandal!
–”What’s the fuss;  if it works for them why should I be critical or skeptical;  and please accord me the same allowance.”

What else characterizes humanists besides skepticism:

Humanism is a philosophy, world view, or life stance based on naturalism–the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real. Humanism serves, for many humanists, some of the psychological and social functions of a religion, but without belief in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural. Humanists seek to understand the universe by using science and its methods of critical inquiry–logical reasoning, empirical evidence, and skeptical evaluation of conjectures and conclusions–to obtain reliable knowledge. Humanists affirm that humans have the freedom and obligation to give meaning, value, and purpose to their lives by their own independent thought, free inquiry, and responsible, creative activity. Humanists stand for the building of a more humane, just, compassionate, and democratic society using a realistic ethics based on human reason, experience, and reliable knowledge–an ethics that judges the consequences of human actions by the well-being of all life on Earth.
–Steven D. Schafersman

Many people can sign-on to at least some of these propositions, because our history has influenced us: Humanism stems from the protestant reformation, from the Renaissance, from the 18th C. Enlightenment especially. Most of the thinkers behind the American Revolution were either humanists or much influenced by humanists.

I once wrote a research paper (“Whatever Became of Reason?”) in which I said this about the Enlightenment:

The Enlightenment leaders may be said to have invented a new politics by asserting the power and authority of reason. In opposition to traditional institutions of authority and institutions of an authoritarian nature, reason was promoted as a new and better authority.

Reason was asserted as the chief tool of emancipation. Rationality was to undermine the false gods, unlock the shackles, shed light upon what had been concealed, throw down the tyrannical.

Reason was to be the new authority, an authority common to all who would choose to be rational; and reason would constitute the tool of emancipation and the means to a more just, fulfilling, humane world.  Tool of human welfare, reason would arrive at the goal of universal truths, of how things are and of how things ought to be.

Unitarians had asserted rationality as authority in religion from the time of breaking loose from Roman Catholics and other Protestants.
Not scriptures, not traditions, not church hierarchies, but only reason and individual conscience should rule a person’s religious life.

Not surprising then that in the 1920’s and 30’s when the times called for dedicated humanists to get organized for various reasons, many UUs, lay, and ordained were at the forefront. 
And for many years humanism was the dominant stance in many congregations.

That is no longer true.  Self-professing humanists have become a minority voice in most UU congregations. Power corrupts; perhaps power corrupted humanists, making them complacent, arrogant and weak. In any case, humanists are feeling marginalized in our movement.  We humanists have tended to be exclusive and inflexible. We did not recruit effectively, make an appealing message, nor keep with intellectual change. Times have changed and so have people.

Faults of 20th century Humanism acknowledged by contemporaries

1.  RELIANCE ON TOO NARROW A RATIONALITY. (e.g. real human life issues often are not amenable to a strictly scientific empirical approach.)

2. NAIVE OPTIMISM ABOUT HUMAN POTENTIAL FOR EVIL

3. ANTHROPOCENTRISM.  HUMANS AT THE TOP OF THE SCALE OF BEING, RATHER THAN A PART OF THE INTERDEPENDENT WEB.  (Humans supplanted angels and God at the top of the traditional “scale.”)

But those are faults with the “Philosophy. I think the more serious fault has to do with simple human nature: Humanists are fallible humans with human weaknesses. Some of us are not so very skilled in, tuned into, human relationships. You Know:  Thinkers are the nerdy types. There is some truth in that stereotype.

As minister I always attended the annual national General Assembly.  The UU Humanist organization put on programs as did many other groups. I stopped attending the discussion portion of those programs because I found them unpleasant. (!!!) There was a prevailing style of criticism, anger, self-righteousness, exclusion and intolerance. This was a style of rationality that is exclusive and inhumane – not to the other rationalists – WE LOVE TO FIGHT (argue) – But exclusive to those not yet in the club of skeptics.

We don’t intend to put other people off, but we often unintentionally shut down conversation when: The other detects an attitude which says, “Since I think it, it must be right and reasonable;” “I’d rather avoid the non-empirical, the emotional, the metaphorical, the imaginative, the relational, the aesthetic.”

Other unintentional conversation stoppers, put downs:

“I’m not arguing or saying you are wrong, I’m just discussing rationally.”

“Have you read the latest book on that?”

“Where did you go to school?”

“Well, that’s interesting but where’s the proof?”

Let me withdraw the term “arrogant” and say rather that Humanism has suffered from a kind of Elitism. Does humanism appeal to those not affluent, those not gifted by Good Fortune, those in tragic circumstances of unremitting suffering, where Hope must be blind, Faith lodged in an elsewhere. Do we have anything to say to those suffering in Haiti?
–”If the God idea were not already around, it would have to be invented.”

Humanism has aimed at a literate, knowledgeable, critically-minded, democratically motivated public. But is that the direction of this society, of this world?

How many UU Humanists have no profession, no college education?

Changes Humanism must make:

Come to terms with Postmodern philosophy and incorporate its strengths (others must be respected and heard and accommodated)

Be an Embodied Humanism not disembodied, the whole Human:  a sound mind in a sound body:  not Irenic but passionate;  not just facts but stories, not just science but art, not just logic but vision and commitment.

Justify and utilize the non-rational, affectional, motivational;  become passionate.

xs

A change most important to me (derived from the study “Whatever Became of Reason?”)

Revise the notion(s) of Reason and rational;  reason is not a little machine inside everyone’s head that can be turned on to take in data and spit out true conclusions.  Reason is a social process, a give and take about the relevant information, even what is relevant?   incorporate the dialogic model and move away from the old “scientific empiricism” model.

I hope to have aroused in some of you an interest in the life philosophy of humanism.

I hope to have advised humanists to be careful about how we talk about sensitive matters; your attitude matters. Intuition, imagination, the personal, matter in the rational process.

And regarding the uncomfortableness in this congregation,

I would advise:  Talk;
talk about these traditional words of religion;
be aware that they are troublesome;
don’t talk to one another, talk with one another.

Have rich, honest, detailed, open discussions.

Passive tolerance is easy; engaged tolerance that recognizes and explores and overcomes differences is extremely difficult.  (See the last two issues UU World)

But that is what is needed in this congregation (and in this world!  If we can’t do it how do we expect others to?)

Just by being UU you share many humanist values, much of the humanist philosophy absorbed by our history, culture.

That is a base from which to work on the tolerance for differences and how to overcome differences.

Rev. Dale Arnink
Minister Emeritus

 Flower Communion [08:50m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (4)

Presented by: Rev. John Cullinan

 The Truth, maybe [24:17m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (4)

When (fake) TV pundit Stephen Colbert entered the word “truthiness” into the lexicon of our public consciousness, it was supposed to be satire. But, when day after day it seems that opinion has replaced fact, when “truth” is derided for its “liberal bias,” somehow “truthiness” seems less funny. Whatever happened to “the truth?”

Presented by: Rev. John Cullinan

In March of 1965, when the newly merged Unitarian Universalist Association was still in its relative infancy, a telegram arrived at the Association’s headquarters from the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. King was asking for concerned clergy and lay people to join him in Selma and help fight for civil rights in Alabama. The atmosphere was violent. No one would have blamed any our people if the call had been refused. But it was not. Many of our clergy and laity made the trip to Selma. Three of our brothers and sisters were murdered for their efforts. It is a story we still tell, a foundational myth in the story of “who we are.” We were, at an important moment in history, a boots-on-the-ground, hands-in-the-dirt tradition. The call to Alabama, and the murders of Reeb and Liuzzo, changed the course of the cause of civil rights.

It remains to be seen whether the passage of Arizona’s “show me your papers” law will be the turning point for immigration reform that the Selma to Montgomery marches were to the civil rights movement. Time will tell. However, what is clear now is that the recommendation of the current board of trustees of the UUA to withdraw the General Assembly from Phoenix in 2012 will do little in the long run to effect any real change in that state, or add anything of substance to the national debate over the status of the undocumented in this country.

Sure, boycotting Arizona has worked in the past. The boycott of the state over its failure to adopt the MLK holiday eventually helped bring the legislature around. However, the boycotter that everyone talks about isn’t us. It’s the NFL. The withdrawal of the Super Bowl XXVII from Tempe in protest over the state’s reticence was the nail in the coffin of those who protested a King holiday. Arizona was faced with an estimated $350 million loss in convention income, not to mention the loss of civic pride (and let’s not kid ourselves about how important a factor that can be). The legislature relented, passing the King holiday in 1992. Tempe was awarded Super Bowl XXX the following year.

Major league sports. Major league dollars. Major league civic ego stroking.

Dear friends, we bring none of this to the table. Sure, we boycotted Arizona, too. We know we did it. But I doubt highly there was anyone in a position of power in the entire state who was thinking, “Dammit, if we’ve lost the Unitarians, we’ve lost the country.”

If we’re being honest about what we, as a national movement, bring to the fight, we need to admit that a high profile national image on par with the National Football League (and the $$ that comes with that image) is not one of the arrows in our quiver. We will not, in the long run, accomplish anything by our absence. No one will notice.

But, our presence on the other hand . . .

When our boots are on the ground and our hands are in the dirt, we can do things. We can make noise. We can be seen. Our history has taught us that it’s what we do best. We have congregations in the state already fighting the good fight. Should we not demonstrate some solidarity? Is the work theirs alone by virtue of geography? We kicked off “Standing on the Side of Love” with an immigration rally last year. Why not do it again in the heart of the conflict? Why not invite the mayor of Phoenix, who’s choosing to fight the state, to join us in protest? Why not stand beside him and show some national support? One congregation in Phoenixis already asking us to come to the state later this month to join in ¡Alto Arizona!, a national day of protest at the state capital in Phoenix. We are being asked to come and help. Do we answer the call? Or do we just go on telling that story about that one time when we did that one thing?

What would our boycott accomplish, really? The argument is that it would have a financial impact on the state. Certainly the NFL withdrawal in the 90s proved the tactic effective. And, if smaller organizations like ourselves boycott in concert with allies, we can also have the same effect. However, the withdrawal of convention dollars affects not only the state, but also on working men and women, many of whom also oppose the legislation (and many — who we profess to stand on the side of — who run the risk of being adversely affected by it). In point of fact, a boycott runs the risk of being more detrimental to workers than to the state itself (and to our own limited resources), considering the price tag attached to withdrawal (somewhere in the neighborhood of $600,000). We’ve paid deposits, and we’ve paid taxes to the state already. Arizona’s got us coming or going. Why not, then, come and raise a ruckus?

Well, John, it’s because of all the individual dollars convention goers will add to the state’s coffers!

Yes, I’ve heard that argument, too. And that leads me to one last, uncomfortable truth about us. There’s an implicit underlying assumption in that argument about the way that we do GA. The assumption is that the cost of a General Assembly includes staying in nice hotels, eating out at good restaurants (or shelling out waaaay too much money for horrid convention center concessions). We like to have a good, pricey time while we’re in whatever city we’ve landed in each year. I count myself in that “we.” GA is part of my vacation, and I like to live it up a little. But I don’t have to. And neither do you.

We talk about reducing our carbon footprint at GAs. Why not attempt to reduce our economic footprint. Skip the W and stay at a cheap motel. Or pitch a tent. Bring a sack of peanut butter sandwiches. Or perhaps we could take on a day of public fasting?

Instead, it’s recommended we leave one place in favor of another place where we can continue to “do” GA in the manner to which we have become accustomed with a clear conscience. Friends, if we can only be in places that are sufficiently sympathetic to us, that pass some litmus test of acceptable attitude, we’re going to run out of places to be. If we can only conscience doing the work of our faith in places where we can afford to be “comfortable,” then we’re not doing the right work.

A boycott would be the equivalent of cheap grace. It’s too easy. We could all very easily say we didn’t go to Phoenix and pat ourselves on the back. That won’t cost us anything. The work we do should come with a price (and I’m not talking about dollars, here, folks). The work we do requires us to show up when we’re called. Remember that one time when we did that?