Nontheist Friends

These notes are keyed to the paragraphs in my chapter, “Chanticleer’s Call: Religion As A Naturalist Views It,” in Godless for God’s Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism. The original text will not be posted on this website until March 2007 so as not to interfere with book sales as we attempt to recover the costs.

Godless for God’s Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism was edited by David Boulton and published in 2006 by Dales Historical Monographs (ISBN 0-9511578-6-8). It is available at from the publisher (at Hobsons Farm, Dent, Cumbria LA10 5RF, UK), or FGC Bookstore (www.QuakerBooks.org), or The Quaker Bookshop (www.quaker.org.uk).

NOTE #1 (paragraphs 1 & 2): The mechanics of behavior and environment (BEing)

Since childhood my inclination has been to start with what is simple and sure and only add more of the same if possible. Kinship with other animals was obvious – we are primates who talk about ourselves. Except for scientists (usually) everyone seemed busy adding unnecessary imaginary realms. This was especially disappointing in psychology and religion, areas I very much wanted to enter but could not.

Nature runs by itself. Behavior-Environmenting (BEing) is a dance running by itself, with no one in charge. This approach can be simultaneously science and art and Buddhism and Quakerism.

Chains of cause and effect are incredibly interlocked, causal networks. They can be public or private or even beyond our view and yet still functional. This includes a lot we don’t ordinarily speak of as behavior: sensing, experiencing, thinking, feeling, knowing, creating and so on.

Often we divide as we speak, but we can do better. A particle and its motion are inseparable; an atom doesn’t exist apart from its movement. A self does not exist apart from the motions we attribute to the self. Humans love to create explanatory realms instead of sticking with the observed instances and what we can say about them.

NOTE #2 (para. 3 & 4): Naturalism, supernaturalism, learning

It is often said that science is limited to what can be observed (and measured and tested) and another approach is needed for what can not. The list of what can not be observed contains the essence of what it means to be human: god, self, consciousness, mind, will, value, purpose, passion, love… Science accepted this division in order to survive; for instance, it is encoded into the charter of the Royal Society in London. This division is the basis for the accommodation of many Quakers with science. I reject it. Values and so on are observed: they are how we talk about what people work for. God is observed in the behavior of people talking about God and experiencing God. Bertrand Russell points out that atoms are known by their motions. Unobserved concepts are known by the circumstances in which we speak of them.

Speaking of theories is easier that speaking of observations: we are not falsifiable or accountable. We build professional fields around theoretical realms and then we hold on and resist change. The flip side of learning easily is that we fool ourselves easily.

The phrase “nothing exists but” is important. Many accept science but few accept it and nothing else. There are many panentheists and few pantheists.

Defining knowledge as useful behavior is a trick I learned from B. F. Skinner. Confusing concepts are reduced to what we observe when we speak of those concepts.

Sadly history is full of conflict about supernatural realms. Many of the early Greek scientists were harassed with the charge of atheism. The fantasist Plato told his followers to burn the materialist Democritus’ books and they did. We only know of the whole shelf of books he wrote because they were quoted in books attacking him. The same thing happened to the followers of Lokayata in India. This only began to turn around when the materialists added experimentation which led to observations and advantages that could not be denied. Superstitious supernaturalism has been in grudging retreat ever since.

Wittgenstein and Russell and Skinner urged us to wait rather than dash past the limits of knowledge. Quakers have learned to wait, too. Naturalism and Quakerism are a good match, despite the commitment to the intelligent design model built into Quakerism. From the early days Quakers have reached for a sounder foundation. This was gradual – think of the Quaker skeptics Bartram, Mott, Holmes, and Cadbury. Think of the deists and unitarians and progressives and universalists and nontheists. A natural approach is looking ever more possible.

NOTE #3 (para. 5): Spirituality and love

For Quakers, spirit language has been replacing God language. Most Quaker nontheists are not materialists. They relinquish God in a sense but hold onto many other unobserved concepts (such as spirituality and consciousness). They are nontheists in religion but not in psychology.

I prefer to translate terms like spirituality and love into behavior and environments, into BEing, that is controlling these words.

David Boulton has written of the difference between the reality of daisies and that of love, but for me they both are measured in grams, centimeters and seconds. I reach behind the word love to the instances that are said to manifest it (there is no love other than its instances). I include daisies and love here as an example in homage to our editor, a brave Quaker rebel.

NOTE #4 (para. 6): Good lives

Naturalists can not prove the nonexistence of imaginary realms but they can show that naturalism can accompany good lives. Since supernaturalists can also live good lives I am happy to live with them. We can focus on living together rather than proving who is right. That will be done by circumstances over the long run.

A good life can be described in terms of what the person works for. The purposes and values and meaning of a life well lived are found in the consequences that control the person’s behavior. This is a functional rather than a structural analysis of ethics and morality. My personal ethics center on trying to maximize health, happiness, wisdom, usefulness and caring. Sometimes this is not possible and difficult choices must be made.

That naturalists can live good lives is an important point. If this is accepted then exclusion is difficult. Henry Cadbury saw this and told us repeatedly that often there is no positive correlation of beliefs and our other behavior. (This is mentioned frequently in this chapter, as in paragraph 13.)

NOTE #5 (para. 7): Truth

A true statement is one that works. Truth is utility. It is sometimes said that there are four types of truth: utility, comparison, authority and insight. They all boil down to utility. For instance, a comparison is accurate if depending on its accuracy works out well.

You see my mantra: look to the behavior and the surrounding environments (antecedent and what are called consequent but are antecedent to another instance of the behavior). Look to the BEing.

NOTE #6 (para. 8): Variety among naturalists

Naturalism comes in many forms. There is dispute among scientists about the philosophy of their science, just as there is dispute among religionists. Many scientists who write on philosophy are not philosophers – they are astronomers, for instance, who write about the human condition, often late in life. Nor are philosophers psychologists which they need to be because philosophy is best understood as a form of human behavior. And nor are most psychologists scientists, so you see the problem!

Many Quakers speak of nature as if it were just the background. A friend who guides people through the rainforest in Monteverde, Costa Rica, often hears “It’s nice to get back to nature!” He replies “Where have you been?!”

Many other Quakers define nature as including the supernatural, sometimes renamed the divine or the spiritual. They can love nature above all else and still retain their commitment to the supernatural. Others reject the supernatural in religion but accept it in psychology (which is important since religion for them is a human creation).
All this shows us, once again, that changing how we speak doesn’t change the rest of our behavior. Beliefs/experiences don’t correlate with the rest of behavior.

NOTE #7 (para. 9): Do we have freedom of action?

Most Quakers are as averse to naturalism in psychology as much as in religion. I am often asked whether I think we have freedom of action. Do you mean do we violate the causal principle that describes the rest of the universe we see around us?! No, God does not have this freedom of action and neither do we. I am a nontheist in psychology as well as religion.

We feel like we have freedom of action and we function very much as we would if we were free. We are a part of the causal universe that reacts to possible future outcomes of our actions. We are a ball rolling downhill that can:
* see,
* respond as if seeing in the absence of visual stimulation (what we call remembering the past and imagining the future),
* respond to past outcomes of our actions which affect how we respond in similar situations in the future (we learn from our successes and failures),
* and wait when several different courses of action have some causal control until one action becomes strong enough to be emitted.

In this way, future outcomes participate in the causation of our actions. We call these future outcomes our purposes. We say our actions manifest our values, which are what we work for. We behave as if we had free choice.

During my lifetime, the universe around me has shaped my behavior. In the process, some consequences have become especially effective in controlling my actions. In many ways the consequences that determine my actions (my values) are similar to yours. Like you, I care about my actions and their effects. It matters to us what we do during our lives. The universe has shaped us to work for mercy, pity, peace and love.

All this is based on assumptions. There is supporting evidence but no experiment can prove that we do not have freedom of action. Just as Jesse Holmes wrote in 1912 that we test the law of gravity with every step going down stairs, I suggest that we test the principle that human behavior is a causally determined with every word we read (I type assuming your reactions will be predictable).

There is clear evidence that this can be an effective approach to human behavior. It has led to some wonderful inventions in human learning such as ways for behaviorally disabled people to live independent and rewarding lives, for children to learn to read, for addicts to live without drugs, and so on.

We all operate the same way however we talk about it. We lead good lives while explaining them many different ways. In the short run, I am a pluralist. In the long run, whether one explanation is more useful and true, I happily leave to the judgment of history.

NOTE #8 (para. 10): Supernaturalism and naturalism

A preoccupation with the supernatural is normal in human history. Perhaps it is a phase, characteristic of the infancy of a culture (we have been at it only a few generations since Stone Age after all). It certainly is easily associated with manipulation of the many by the few, prejudice and bigotry, and mental illness. Where would we be if conditions had been right for experimental science in 300BC rather than 1600AD? Of course, this bad stuff happens among naturalists, too, and teaching naturalism is no panacea. There is little correlation of beliefs and other actions, after all. However, in my life at least, seeing my situation as an animal in nature has helped me survive life’s challenges. I am hopeful that seeing ourselves clearly will help our species survive.

NOTE #9 (para. 11): Religion from a Naturalist’s Perspective

What is religion if it does not involve the supernatural? Religion from a naturalist’s viewpoint has to do with finding ones values, holding to them, doing it in community, supporting each other, and the rituals that help us do this. This applies to the religion of theists as well as nontheists. Nontheists can behave as do the theists (a point I come back to several times).

(Note that believing is behaving and so I avoid the common dichotomies implicit in contrasts such as belief and action, faith and action, words and action, what you do and what you say.)

“Harmony does not require agreement” is another repeated point in this essay. The words come from the membership section of the current Philadelphia Yearly Meeting Discipline. It also applies to Quaker business procedure and how we arrive at a sense of the meeting.

NOTE #10 (para. 12): A naturalist’s religious vocabulary

Again, I am separating Quaker practice from our talk about it. Quaker behavior is available to all, however we explain or define it and the associated religious experiences we have had and beliefs we hold. And again, I am trying to show that it makes little difference to me whether other Quakers speak about our practices as I do.

Taking the worship as an example, I define worship naturalistically (without reference to the divine). What is it we do when we worship? I can describe what a person can sense another person doing, and what we can sense we are doing that others cannot sense. Let’s just focus on messages during worship. For me these are a conversation with many useful characteristics (our rituals): we pause before responding, and try to build on previous messages (be led by them), and try to compose with less purposeful manipulation than in normal conversation (sometimes with an attempt at no control by the purpose of the conversation). We have standards for speaking that are higher than normal (it has to be more convincingly important to others) and we often care more about what we are saying than is usual. I sometimes shake when speaking in meeting for worship. This is a sign of how much a care about what is happening, but I also shake when speaking to a judge, or in front of a large audience, or while in a loving embrace.

It can help to worship at a particular time and place (walking into the meeting room can center us), although pleasantly it can also take place when and where needed. It can help to begin the preparation to worship earlier, perhaps upon arising that day. We each have different bodily actions that help us center, different ways of stilling movements including thoughts and reactions to distractions. Worship can be very different on different occasions – when it is especially moving and I feel a special unity with the other worshipers I call it a gathered meeting.

My preference is for the simplest explanation (messages as a conversation, as measurable physical events), until there is evidence they are something else, something at odds with the rest of what we know of the physical universe. This seems most likely and it seems sufficient. Accepting explanations supported by intuition (in this case, messages as telepathy or divine intervention) is very dangerous as humans have amply demonstrated. “A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world is suffering.” (Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian, 1957, pp. vi-vii)

Some of us find that speaking of how we worship makes it hard to worship but I find it helpful. Descriptions of events, in purely physical terms, are available for incorporation into any theory of worship.

This has been a description of worship. We take a similar approach to other Quaker practices such as clearness and sense of the meeting. What Quakers do is independent how we talk about what they do. (And talking is doing, of course.)

On another matter, paragraph 12 is the first place in the essay that I mention nontheists. For me “naturalist” is a more positive and more general term than “nontheist”. The first day I spent among nontheist Friends (July 2, 2000) I was struck by the variety of nontheists, their embrace of spirituality and other supernatural concepts, and their need for positive descriptors to accompany the word, nontheism. I had already tried pantheism and now moved to secular religion and then materialism. Behaviorism was tied to a particular school of psychology and enviromentalism to a particular concern. Finally I settled on naturalism. The test has always been how people react – do they hear and come under the control of my definitions or do they continue as they have already learned to respond to the term. Somewhat to my surprise, my most recent writing has barely mentioned nontheism, although it is the key word for the naturalist movement among Quakers. For instance, my “Quakers, from the Viewpoint of a Naturalist” in Friends Journal, only mentions nontheism in the author’s footnote – but then does so repeatedly, pointing the reader to our website, e-mail list and book.

Paradoxically, one objective of our efforts as nontheists among Friends is to make these efforts unnecessary. That is one reason not to have a formal organization.

Quaker nontheists are a varied lot and many do not accept a naturalist’s approach, or they define it differently than I do. Because they do not hold the same positive views, they have gathered under the umbrella of a negative concept, one they can combine with their various positive descriptors.

Nontheists are skeptical about at least some uses of the word “God” and related concepts. It is an umbrella term that can combine with others, such as an agnostic nontheist or an atheist nontheist. Since nontheists differ so much from each other, they have adopted a negative term in common and then describe themselves individually with different positive terms.

Nontheist Friends differ from each other in many ways. Here are eight variables that may help to classify the species.

Personal religious vocabulary: We each keep some words (perhaps redefining them) and do without others. (This is as we speak and write; we also vary in our reactions on hearing and reading the words of others.) Words at issue include religion, worship, god, divine, inner light, spirit, spirituality (and spiritual), holy, sacred, faith, belief, and experience.

Experience of God: Nontheists call themselves atheists, agnostics, pantheists, panentheists, antitheists, theists-in-some-senses-but-not-others and no labelists. (For brief definitions, see below.) Some nontheist Quakers were never attached to the concept of god (however defined), or they struggled free of it, or they retain it in some sense. We differ on what god we are speaking of (as a person, as a force that intervenes in physical events, as a metaphor…) This is also true of synonyms for God such as Divine, Spirit, and Inner Light. All this would influence our reactions to Quaker concepts traditionally defined in terms of God such as messages, leadings, discernment, and sense of the meeting.

Worship: We vary as to how we define worship, what we do when we worship, and the place of worship and other meditative practices in our daily lives.

Tasks that confront Quaker nontheists: Some are chiefly concerned with the experiences we have and clarifying our personal beliefs. Others urge us to work for doctrinal diversity in the rsof and the acceptance of Friends regardless of the particulars of their religious experience. A third concern is to aid members and attenders who are suffering because their views differ from those of others in their meetings. (A person can be drawn to more than one of these concerns but sometimes problems arise from our differing expectations about what a Quaker nontheist movement should be about.)

Outreach: We vary a lot in how we share our light with others. Some of us are cautious about calling attention to our beliefs and others do so readily. Some accept the gradual acceptance of nontheistic varieties of Quaker faith, and others want to hold a parade!

Christianity: We vary in the role Jesus plays in our lives, in our reactions to fundamental or evangelical Christianity, and in the importance we give to establishing a nonchristian option among Friends.

Ethics: We agree that living according to moral standards is important but we vary as to what these are and as to our reactions to Friends’ testimonies. We vary in our position on ethical relativism and the basis for ethical standards.

Psychology: Some of us extend the nontheistic reformation to psychology (for example, rejecting consciousness, mind, and will) because nontheist religion winds up being about human behavior. Others see religion and psychology as separate and have no problem speaking of behavior in terms that are nonphysical or metaphorical.

We are all surrounded by people we don’t agree with and we get along surprisingly well. The usual solution is not to bring things up. In our meeting communities this sometimes means people are hurt. We can do better than that. We need a balance of openness, stubbornness and acceptance.

Once universalist traditions are widespread in meetings and in Quaker writing we can relax because people will find the support they need from other Friends. Particular traditions that concern me most are the membership process (focusing on community rather than doctrine), language (so we don’t bite our tongues within the meeting community), and how we introduce visitors and our children to our Society.

NOTE #11 (para. 13 & 14): Beliefs, experiences and the rest of our behavior

Differences between beliefs, faiths, creeds and experiences: a lot of Quakers today emphasize that theirs is a religion based on experience. That is true of all behavior. Experiencing is behaving in a covert way, like sensing. Beliefs are what we say about the essential characteristics of our religious behavior. Faiths are organized sets of words about religion, or, in the sense of taking something on faith, it is similar to an assumption. Creeds are beliefs that are required or expected of the members of a community.

The is the central point of the disjunction of belief and the rest of our behavior. I have been greatly encouraged to find support for this view among some Friends (such as Penn, Mott, Holmes, Cadbury, Brinton, Linton, Ambler, Barnes, and Boulton). This offers a basis for reconciliation among individuals, in monthly, quarterly and yearly meetings, and between members of different branches of the RSoF. This contrasts with the way of speaking that is common among Friends where we so often hear of putting our faith into action.

The phrase, “react appropriately to passing circumstances” was prompted by a cryptic line on a slip of paper that Henry Cadbury spoke from in a talk at Doylestown Monthly Meeting in 1962: “I have been willing that life should be spontaneous response to passing situations or problems – rather than a plan or pattern.” Again, what is important is living rather than what we say about it.

It is remarkable to me that the naturalist arrives at the same emphasis on our daily lives that Quakers have focused on since their first days, and yet we arrive there by such different paths. As others have said, the paths taken are not important in comparison with getting up the mountain. It’s about fruits rather than trees.

William Penn wrote “Men are to be judged by their likeness to Christ, rather than their notions of Christ.” Lucretia Mott quoted this repeatedly. “Let your life speak” was said by Fox in 1652 and adopted by many Friends since then. Henry Cadbury’s life and his approach to Quakerism exemplifies it and that is why his biographer took it as the title of her book.

NOTE #12 (para. 15): Chanticleer

As mentioned in the note at the end of the chapter, Chanticleer comes from the title page of Thoreau’s Walden: “I do not propose to write an ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up” The term comes from the name of a rooster in a Medieval French fable. It can be a common or a proper noun. Thoreau mentions a neighbor’s rooster who he calls Chanticleer, sometimes capitalized and sometimes not.

If I make but one point with this essay, it is that religion need not involve the supernatural – this is my Chanticleer’s call.

This ends my description of the naturalist’s approach. I now turn to the state of society in general and what we can do about it.

NOTE #13 (para. 16 & 17): Supernaturalism in society in general

The problem the nontheist addresses in religion is present throughout our intellectual world. It’s effects are widespread and devastating. Part of the problem is that we are so drawn to the supernaturalist’s alternative and it has such a pedigree.

Put in its most general form, our challenge is to come under the control of events and what we reasonably say about them rather than entities whose only evidence is the events they are said to explain. I wont go on about this here, having written about it on many other occasions.

One source of the problem is that we grow up in a world where things happen for hidden reasons, where there are people who know what those reasons are, where these people totally control our well-being, where there’s a premium on figuring out these reasons and hiding our ignorance of them, where the people around us speak and reason in supernatural terms, and where the explanations they accept imply that life is worthless if the explanations are false. Our views about gods are modeled on our views about parents and chiefs.

NOTE #14 (para. 18 to 20): Science and human behavior

Science is about environmental events. A scientific approach to human behavior has developed haltingly. There are a lot of partially scientific approaches, and scientific approaches to parts of the topic, and nonscientific approaches under the guise of science. For me a high point in this effort is found in the writings of B. F. Skinner with such books as Science and Human Behavior, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, About Behaviorism, Contingencies of Reinforcement, Cummulative Record, Technology of Teaching, and Walden II.

There are many different sciences relevant to behavior: physiology, neurology, evolution, genetics, sociology and so on. Behavior is a science of correlations of behavior and environment and does not need to be explained in terms of the sciences although this is a wonderful endeavor and will eventually happen.

The dance of behavior and environment is complex. First of all, they are each defined in terms of the other. Environment selected the body that is behaving (as the species was shaped). Environments affect the development of the individual in the expression of genes, and by supporting the growth of the organism. Environments affect individual behavior by evoking responses, and acting as consequences (part of the antecedents of later responses under similar situations, and changing the organism so evocation and consequation is more or less effective. Sometimes environments that are paired with effective environments become effective in themselves. Behavior of the organism and others can be part of the environment for subsequent behavior. These chains can interlink with many stimuli evoking one response, or one stimulus evoking many responses. Sometimes the behavior can not be observed but its products plainly are. Much of the behavior and the environments that are most important to us are only observed by the person behaving or are effective but unobserved by anyone. Often, as in language, the relationships are purely conventional built up to facilitate interactions among humans. When I write “behavior” I mean the whole interaction of behavior and environment. This is the dance of behavior (B) and environment (E). We are our BEing.

The origin of behavior is environmental just as is the origin of species. Explanations that involve autonomous agents, whether god or people, are creationist theories with the seductive attractiveness and ancient pedigree and with the limitations of intelligent design explanations of creation.

For the scientist, the environment replaces God. This reminds us of the pantheism of brave Spinoza, so early in the new age. It provides common ground for the religious and scientific environmentalists, if they would only be tolerant of each other’s views for the sake of the work that needs to be done.

NOTE #15 (para. 21): Love across differences

It is possible to cooperate even when we disagree, and we see it happen but it is easy to forget that it happens. We see this happening in families and in the workplace. As the world becomes, in effect, smaller and we have more contact with people who are different, learning to live with that becomes imperative.

A naturalistic approach, like science, focuses on features of the situation we can agree on. Fritz Perls, the gestalt therapist, said don’t try to figure out what to do – get to know more about the problem and what to do will be obvious. This doesn’t guarantee success but at least the issues you are discussing can be observed. Differences can be tested. There are grounds for accountability.

NOTE #16 (para. 22): Diversity

How do we live in a doctrinally diverse religious community? Here I attempt an operational definition of tolerance, describing the behaviors that accompany it.

My suggestion that speakers speak and listeners translate needs exceptions for children and visitors who don’t know they should translate or don’t know how to. In those cases some of the burden shifts to the speaker as it does in society at large where we are taught to speak correctly. Quakers have unnecessarily extended that politically correct policy into the meetinghouse where we are allowed, even expected, to speak in our own religious languages.

A recent survey by Philadelphia Yearly Meeting showed that a surprising … percentage of members were ill at ease when hearing Christian language. This needs to be addressed. We can do better.

Naturalists have the unusual advantage that our language is the language of ordinary speech and does not immediately reveal its religious orientation (unless we are specifically signal it with phrases like “humans and other animals” where the unusual appearance of “other” is a sign.)

Usually we don’t ask how we are doing and we don’t try new ways of speaking. Let’s be experimental and see how it works.

NOTE #17 (para. 23): Membership

A special part of being a diverse community is how we handle membership questions. My suggestion that the test be the function of the applicant and meeting community rather than agreement in experience and belief. Yearly meeting Disciplines have gradually begun to reflect this approach (as described in my essay, “Doctrinally Open Membership”).

Closely related to membership questions is the issue of meeting unity and of the process of arriving at a sense of the meeting. It is helpful to think about a special example of unity: when a Quaker meeting arrives at a sense of the meeting. This does not mean unanimity (everyone in agreement), nor does it mean consensus (grudging acquiescence). Giving approval means a commitment to whole heartedly join in the proposed step, to behave as if you agreed (in a genuine sense) (see MS chapter). There are many ways to establish unity in a meeting community and requiring agreement is a popular and a flawed way.

Also related to membership is the issue of our Quaker identity. Again, requiring agreement on belief is only one way to establish characteristics we hold in common. Henry Cadbury described Quakerism and Christianity as sets of beliefs. We each select some from one set and some from the other. There are no members of the set that we are all required to select. Identity can be defined functionally: that we function together as a Quaker meeting. We can engage in Quaker practices while holding different beliefs.

Why do we need membership in a Quaker meeting? In many meetings attenders are treated as if they were members. I approve. In all the examples given above, unity is tested by the function of the community rather than the structure of the beliefs and experiences of community members. This does not require formal membership.

NOTE #18 (para. 24): Center on the particulars

This paragraph again points to advantages of a practical approach, and to the problem of how spiritual and physical would be linked. Theologians have struggled for centuries to explain how gods and humans are related. Similarly, philosophers and psychologists have struggled with the mind-body problem (if mind is anything more than a metaphor). The simplest solution is to accept that minds and gods and spiritual realms don’t exist. The mind of the autonomous human is a creationist concept, a personal god performing miracles in affecting our body and behavior. We can get along fine without supernatural concepts. As to using them metaphorically, I have found that this leads my listeners to misunderstand my approach, to miss the point. This is not surprising giving that these concepts were specifically designed to be anti-natural, to fill in where physical concepts were held to be inadequate. Good lives can be lived by metaphorists, and a revolution needs all sorts so if that is your way, go and do well with it.

My phrases “centered on the particulars” and “the particulars of our lives” is in homage to these writers:

“Understanding should begin anew plainly and fairly with particulars.” (Francis Bacon)

“Whoever desires to see this lovely state, this peaceable kingdom, brought forth in the general must cherish it in the particular.” (Isaac Penington)

“He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars; general good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.” (William Blake)

There’s a common theme for Quakers and naturalists: go and see for ourselves. First we try to particularize and only deal in generalities that are clearly tied to the particulars they explain, rather than generalities in other realms.

NOTE #19 (para. 25): Naturalists found in many religions

A lot of study is needed to identify naturalists among the different faiths. It is a lot of work just to find the Quakers who were the naturalists, and the closeted proto-naturalists, and those who prepared the way for naturalists (see my paper on roots and flowers on Quaker nontheism).

Lokayata was a naturalistic religion in India before the time of Buddha. Their views were similar to those ascribed to Democritus. As in the case of Democritus, they are only known through mention in tracts attacking them.

This is a short list of Quaker practices that a naturalist can know and love. (There is more on this is in my essay “Quakers, from the Viewpoint of a Naturalist”.)

NOTE #20 (para. 26 to 29): Universalism

It’s remarkable how much in common there is among the different religions. Worship is similar, and principles such as the Golden Rule. This shows us something about the utility of religion and the communication among people of different religions in early times. Look at the evolution of holy words (ignore the differences in vowels because only the consonants were written): Sanskrit atman, Egyptian Aten, Greek Athena, Etruscan Tinia, Christian Satan. Or Sanskrit atman, Egyptian Amun, Hebrew and Christian amen. Or Bal, Byblos, Bible. Or Zeus, Deus, theology and divinity. There are many other examples. Apparently holy words tend to persist in our culture even as the associated beliefs change.

Friends meetings vary tremendously in our inclusive they are willing to be. Unfortunately, there are Friends are suffering because of their personal religious beliefs and there are visitors turned away because of their beliefs. I have been severely criticized by Quaker leaders I was turning to for help. This is remarkable. The issue of theism causes people to loosen their normal restraints.

I am often asked if I am trying to change the RSoF. Yes and no. The RSoF has always been changing – its features guarantee that there will be change. For instance our yearly meeting Disciplines are changing. In working for diversity, the only change I am asking for is in our exclusiveness. Nontheists are already present in many meetings and I am asking that they make this welcome known to others. I am asking Friends to be true to their traditions, such as the emphasis on the individual, abhorrence of creeds, call for each to interpret, we each are ministers, that each person is lovable. I am also asking Friends to accept that there are diverse views on other traditions, such as how we talk about our practices. The bottom line is that I am not asking others to become like me, but I am asking them to let me be with them.

There are nontheist Quakers today. Surveys that show this include in the United Kingdom and in the United States. (See the David Rush’s chapter, “Facts and Figures: Do Quakers Believe in God, and if They Do, What Sort of God?” in Godless for God’s Sake.) There had long been nontheist Quakers although they did not start speaking up until the later part of the 20th century.

I hope that an opening toward religious diversity will come to pass in the RSoF. The basis for an accommodation with nontheists (such as membership based on community, or acknowledging that God might be working through the unbeliever) can serve to bring together other marginalized groups among Friends (as those who are more Bible oriented, or who do not agree with others on a testimony).

Let’s work for diversity, including doctrinal diversity, rather than for the acceptance of any one doctrine. We will make little headway if our goal is to get others to have our personal religious experiences and hold our beliefs. This doesn’t even work among nontheist Friends!

We can build trusting relationships by being active and effective members of our meeting communities and the wider RSoF. It is easy to dislike someone you don’t know.

One way forward is for local religious groups to approve minutes of support for people of different religious points of view. Quakers have frequently supported many other kinds of diversity but rarely this one. This has been supported by nonreligious groups, such as schools, but rarely by a religious body and rarely when it involves membership and instruction of our children. These minutes could take many forms; the draft of one is in my Friends Journal article. They do not have to mention nontheism, just as long as the effect is clear so that naturalists who are not Quakers but are interested in Quakers will be encouraged to seek further.

[Expanded Version 3-30-06]

No Comments »

Link to Trackback | Link to RSS Feed for comments on this post