Welcome!
Posted by Nontheist Friends on Apr 10 2006 | Tagged as: Blog Posts
New Book:
Godless for God’s Sake:
Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism
Nontheistfriends.org presents the work of Friends (Quakers) who are more concerned with the natural than the supernatural. Some of us understand “God” as a symbol of human values and some of us avoid the concept while accepting it as significant to others. We differ greatly in our religious experience and in the meaning we give religious terms.
We are not a pressure group trying to move Quakerism toward nontheism. We bless what our theist brothers and sisters bring to Quaker meetings and worship. All Friends have much to learn from each other. We hope to strengthen the Quaker tradition of welcoming people of diverse religious experience and to show by example that this can include nontheists.
We are part of meeting communities that include theists and nontheists. Together we worship and love and cooperate, even as we differ on the particulars of our religious experience. Quakerism has been changing ever since George Fox had his first opening on Pendle Hill, becoming deeper and richer. We are all part of this living faith.
On this website we seek to explore our own perspectives and to reflect on the meaning and implications of nontheism in the context of Quakerism. This is also a place where theist Friends may come to understand us better and to join in a deeper conversation. Please submit writings for posting. We also hope you will use the “comments” link at the end of each article to express your views.
19 Comments »
on 28 Dec 2006 at 5:15 pm 1 Bev Jefferson said …
I read of this website in the Australian national newsletter “Australian Friend”. How wonderful to know that there are enough of us to justify a website! I greatly value the words and actions of my Christian fellow Quakers, but cannot share their belief in a Christian god, or even in a personified god. So, it comes as a great relief to know that there are so many other quakers who are committed agnostics or atheists.
on 06 Jan 2007 at 4:56 pm 2 Tony Hodgkinson said …
I have just found your website and am truly amazed to find kindred thinkers.
However, may I suggest in answer to the previous email? Atheists are similar to theists in that they have a belief. Namely, they have a definition for God but believe he does not exist to that definition, which is a belief. Agnostics are not dissimilar but cannot make up their minds.
I prefer the term non-theist (often used in Buddhist thought). Meaning not to understand the word God. The word has so many conflicting definitions already for anyone to make any real sense to the word. My experience suggests everyone I have met has his or her own emotional views about God (that is if they think about it at all).
When asked if I believe in God, I usually answer the questioner by asking for a definition of God and I will then answer their question. I have yet to be given a logical answer. It always comes down to an indefinable belief, which is OK for them, but doesn’t help answer the question.
I hope I’m not being too controversial with first email?
on 12 Jan 2007 at 5:16 pm 3 Crystal Heshmat said …
Tony, I don’t think you’re being too controversial with your first post! But I do quibble with the idea that agnostics just can’t make up their minds. Strong agnostics say that it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not God exists.
on 13 Jan 2007 at 2:40 pm 4 Pat Duclos said …
I just discovered this website. I will spend more time here in the future. I am happy to find this connection. I have always thought of myself as either an agnostic or an atheist. As I have aged I think of myself as an agnostic. I believe human beings simply arent capable of knowing all the secrets of the cosmos. I find I am at peace with my relationship to the natural world. I was raised in a non-religious family in a “Christian” culture in the midwestern U.S. I have never been concerned with the supernatural. I am mystified by my intellectual friends who in their 60’s are still searching for a religion although they refuse to call it religion. They talk about karma, they study Buddhism, they convert from one religion to the other. The ones who mystify me the most are the “new agers” with their chrystals, and belief in what I call “magic”. I have not found many people in my life with whom I can share this “nontheism”. Knowing about this website makes me feel good. Thanks.
on 29 Jan 2007 at 12:55 pm 5 Sherry said …
Intriguing website. I was raised with what I would call traditional quaker values, though we never identified it as such. Now that we have searched our Mother’s family history, we found a 290 year dedication as friends and a fierce dedication to quaker political movements, such as abolitionsism.
I am currently reading about the history of quakers in America and am very intrigued by it. Any suggested reading would be greatly appreciated.
on 20 Feb 2007 at 8:01 pm 6 Stuart Hartley said …
Is it not possible that the supernatural is actually the natural rather than something that is above what we understand to be the norm of creation. The truly ‘natural’ creation is surely that which derives from the oneness and wholeness of Universal Law. The working out of this Law is also known as the ‘Law of Love’ and God/Good values are derived from an understanding of this Wholeness or Holiness. Thus we have the ten commandments and the values contained in the Sermon on the Mount. Many human values represent an inversion or perversion of the one Natural Law of the creator, depending upon the prevailing culture. Therefore, there are human values that would deny the oneness of creation, thus we have fragmentation manifest as violence, anger, selfishness, cruely, etc. These are not representative of the one true value derived from an understanding of true goodness of creation, but rather a symbol for the materialistic, something that is relative and delusory at best. Yes, scientist can measure the relative, material phenomena, but the spiritually natural is not measurable because it does not fall within knowledge of physics - yet. Therefore, to understand God as a symbol for human values is like saying that a root is a symbol for a flower.
on 27 Feb 2007 at 2:12 pm 7 Lonnie Wiens said …
Tony, Just to confuse the issue in regard to how to define Atheism, Theism and Agnostisim I am of the persuasion they are all but mute points. I have decided to go with a fourth alternative, non-theism. What makes sense in the absence of super-natural entities. Good is what contributes to the welfare of cognitive entities, and bad is that which distracts from the welfare of cognitive entities. Quite simply what we are may be described as “we are the ability for a reality to be able to be aware/cognitive of itself”, bottom line. When cognitive entities enter the confines of a reality, then reality itself becomes cognitive. The one characteristic included in every societies description of a/their Deity/Deisties is the ability to be aware to the point of being cognitive, or aware of being aware. Even our most successful cartoon characters are hardly payed attention too unless they are able to capture the essence of awareness/cognition.
A fun question to toy with is “What when removed from a reality renders it non-existent”. When you figure that out you will be well on your road to nontheism. A hint is that although non-cognitive reality is unable to be aware of itself let alone cognive entities, it does entertain a very real basic/fundamental characteristic/ foundation for the chance that cognition can occur called sentience, displacement of time and space or change. If absolute unalterable nothing is other than the case, what is left over…. anyway, God is merely a figment of our imagination… But, what makes sense in the absence of a Deity or Deities, thats the fun part of Nontheism. Hope you agree.
on 27 Feb 2007 at 6:13 pm 8 Dennis Tomlin said …
Your website has opened up for me here in S. France, Europe.
Several french Friends that I know would describe themselves as non-théists.
Perhaps we should consider a similar website in French. It would probably be welcomed by many francophone Ffriends around the world.
Amicalement,
DT
on 10 Apr 2007 at 12:22 pm 9 Francis Drake said …
Greetings from this first-time responder. Skimming through the contents here evokes these thoughts:
Generally speaking I feel considerable kinship with many individuals here though I do not identify as nontheist (I’ve declared my non-Christianity in my home meeting but theism vs. non- is a closet I haven’t fully come out of yet, partly ’cause I’m not yet sure how best to put it so as to minimize risk of being misunderstood and at the same time seeking to remain sufficiently non-doctrinaire lest I be tempted to interpret my experiences to fit a worldview instead of the other way round).
The best I’ve come up with so far is *universalist / panentheist*. My definition of the terms: universalist in the non-Christian sense of all paths leading to God / liberation / salvation and that, in one life or many, all ultimately will attain this however one conceives it; panentheist in that, if in my recent life I have experienced what one can call God / divine presence / Spirit etc. (and I have), I will not accept a God with *any* limits apart from, obviously, not manifesting as a physical entity or entities in our space-time planes of existence, i.e., as Thomas Merton and sundry others put it, there is nothing that is not God, transcendent *and* immanent in the universe and every living thing, grain of sand, and subatomic particle in it. And I am quite comfortable with the Quaker tenet that She, as Spirit, can be known by, live in and work through us.
CAVEAT: The foregoing is based *only in part* on my personal experience. While that unmistakably includes a sense of, to riff on Paul Tillich, God as an infinitely, unconditionally loving ground of being, I hold very lightly to the rest. Put simply, in the absence of being given more to know or speak, I can choose inclusive, optimistic assumptions or exclusive, pessimistic ones. Until and unless additional Light is granted me by which I’m convinced otherwise I choose the former option. And being experientially based, these are views concerning which I harbor no presumption that a single other human soul should necessarily agree with them.
What I don’t accept (and never really did — thankfully I have no fundamentalist / literalist early-life baggage to get rid of) is what Marcus Borg speaks of as “supernatural” monotheism, amusingly encapsulated in Barbara Brown Taylor’s description of her childhood image of God as a “very old white-bearded man on a throne, (who) stood above creation and occasionally stirred it with a stick.” It occurs to me as I write this paragraph that it just may be one precept that all self-described nontheists, among others, would heartily reject.
Comments, anyone? Roses? Brickbats?
Namasté, y’all.
on 16 Aug 2007 at 7:37 am 10 Rich H said …
Nontheist quakers!? I thought i was the only one.
on 26 Aug 2007 at 12:11 am 11 Robin Anderson said …
Oh my. I hope that I am not asked whether I am a theist or non-theist Quaker.
One of the brilliant innovations in George Fox’s inspiration was that doctrine is not truth, regardless of content. I believe that he even said “stay with the experience of the life within you, and this will free you from a dependence on words.” (from Rex Ambler’s Truth of the Heart)
My experience says to me that to be or not to be non/theist is a matter of taste, since we have no idea what the words actually mean anyway.
I do not aim to be divisive here, nor to be flip. I am actively concerned by the tendency to change focus from experience to conceptual doctrine.
I am neither a theist nor a non-theist Quaker, nor am I agnostic, nor atheist, nor do I reject the idea of divinity.
on 14 Nov 2007 at 11:07 am 12 Paul said …
This website led me to Quakerism, for which I am extremely grateful. I had always known that I shared basic values with the Quakers, but had assumed I would have to profess a belief in god (if not christ) in order to join. When I found this site I felt as though it was telling my story. Thanks so much.
on 17 Nov 2007 at 7:25 am 13 Dale Bicksler said …
I am comfortable saying that I am “not a theist”. However, it is convenient to have a single word that describes my state of affairs, so I sometimes use the word “nontheist” meaning simply that I am “not a theist”. Unfortunately, I suspect that the single word may be communicating more than I mean to say. Maybe I should stick to saying what I am not and forget about trying to say what I am.
on 28 Nov 2007 at 5:13 pm 14 Dread Pirate Robert said …
Maybe I am not “enightened” ~~ but how can there be a nontheistic quaker when one of the cornerstones of all Quaker convictions is George Fox’s revelation that there is one ~~ Christ Jesus ~~ who can speak to our condition?
on 14 Feb 2008 at 8:14 am 15 William Penn said …
I was raised in a fairly traditional Meeting. Basic concepts such as searching for that of God in everyone, seeking the Light and living our faith as a daily existence rather than confining our beliefs to a staid one day a week service were heavily featured in my up bringing. While non-theists were welcome to attend Meeting, the concept of membership for an atheist brought about a fairly deep schism in my Meeting which took a long time to heal. Quite simply, I have been taught that Friends are Christian non-conformists, devout pacifists who try to live their faith. We welcome all of those who wish to attend Meeting with peaceful intent, but actual membership in the Friends’ faith does require certain basic beliefs. Non-theism or atheism is not consistent with those basic beliefs. At least that is my understanding. Peaceful coexistance is a very important part of our faith. However, that is a direct outgrowth of the teachings of, and belief in, Christ. Friends’ abandoned outward displays (communion, confirmation, etc.) in order to avoid symbols and find a deeper, more meaningful relationship with the living God. We did not abandon God.
on 17 Feb 2008 at 12:28 am 16 doov said …
“no creed” means no creed, doesn’t it? If there is no creed, then George Fox’s revelations are relevant to George Fox, and mine to me.
on 13 Mar 2008 at 10:40 pm 17 Arthur Rifkin said …
Calling oneself a nontheist, or an atheist, makes an assertion about God. Even the label “agnostic” says one doesn’t want to answer the question, and that, also, asserts that God may exist but we don’t know. I think that that only scientific naturalism can bring knowledge. That makes the issue of God, belief or nonbelief, incoherent. It is like asking the question, “Do you still believe the bogeyman is in your closet?” What does the answer “yes” or “no” mean?
Quakerism helps me develop my spirituality, by which I mean the experience of ideals leading my behavior and thoughts.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 5:56 am 18 Alex Polak said …
The original post of this thread said:
“Together we worship and love and cooperate, even as we differ on the particulars of our religious experience.”
And I wonder whether this has accidentally encouraged some strange comments above. I shall come to this after briefly explaining my perspective.
Speaking as an ‘outsider’ (with only a loose connection to Friends through my father’s attending Saffron Walden School upwards of forty years ago) it looks like the most overarching of all the Quaker themes must be the duo of ‘holding to no creed’ and ‘learning only by trusting one’s inner light’, since these seem to quite comprehensively cover the issue of how one is to come by one’s own beliefs and way of living one’s life - theist or non theist or etc. .
Speaking as a philosophy student, I’d like to emphasise the subtleness of this duo, and how some posts here might not have borne this in mind.
‘No creeds’ sounds like a negative theme, but it also has an implicit positive aspect: equality. Having no ‘correct’ set of rules means that the beliefs formed by each individual from their own personal (spiritual?) experiences are just as correct as all others’ beliefs, and completely valid for for that individual.
Am I about right so far? Here’s my point:
The quote I have taken from this website says, “…we differ on the particulars of our religious experience”, but I think it’s important to note that this most probably doesn’t ONLY refer to a split between theists and non theists as the subsequent discussion might suggest.
It seems to me that every single Quaker must necessarily “differ on the particulars of [their] religious experience” from every other quaker, whether they share theist convictions or not.
To sum up pointedly:
1. Are we remembering that if you are a theist/non-theist/not-a-theist/atheist/pantheist/agnostic/new age thinker, and you are a good quaker (i.e. your beliefs are formed from your own inner light/introspection) then what you believe is completely correct and ‘ok’ for all other good quakers? Of course one can be a non-theist(/etc.) and a Friend!
2. Isn’t trying to persuade the others in this discussion of the force of your own position on a matter of faith - especially if they and you are Friends - nothing more than missing *the* point?
I feel I may have repeated myself i’m afraid, but I’d be very interested in your comments/advice/corrections, please - jolly pleased to find this site…
-Alex
(You can contact me via my band website.)
on 06 Apr 2008 at 8:24 pm 19 James Riemermann said …
Alex,
I appreciate your thoughts and your tolerant tone. I certainly would agree that one can be a Friend from a wide range of theological beliefs and experiences, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Quaker way means that “what you believe is completely correct and ‘ok.’”
I do think certain beliefs are right and others are wrong–even, as is often the case, we cannot be certain about the rightness or wrongness of our particular beliefs about ultimate questions. If, for instance, the anthropomorphic God of Genesis exists in a literal sense, then that is the case regardless of my unbelief.
Rather than saying that all of us are right about ultimate questions about the nature and origins of reality, I would say we are almost certainly wrong. But we get glimpses of a deeper understanding that seem to shed genuine light on the best way to live together in the world, and we can connect and learn from one another, all the while knowing we don’t have the whole truth, and often get things wrong. The part of Quakerism that most appeals to me is an insistence on listening, to the world around us and to each other, seeking truth but never assuming we’ve got it nailed.