During this period of time, while I have continued to study Faith and Practice and to attempt to embody the powerful testimonies there-in in fits and starts, I have also become immersed in the thinking of A.N. Whitehead. I see strong ties between Quakerism and his idea of persuasion as an alternative to force, principally developed in his book, Adventure of Ideas.

My interest in Whitehead has much to do with a concern I have to creatively and rationally explore, critique and develop my own emerging sense of God. Whitehead, I believe, was one of the few philosophers in the West in the 20th century who made the attempt to rationally and coherently develop an idea of God and incorporate it in a metaphysical system that took solid account of relativity theory and emergent ideas in sociology and psychology. Whitehead was a rationally minded thinker who was unafraid to develop and trace out the implications of bold, speculative ideas. Alternately, he was not afraid to revise them and re-construct them if need be. My own reading of Whitehead has left me with a sense in which I do not feel ashamed to speak of God, even God theistically, whereby I mean a personal relationship between God and myself.

However, and I believe this is as important as my feeling of un-ashamedness in considering my relationship to God, my study of Whitehead also forces me to reflect on much of his writing toward the end of his life, when he stated again and again that his cosmological model was only one among many competing models, and that if it were to remain meaningful and valid, it would have to be tested and verified empirically and scientifically, as much as possible, and potentially would have to be re-interpreted, if not modified, in light of new evidence. Whitehead did not necessarily hold with Kant that our idea of God or God himself existed in a realm inaccessible to our senses. Furthermore, he was explicit in insisting that his idea of God not be invoked to prevent his metaphysical system from collapsing. In short, for him this meant that God, at least to a degree, was determined by metaphysical principles in the system as much as other beings were. God was not omnipotent, not entirely transcendent nor immanent. This approach to naturalistic, cosmological speculation flies in the face of some elements of traditional Christian theology. It also refutes some aspects of Kantian and modern philosophy. Whitehead had a profound sense of the evolution of speculative, philosophic thought, and of the necessary rigor of scientific method as a means of evaluating it. My own feeling is that his ability for bold speculation coupled with his respect for scientific method created a sense of perspective and balance nearly unmatched in other 20th century philosophers.

I believe Quakers embody the spirit of Whitehead’s thought, in as much as we are able to adventure or seek, according to our lights, and hold our beliefs always with the mind that we may need to revise them as more light is made available to us. I appreciate the contributions non-theist Quakers have made on this site and I feel I have much to gain from considering and reflecting on them. I came upon this site (luckily, by Grace) nearly a week ago and already my own developing sense of Quakerism has greatly expanded. I appreciate any insight and/or leading that leads to more inclusivity and, more importantly, more constructive approaches to relating to one another as a community of seekers and worshippers. Thank you.

Finally, I believe that we are seekers, and as such it is tasked us to constantly, incessantly, re-evaluate our understandings of what it is to be seekers and Quakers in the light of new evidence and leadings.

There are so many kinds of Quakers around the world, but I can just tell you what one of them looks like, that is me.
I’m French and I’ve been raised in the Reformed faith and I thank my parents and especially my Godfather, who’s a retired French Reformed Church minister, for being from Presbyterian descent because Reformed theology is so rational that I just had to take one (rational) step further to become a Quaker.
I go on using the word “God” but in a completely different way than mainstream Protestants. Because I firmly think there are moral values that are objective, i.e. that are universal and don’t depend on my personal conviction for being true, I understand lots of people need to give these objective values a personal shape they call “God”. This is the way I understand the civil religion and the ceremonial deism so many Americans appraise so much that they concur on considering themselves “One Nation under God”. This “God” of theirs is shared values they cherish more than themselves, like I do for the moral values contained in the offical motto of the French Republic : “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité”. This is my God.
Yours in Frienship and Truth
Fabrice Descamps

WHAT I believe, came up most recently when I was instructed to teach Parables from the Bible in a First Day school. The Religious Education Committee worked it out so that the Lessons would not be theist, per se, but rather Stories that could be examples of testimonies: The Good Samaritan, as an example of Integrity and Community.

I was initially uncomfortable at the Biblical-ness, which surprised me. We were able to make it work.

I felt an instant connection with the ideas that THIS group presents. I’m still figuring things out so I’m want to find out others’ thoughts and opinions on the idea of non-theism, pantheism, universalist…etc

“…I realized that the values I supported and was trying to transmit – values I now name simplicity, peace, integrity, community & equality – were not the mores one generally encounters whilst watching television or taking a trip to the mall. I sought a community that would reinforce these values, place them within a cultural and social context. The Society of Friends was one of the few religions where I felt intellectually, politically and socially comfortable…” (Godless for God’s Sake edit by David Boulton

The Quaker Faith & Practice inspiration which has most guided me is:

“Live adventurously. When choices arise do you take the way that offers
you the fullest opportunity for the use of your gifts in the service of
the community? Let your life speak.

I have found people on my wave length spiritually in Lambeth Green Party and the British Humanist Association, however having not felt eligible to attend a Quaker Meeting for 15 years I now feel happy to return.

I do believe in (a) an organic urge towards healing (b) a positive creative force which arises without explanation (c) a sensation of there being potential for interconnected consciousness, akin to what ants or bees demonstrate.

Thankful for this website.

Becca Thackray
becca@worldofbecca.com

- quite true that living according to moral values can lead us to dungeons : that’s why I talked of “moral values that increase our common happiness”, not necessarily mine. You say you follow moral values not because they make us happy, but because they’re right. How can you know whether they’re right if they don’t make mankind happier? You obviously agree with me as you wrote “seeking the Truth will make everyone happy, but not necessarily at present”. That’s exactly what I had in mind.

- quite true that Nature is often cruel : that’s why I don’t worship it either as I’m no (neo-)pagan. I just intended to give the word “god” a rational meaning. But perhaps it’s got none!

- as you and every Quaker, I don’t feel too concerned by ideas, but more by practice. But, in order to live and act ethically, having clear ideas could help. Take pro-choice and pro-life opinions for instance : either opinion can lead to the right conduct, but not both at the same time.

- naturalists who think there’s only matter and energy are very narrow minded ones because they forgot language (that is two thirds of Man’s life).

- ” I think ‘that of God’
in every conscious being who has sense of ethical absolutes is what is ultimately
true”. Ok Daniel, then you think “God” is nothing else than truth. And what you worship every Sunday is then truth. I don’t mind worshipping it along with you.

Yours in friendship and truth
Fabrice
French Quakers’ Yearly Meeting

Thanks for your response and questions.

I could (if you really wanted a long-winded
philosophical explanation) explain my finite intellectual understanding of God that I have come to over many years of struggling with theology, philosophy, and science.
HOWEVER,
being a Quaker I am more concerned with practice, with testimonies. I never found that doctrine or dogma ever helped me be more loving, patient, tolerant, joyful, giving, merciful, pure, etc.
So would say at basic that Jesus is
the image of Ultimate Reality–that active living of Love, Peace, Equality, and other eternal truths are who God is in essence.

This, of course, doesn’t abstract about
infiniteness, what he was doing before the Big Bang by which he brought the universe into being;-), etc.

All of those questions interest me, but
I am mainly interested in how you and I and every other person in the image of God
can help individuals in Darfur, Iraq, and
elsewhere–how we can be that of God for others. And to care for the environment too.

‘meaning to existence’
What is ultimately real, what will continue to be long after this world’s demise.
The Ground of all Being (to quote Paul Tillich)
The Ultimate Essence that IS behind this
temporal existence

‘truth’ is what is True ultimately
For example, it appears that non-theist Naturalists think that ultimately matter and energy is all there is (well and maybe some kind of quantum state), that evolution and Chance are the ultimate nature of Reality (See Gould,
Dawkins, Monod, etc.)

In contrast as a Quaker, I think ‘that of God’
in every conscious being who has sense of ethical absolutes is what is ultimately
true. (The apostle Paul speaks to this when he says that what is visible is temporary, but what is invisible is eternal.)

Hope that clarifies my statements a bit:-)

I wouldn’t agree with you about Nature.
Having been an outdoors person and
backpacker, etc., I have seen both
the plesant side of nature and it very
cruel survival of the fittest side to.
I have no interest in worshiping that.

Sometines following moral values doesn’t increase our happiness at all. Just take
a look at the early Quakers. They lived
in God’s way of love and peace but they
there was no common happiness as they
were put in dungeons, hanged, etc.

Also, a person often needs to deny his group or nation happiness in order that
God’s ultimate Truth and Way may prevail.

We follows moral values, not to make us happy but because they are right! Ultimately,
seeking the Truth will make everyone happy, but not necessarily at present.

I am convinced that the cross (as a symbol
of Truth) is the way for us to live.

Fabrice, I am confident that you are a decent man. The very fact that you have sought out a Freinds meeting shows that you are seeking the Truth.

By the way I don’t read the KJB either, except when teaching students.

Peace in Christ’s Light,

Daniel Wilcox

You used in your last comment lots of words you forgot to explain:

a) define “God” and then I’ll tell you if I can agree with you.
b) define “meaning to existence” and then I’ll tell you etc.
c) define “truth” for the same reason.

I personally believe there is of course something we can call “truth”. Otherwise I don’t know what we could agree or disagree about.
It’s always strange for me, as a continental European, to talk to Anglo-Saxons who think you believe in nothing because you don’t believe in their christian God.
I actually believe in lots of things, but not in the God of the Bible. I hope you don’t mind.

For me:
a) God is Nature ( = there’s no Revelation!)
b) Existence has got a meaning as long as you live according to moral values that increase our common happiness.
c) “Truth” means that the sentences you utter correspond to facts. In other words, it’s only truth (not God) that can tell you if your moral values really increase our common happiness.

So you can see I am a decent man though I don’t read King James’s Bible.

Yours in friendship
Fabrice Descamps
French Quakers’ Yearly Meeting

How can one worship if one is convinced there is no Meaning to Existence?

I understand Albert Camus and other committed non-theists because they concluded that the cosmos is absurd and
then set about creating their own values.

But I don’t see how one can be a Friend
(the term take from John in the NT) and gather
for worship,
yet be convinced there is no Truth.

If a person says he is seeking. I understand
such a statement, but not convincement
to no-God within the Friends faith and worship.

Here’e my own favorite quote, if you wonder
where I am in the theo spectrum:
True religion consisted in an inward life, wherein the heart does love and reverence God the Creator, and learns to exercise true justice and goodness…I found no narrowness respecting sects and opinions, but believed that sincere, upright-hearted people, in every society, who truly love God, were accepted of him.
John Woolman

John 15: 12-15 Love each other as I have loved you.. I call you friends because I have made known to you everything
I heard from my Father.

I am baffled but seek to understand
your view.

Daniel Wilcox

For some reason, I haven’t had any experience with the white-bearded guy, or the quasi-Jewish non-teacher who his students couldn’t get right, or any of the other incarnations, except for the Elijahs I meet as part of my everyday life. No burning bushes or flaming swords either.

But I don’t know deny that other folks might have had these experiences. I’m not particularly waiting for them to happen to me. I certainly can’t “worship” a Being I haven’t experienced (and if S/He really need my worship, what does that say about Him/Her?)

What George Fox did for me was rescue religion from dependence upon “Authority” (Catholics) or upon a book (Protestants) and gave it back to me as individual in the context of a community of seekers. That’s what defines me as a Friend.

The existence or non-existence of God (whatever It be) has nothing to do with it.

You may believe in “George Fox’s revelation” as you wrote. Sorry, I don’t. What he told us about God was his opinion about God, not a revelation for me and I may not agree with him.

The whole issue is about what you really say when you pronounce the word “God”. Most theists avoid defining God. Nontheists don’t. Spinoza, a renowned nontheist I guess, precisely defined the meaning of the word “God”. So you can say whether God actually exists or not in saying if Spinoza was right or wrong. And, for Spinoza, God was nothing else than Nature so you can say that this “God” actually exists. You may not agree with some features of Spinoza’s God as they’re described in his “Ethics”, but there’s at least a rational basis for discussion.

Personally I feel entitled to using the word “God” in a Spinozist way. I don’t see why I shouldn’t and why only theists could use it insofar as I know what I exactly mean when I use it whereas most theists don’t.

Yours in friendship

Fabrice Descamps
French Quakers’ Yearly Meeting

So it’s good to know there are others to whom concepts like ‘God’ may be important but symbolic, not “real like the daisies” as someone wrote. Let’s pray for one another, and for our doctrinal friends too!

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 if, 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.