English Paper: Unitarian Universalism

This is a paper I wrote for my English class. A lot of the works cited are websites, by the way.

I have an interesting, if not nowadays unusual, religious background, although the “conclusion” of my spiritual journey is not usual. My family was never religiously homogenous. My mother was once very Christian, though of the liberal, Congregationalist variety. My father has never been particularly religious (though never atheistic): he’s too independently minded for that. When we moved down to Connecticut, we became chronic church-hoppers, rarely staying in one place for more than a year or so before we gradually stopped going (my father never went); and then, after a period of sleeping in on Sunday mornings, my mother would feel the need and find some other church. I gradually became less and less religious, and eventually found myself in the middle ground between Atheism and Agnosticism, which is where I remain. My mom also gradually became less religious at a rate which was parallel to, but behind, my own. My brother has always been and is pretty much where I was and am, although more laid back than myself. Where this all ended up—the religiously diverse family, the church-hopping, our own spiritual progressions—was with a family that had some vaguely religious sentiments, with varying degrees amongst its members, and yet still wanted to share our lives with a community.

My religious beliefs were, as I said, atheistic/agnostic, with a prominent strain of philosophical universalism[1]: I felt all points of view, if not correct, did at least have something to offer. I also discovered, when happening upon the Wikipedia entry on the subject, that I was a Humanist. Overall, like many people, I was already a Unitarian Universalist—but I didn’t know it.

I don’t remember exactly the order of the events that brought us to the church we attend. One such event was that my grandmother, who lives with us, began going. Another is that we read some columns in the Religion section of the newspaper by the minister of the church about such topics as gay marriage, and her sentiments resonated with us. The end result of it was, my mother, my brother, and I attended the church for awhile, with my brother and me hooked pretty much instantly and my mother taking a bit longer, uncertain at first about the lack of a specifically God and/or Christianity orientation. Eventually we also managed to bring our dad along. Once he started coming regularly, there was no turning back: this was the first church (since the one we went to when we lived in Maine, which my dad had attended for the community and the music) we could attend as a family. We quickly became close with the minister’s family. We had found a religious home.

We became deeply involved in the congregation very quickly, to the extent that the old curmudgeons one find in any church complained that we were “doing everything.” Our entire family is very musical, so we became a staple of the congregation’s musical life (incidentally, it was partly through the church’s musical program that we managed to get our father to come). I got very involved in the Youth Group, and after the minister’s son, who had kept things going, left, I became the de facto leader of the group, holding it together and working to build it into something more than it was at the time. My mother and I were nominated and approved as members of the board (me as the Youth Liaison)—necessitating, incidentally, a suspension of the bylaws as we had not been members for the specified period of time. In numerous ways, our coming to the church was coincidental with a new period of change in the congregation—which had been, quite frankly, troubled—and we were there as part of all that was happening (for all I know, we helped cause it). Anyways, the church has become a staple of our lives and something with which we are deeply involved.

Perhaps you, reader, are wondering at this point what Unitarian Universalism is. Unitarian Universalism can be hard to understand, even for many Unitarian Universalists. If someone asks us what we believe, we are hard pressed to give an answer. This is because we are not held together so much by a common set of beliefs—although there are some common beliefs we profess to share—as by common goals: to grow spiritually and philosophically and help each other do the same, to provide community, and to do what we can to improve, or at least help, humanity, the world. And the two beliefs I feel are central to our faith are that every person should have the ability to judge for him or herself what is truth, and the value and dignity of every person. We acknowledge and respect the many religious and philosophical sources of our faith.[2]

Beyond that, there are many beliefs within even my own congregation: we have Humanists, Agnostics, Christians (although most would not ascribe to a belief in the resurrection), Pagans, Wiccans, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, and many belief systems that don’t have a name because they were developed by the person who holds them. Politically we are pretty much overwhelmingly liberal, yet there are a few in our congregation who are conservatives, even staunch conservatives. However, almost all of us are critically-minded, individualistic, spiritual, and philosophically universalist.

For me personally, being a Unitarian Universalist helps me be individualistic about my beliefs by, perhaps paradoxically, providing me with a community. I can have a measure of security when standing up for my own beliefs. I have somewhere to go on Sunday morning where I can feel I belong, where I am surrounded by like-minded, understanding people. The Youth Group has become one of those few places where I feel I completely fit in, where I can be entirely myself.

Unitarian Universalism gives me the opportunity to share my spirituality and spiritual experiences with others. This brings me to yet another aspect of Unitarian Universalism that is of great importance: we do not believe one has to believe in God, gods, and afterlife, or even a “spiritual realm” to be spiritual—to have spiritual experiences, to experience ecstasy in the wonders of the world. One can believe in any of these things, but one does not have to.

Being surrounded by people of many different viewpoints and backgrounds has enriched my own understanding. I am constantly given opportunities to absorb points of view that I can either absorb into my philosophically universalist framework; or confront, in the process of with I develop a greater understanding of my own views.

Being a Unitarian Universalist gives me something to be committed to. I am committed to Unitarian Universalism. I am committed to spreading its message, not to convince people to join us, but to reach out to people, like me, who were already Unitarian Universalists before they had even heard of such a thing. I am Atheist, Humanist, Rationalist, and many other -ists. But first and foremost, I am Unitarian Universalist.

Part 2

When asked to explain Unitarian Universalism, many UUs begin with the history of our religion. Part of the reason stems from a difficulty in formulating exactly what UU is, as ours is a non-creedal religion. Yet I think that taking a historical perspective in explaining UU is valid in and of itself, as, because of our lack of creed, we are an evolving faith. It’s therefore inaccurate to try to state exactly what we are: a fuller knowledge comes in describing how we got where we are today. Also, by describing our background to those unfamiliar with our faith, we convey a sense of history, and tie ourselves to the stream of religious thought.

Our history begins with two decidedly Christian religious movements: Unitarianism and Universalism. Both took root in the United States, and these American varieties were responses to Calvinism (which holds the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God, including the doctrine that humans are predestined to go to either Heaven or Hell). Unitarianism was usually the religion of the urban elites, whereas the appeal of Universalism was more populist and rural; one expression I’ve heard is that Unitarianism was a religion of the head, while Universalism was a religion of the heart. Unitarianism is usually acknowledged as the major force in our history, so it is with it that I will begin.

Theological Unitarianism is the belief in God as one being, with a rejection of the Trinity. Jesus is viewed as either a very special human with supreme moral authority, or as a supernatural being separate, subservient to, and created by God. There is usually an emphasis on rationality, critical thinking and reading, concern for the matters of this world instead of the next, and freedom of thought in regards to religious matters.

There were precedents to Unitarianism in the earliest forms of Christianity: in fact, Unitarians believed that they were restoring the original concept of Jesus, before it had been corrupted by Trinitarianism. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke, so called because they describe the same events) and the early letters of Paul, for example, are vague on the question of Jesus’ divinity, and seem to claim that God declared him his son either when he was baptized or because he was such an exemplary human being (Armstrong; personal interpretation). Early Christians had heated arguments about the nature of Jesus in relation to God, with several different theologies put forth, and the question was not decided until the establishment of the Nicene Creed in 325, and even after that it simmered for 50 years, until the revisions to the Creed made in 381. This Creed was a rejection of Arianism, based on the theology put forth by Arius which held that Jesus was a special type of being and God’s greatest creation, but separate from God himself. After the final establishment of the Nicene Creed, Unitarianism went almost entirely extinct (Fisher).

Then Gutenberg invented the printing press.

The Bible was no longer the sole property of the clergy; and when people read the Bible for themselves, they found that many of the teachings of the Church had no Biblical basis. It was also during this time that Martin Luther set the Protestant Reformation in motion, influencing Henry VIII of England and the French legal scholar John Calvin, developer of Calvinism. Because of these related developments, Protestant sects began appearing and splitting off from each other everywhere, led by those who read the Bible for themselves and were emboldened by the Reformation to disseminate their ideas. One such man who read the Bible for himself was a Spanish doctor by the name of Miguel De Servet, also known as Servetus, who through his readings came to the conclusion that there was no Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, and published a book defending this interpretation, “On the Errors of the Trinity.” This work forced Servetus to go into hiding, where he was eventually found and executed in Geneva, Switzerland, on the orders of John Calvin. However, he had influenced a number of people with his ideas, amongst them a fellow physician Giorgio Biandrotta, who himself influenced other Italians and a Hungarian minister by the name of Ferenc David. David set up a Unitarian church in Transylvania, and converted that country’s king, John Sigisimund. Instead of using this opportunity to have his church declared the national religion of Transylvania, David convinced the king to declare freedom of conscience in religious matters. This was one of the first countries in Christian history to officially declare religious liberty. Unlike Arianism, this Unitarianism declared that Jesus was a man, though of a special sort; it also tended to reject the concepts of Original Sin and, by logical extension, Vicarious Atonement (that Jesus died as payment for our sins). Sadly, after Sigisimund died, David was sent to prison for heresy, where he also died. However, the Church he founded is still a major denomination in Transylvania (Fisher; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Unitarianism”).

By the 18^th century, many intellectuals were reading the Bible and coming to Unitarian conclusions, including the philosopher John Locke, the physicist, mathematician, and scholar Isaac Newton, who devoted much of his later life to Biblical analysis, and Joseph Priestly (Fisher), an English polymath and theologian who “discovered” air, had a major effect on both English and American Unitarianism, and was a close friend of Benjamin Franklin’s (Johnson; Robinson 21-23).

While in England Unitarianism remained mostly below the surface, in America, specifically Boston, it became one of the leading liberal religious movements. This Unitarianism began as a reactionary movement against the Great Awakening, a religious movement which was extremely Calvinistic, fundamentalist, and emphasized extreme and irrational religious experience. Against this movement stood those, like Charles Chauncy, that emphasized human free will, critical thinking, above all, rationality in religious matters. This movement simmered until the 1810s, when a remarkable preacher by the name of William Ellery Channing began preaching and writing from a liberal religious viewpoint, and came to a head when he delivered the sermon “Unitarian Christianity” in 1819. This sermon embraced the term Unitarian, originally a derogatory term used by the more conservatively religious, and set the stage for the formation of a denomination. Churches began to split between the Unitarians and the Puritans, and one such split in a congregation in Dedham, Massachusetts gave a major boost to the growth of Unitarianism. In an important turn of events, the Unitarian faction of that congregation won the church building and property, which set a precedent allowing other such Unitarian splinter groups to gain control of the Church buildings (Fisher; Robinson 3-5, 9-37; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Unitarianism”). Amongst those who were Unitarian or admired Unitarianism were such Founding Fathers as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the latter, though never officially a Unitarian, stating “I trust there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian” (qtd. in Robinson 23).

Unitarianism produced its own rebellion, Transcendentalism. Associated with such figures as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, and Henry David Thoreau, this movement emphasized intuitive experience of the divine in nature. Jesus was demythologized to an extent beyond that of even the most extreme liberality. It was this individualist and anti-establishment movement that would set the stage for the Humanism of later years (Fisher; Robinson 5, 75-83).

Unitarians became deeply involved in the Abolitionist movements and the Union cause. This cause helped to unite the Unitarians, and Henry W. Bellows, who did much work in the abolitionist and Union cause, saw this as an opportunity to establish Unitarianism as a national denomination, forming the National Conference of Unitarian Churches in 1865. While these attempts to organize Unitarianism were successful, uniting so many individualists and free-thinkers was not easy. These dissidents (successfully) fought any establishment of an official creed by the NCUC (the constitution of the organization, while stating common beliefs of Unitarians, stated that “nothing in this constitution is to be construed as an authoritative test” [qtd. in Robinson 122]) and even formed their own organization, the Free Religious Association, which was a prominent breeding ground for Secular Humanism (Fisher; Robinson 5-7, 83-122).

The first half of the twentieth century saw a vigorous debate between the Humanists and the more traditionally religious in Unitarianism about the importance of God, with the Humanists ultimately coming out on top, although the traditional Humanist image of the goodness and progress of man was challenged by the two World Wars (Fisher; Robinson 7-8, 143-157). It was also during WWII that the modern symbol of Unitarian Universalism, the Flaming Chalice, was developed. It was originally the symbol of the Unitarian Service Committee, which assisted those escaping Nazi persecution (Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Our Symbol”). Unitarians were deeply involved in women’s suffrage, the formation of the United Nations, and the early Civil Rights movement.

We come now to the time of the merger, so let’s first explore the history of Universalism. Theological Universalism is the belief in universal salvation—that a loving God would not send anyone to eternal hell. In some versions of Universalism, hell does exist, but it is only temporary, a place where one becomes cleansed through suffering so that he/she can enter heaven. The Universalists were traditionally more theologically homogenous and more orthodox—they believed in Biblical authority and Christ’s divinity and atonement—than the Unitarians, although they too eventually drifted away from a Christian emphasis.

Like Unitarianism, Universalism has precedents in the Christianity of Biblical times, and Universalists also believed that they were restoring the original teachings of Christ and the early church fathers. Once again, there is Biblical evidence to support their claims. Some early Christians who held Universalist views were St. Clement of Alexandria, who wrote “[s]o He saves all; but some He converts by penalties, others who follow Him of their own will, and in accordance with the worthiness of His honor, that every knee may be bent to Him of celestial, terrestrial and infernal things (Phil. 2:10)” (qtd. by Christian Universalist Association), and his student St. Origen (Christian Universalist Association).

During the Reformation, various sects that held more or less Universalist views sprung up in Europe, including the Anabaptists, Moravians, and Quakers (Christian Universalist Association). However, Universalism did not really come into its own until a series of English Universalists, such as John Murray and Hosea Ballou, brought their beliefs to America in the 1700s. It is interesting how these Universalists turned Calvinism on its head: essentially, it held that ALL people were “predestined” to go to heaven. The Universalists fought against the system of tax support for churches, part of a rebellious tendency that was a defining feature of their history, and were very active in prison reform and Abolition. They were the first denomination, in 1863, to ordain a female minister, Olympia Brown (who incidentally was a former minister of the church I attend, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Greater Bridgeport). In the early 20^th century, this emphasis on social action and a new interpretation of the meaning of “Universalism” began to shift the denomination away from a Christian outlook, though this shift was slower than it was amongst the Unitarians. This new interpretation of the name of the faith emphasized the universality of religion instead of any particular theological position (Christian Universalist Association; Robinson 3-7, 47-73, 123-141; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Universalism”).

The idea of a merger of the two denominations had been floating around since the 19^th century. However, theological and class differences (as stated earlier, the Unitarians tended to be much more rich and influential) made this infeasible, as did the fear amongst Universalists that they would be subsumed by the more powerful and influential Unitarians. By the 60s, however, the denominations had grown very close in theology and outlook, and in 1961 they were merged, forming the Unitarian Universalist Association[3] ^{(Robinson 168-174)}. The emphasis in the early days of Unitarian Universalism, and one of the motivations behind the merger, was social action. UUs were extremely active in the Civil Rights movement (a number of UU ministers were killed for their efforts), gay rights and feminism. There has been an ongoing debate within UU about its role in politics and pacifism (Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Unitarian Universalism”).

In the 1980s, UUs worked to clarify their spiritual views, resulting in the formulation of our Seven Principles and the Sources of our faith:

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

• Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
• Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion and the transforming power of love;
• Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
• Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
• Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
• Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support. (Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Our Principles”)

From its merger, UU has been fraught with spiritual difficulties, unsure of its status as a Christian organization[4], or even one that acknowledged the importance of “God”. Soon, though, the movement was dominated by the Secular Humanism it had inherited from its Unitarian side. However, because of its inclusive nature, UU has embraced many of the New Age spiritual movements of the century, often providing the environment these religious movements needed in order to grow. Humanists have reacted with alarm to the increasingly spiritual emphasis and irrationality they feel the denomination has been embracing over the past 20 or so years, including groups that accept beliefs in magic, tarot readings, visions, etc. Some feel we are becoming the religion that we are often dismissively characterized as, a religion where one can believe whatever they want, and no one is allowed to criticize anyone else’s beliefs. A related issue is to try to determine what exactly it is that holds our denomination together. A firestorm erupted when our latest president, William Sinkford, implored that the UUA “reclaim the holy”, and described the UU mission in explicitly religious and God-affirming terms. Once again, the Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics feel that they are being left out in the cold on the wave of a trendy new spiritualism (Eckstrom; Haught; Higgins; Lee).

For a church with such a history of involvement in Civil Rights and social equity, and which so values multiculturalism, UU faces the fact that it is overwhelmingly white and rich, not only in numbers but also in culture. There is tension over how far we want to go to reach out to ethnic and poor groups, how the needs of those groups should be faced within our congregations, and other such issues (“Racial, multicultural tensions still best Unitarian Universalists”).

Possibly the biggest challenge for modern UU, and indeed the challenge that contains all of the other challenges, is growth. UU is a religion of people who have left other religions or grew up with no religion at all: not many of our members were raised UU. Unfortunately, many of those people define themselves as UU but are not official members: 629,000 adults as of 2001, four times as many as were in official church rolls(Dart).

However, beyond these people who identify themselves as UUs but aren’t in any official relationship with the UU congregations, there are the possibly vast number of people who “were Unitarian Universalists all along and never knew it”, to quote a popular phrase amongst new UUs. And it is in reaching out to these potential members that we face our greatest challenge, a challenge that incorporates our lack of an official creed, the debate between Humanism and Spiritualism, and our struggles with multiculturalism. It was in an effort to reach out that President Sinkford asked that the holy be incorporated into our principles(Eckstrom). How much are we willing to adjust our culture to bring in those who aren’t white and wealthy? How far are we willing to stretch to accept people of more unusual beliefs, or more traditional beliefs that go against the Humanism that has dominated out movement?

It is my belief that in order to survive we have to focus on the goals that I feel are central to UU, as described in Part 1: to grow spiritually and philosophically and to help others do the same, to provide community, and to do what we can to improve, or at least help, humanity and the world. I believe that to grow spiritually and philosophically one has to accept criticism of one’s own beliefs and to allow those beliefs to be held up to the light of reason; I also believe helping others to do the same involves offering that criticism. I think that this would allow the Humanists and Spiritualists to live together respectfully while preventing us from being a religion of believing anything one wants.

Of course, we can’t sit in discussion groups all day discussing our beliefs. We also need to act in the world. An effort to do such not only keeps us strong and healthy, but also increases our visibility. And visibility is, I think, our biggest problem. People simply do not know that we exist. We are, I think, too careful about seeming overbearing that we do not evangelize as we should. I don’t mean evangelize to try to convince people to come to us. I mean evangelize simply to “spread the good news”, to inform people who may want to be a UU if they only knew about and understood us. UUs themselves need to be more visible. I’ve been told that there are UU politicians who do not have their names appear on the public church rolls, that keep their religion secret. There are numerous UU actors, musicians, writers, thinkers, and historical figures (some already mentioned here) that we never hear about: or, if it is mentioned that they are UU, it is only in passing[5].

I think our message is too important to be kept in the dark, away from those who may need it. That’s why I proudly say that I am a Unitarian Universalist, and try to educate others on what we’re about. Perhaps this assignment has helped me to do just that.

Works Cited

Armstrong, Karen. A History of God. New York: Ballantine Books, 1994.

Christian Universalist Association. The History of Universalism. 17 December 2008. 3 December 2009. .

Dart, John. “Churchgoers from elsewhere. (Surveys: 'UUSIM' Unique).” The Christian Century. 5 December 2001:8(2). Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Doerr, Ed. “Humanism and unitarian universalism.” The Humanist. March-April 1998: 37(2). Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Eckstrom, Kevin. “UUs asked to reclaim 'the holy'. (News).” The Christian Century. 14 June 2003: 13. Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Fisher, Chris. A Brief History of Unitarian Christianity. 31 August 2004. American Unitarian Conference. 3 December 2009. .

Haught, James A. “The Unitarian Quandary: Is religious humanism running the humanist religion?” Free Inquiry. Fall 2002: 48(2). Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Higgins, Richard. “A Heated Debate Flares in Unitarian Universalism.” The New York Times. 17 May 2003: B6. Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Johnson, Steven. Interview with Stephen Colbert. The Colbert Report. Comedy Central. 5 March 2009.

Lee, Richard Wayne. “Strained bedfellows: pagans, new agers, and "starchy humanists" in Unitarian Universalism.” Sociology of Religion 56.n4 (1995): 379(18). Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Lewis, Jone Johnson. Famous UUs. 11 Novemeber 2006. 7 December 2009 . Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

“Racial, multicultural tensions still best Unitarian Universalists.(News).” The Christian Century. 24 July 2007: 16. Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Oct. 2009

Robinson, David. The Unitarians and the Universalists. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985.

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Our Principles. 18 November 2009. 3 December 2009. .

—. Our Symbol: the Flaming Chalice. 25 November 2009. 3 December 2009. .

—. Unitarian Universalism. 25 November 2009. 3 December 2009. .

—. Unitarianism. 25 November 2009. 3 December 2009. .

—. Universalism. 25 November 2009. 3 December 2009. .

---

[1] Different from the historical Christian Universalism which was incorporated into Unitarian Universalism.

[2] Our goals, beliefs, and sources are encapsulated in the “Seven Principles” (notice: Principles, not rules) and “Sources of our Faith” developed by the Unitarian Universalist Association. My statements are my own interpretation of what Unitarian Universalism is all about.

[3] However, organizations continued and continue to exist which are specifically Unitarian or Universalist, and more explicitly Christian, such as the American Unitarian Conference and the Christian Universalist Association that I cite.

[4] There is an organization within the UUA for UUs of a Christian outlook, the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (UUFC).

[5] Ray Bradbury, Christopher Reeve, Pete Seeger, Kurt Vonnegut, are just some of the names of contemporary UUs; Millard Fillmore, William Taft, Adlai Stevenson, Louisa May Alcott, P.T. Barnum (a former member of my own church), Ambrose Bierce, e. e. cummings, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Beatrix Potter, Carl Sandberg, Frank Lloyd Wright, Clara Barton, and a sizable number of our Founding Fathers are a few of the names of Unitarians and/or Universalists one finds in history (Lewis).

Speech for Church

This is a speech I had to write for a Youth Service at church (www.uua.org). It's a rehashing of earlier posts (I did it at the last minute, as is usually the case with me), but I think it's worth putting up:

I believe that the protection of individual rights is fundamentally important in human ethics. Without this protection, the most well-meaning moralities can quickly evolve into totalitarianism, authoritarianism, fascism, and so on. This is because morality is centered on the promotion of well-being, and it is not immediately obvious that freedom leads to well-being. Obviously it does when contrasted with a semi-lack of freedom, but what about with a total lack of freedom? After all, if our minds were controlled, we could very well be better off. So while a Utilitarian morality of “the greatest good (or happiness) of the greatest number of people” is, I believe, the best morality we have, it MUST include a clause protecting individual rights.
What then is the fundamental right? What makes it so? Obviously, presence in the Bill of Rights does NOT make something a fundamental right. The right to marriage, the right to bare arms, the right to raise one's children as one sees fit, etc., although they may or may not be rights, cannot be FUNDAMENTAL rights either, since they are dependant on other rights and circumstances.
I believe that there must be a fundamental right for each person to pursue their vision of truth and meaning, to advocate their vision of it, and to be given the greatest opportunity to do both. I believe that this right, a right of thought, is absolute, unlike rights of action.
I come tot his belief by the consideration of three premises:
1. It is uncertain if there is such a thing as truth and meaning, although I believe it is likely that there is.
2. If however there is, it is more important than anything else.
3. It is highly unlikely, in fact I believe impossible, for any person or group of people to know all there is to know about truth and meaning.
The first two premises lead me to a sort of "Pascal's Wager" in regards to truth and meaning: the importance of finding it if it does exist far outweigh the benfits (such as comfort) of restricting people in their search for it whether it exists or not.
There exists, however, the possibility that someone who believes they have found total truth and meaning to then insist that everyone else agree with them: religious authoritarianism and dogmatism is an example. So is racism, sexism, and any other form of prejudice. This is where the third premise comes in.
Both of these arguments are essentially saying the same thing: in restricting the pursuit of truth and meaning to serve what is believed to be "truth and meaning", humanity and individuals are prevented from finding what may be even greater truth and meaning. It does not matter how noble the ideas that are being protected are. A dogmatic belief that humans are basically good, or that every human’s life is important, or that genocide is bad, is still a dogmatic belief. It is possible, though perhaps inconceivable, that these ideas could be wrong, or at least incomplete.
It is pointless to have a right to pursue truth and meaning if we do not have access to ideas though. Therefore, as part of a right to pursue truth and meaning, we also must include the right to access to ideas and a right to education, giving us the opportunities to exercise our right. Children must also be educated to have as open a mind as possible, since beliefs formed during childhood are incredibly difficult to shake off, preventing us from the pursuit. And part of having the access to ideas is that all people have the right to advocate their vision of truth. And we must advocate them forcefully, though not through use of force. This is because one’s search for truth must also be responsible. To often people say “these are my beliefs, and I have a right to my beliefs, so leave me alone”. This is nothing more than dogma on a personal level, and can be just as damaging. For me, pursuing truth and meaning means one must constantly be challenging one's own beliefs, constantly submitting them to change and improvement on logical, empirical, and spiritual grounds. It also means not being afraid of having one's beliefs criticized and challenged by others, but instead considering others' arguments and changing one's beliefs appropriately.
With this right and these reponsibilites, we can move forward, and as a species, grow. If there is no truth, than we have lost little. If there is, though, we stand much to gain as the interaction of our many different ideas allows thought to evolve towards the archetype that is ultimate truth.

Materialism, Spiritualism, and Humanism

(inspired by reading Douglas Hofstadter)
Why should spiritualism and materialism be incompatible? Or spiritualism and humanism?
Consider: materialistically, the human brain is a lump of matter not much bigger than two fists, the thoughts that one perceives nothing than chemical reactions and the firing of neurons. Yet this utterly insignificant lump of chemistry is capable of modeling an entire house, many times bigger than itself. It is capable of perceiving the expansiveness of a mountain range. It is capable of enveloping within it's processes the workings of the universe. And, if this brain is the brain of a fiction writer, of creating and managing universes of its own, such as the worlds of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, which contain within them characters with thought processes seemingly of their own. Is there not something profoundly spiritual in that?
There is room for souls in a materialistic universe, as long as one is willing to expand their notion of a soul, not as some immaterial ghost that inhabits our minds, but as a natural creation of the processes of our brains. This makes it no less real! To say the soul doesn't exist because it's "no more" than chemical reactions...well, one might as well argue that happiness, sadness, love, war, the law do not exist either. These are all ideas, and ideas are "nothing more" than chemical processes, yet they exert an obvious influence on the world, they interact with each other, and they operate in ways of their own (look up emergence theory). Or one could argue that this computer, my chair, cars, blocks of wood, and any other of the many things which to us humans have obvious existence are nothing more than the interaction of subatomic particles. In fact, at a certain level, it IS meaningless to talk about the distinction between objects, because at a small enough level there really isn't any such distinction: you cannot say "that atom belongs to the computer and that atom next to it belongs to the desk". So if one is going to argue that the soul does not exist because it's "nothing more" than a collection of chemical processes one must also be willing to argue that computers, chairs, cars, and block of wood don't exist either. It all becomes very Zen-like, which isn't a problem, but involves operating at an entirely different level. Indeed, it's all a question of levels: you get to the subatomic level and the distinction between objects and the concept of a soul have dissappeared, you get to a galactic level and object and souls are so insignicant that distinctions between them disappear, but somewhere in between, at our level, both exist. These arguments also have obvious implications for God and Religion.
And sepaking of God and Religion, I'd like to address and issue of particular importance to Unitarian-Universalists, but really of importance to everybody: the conflict between Secular Humanism and Spiritualism. I do consider myself unabashedly a Secular Humanist, and the definition fits me to a t, yet I'm embarassed by the allergic reactions many Secular Humanists seem to have to mentions of God or anything spiritual. I think embracing the full meaning of "Humanism" REQUIRES an acceptance and respect of spiritualism, for this too is part of the human experience. Indeed, it is one of the greatest accomplishments of the human creativity which Humanists so admire. I'm not asking for us to give up our commitment to secularism, but instead broaden our concept of it to embrace a definition similar to tah expounded by the Dalai Lama: "I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things." Secularism, and particular Secular Humanism, should not be exclusionary, but inclusionary.

Old FaceBook Note: My thoughts on the UU principles (for my fellow UUs)-Part 1.934

This should really come before my previous post. Anyway, it wraps up my series of old FaceBook notes (thankfully, perhaps). Now on to writing new material!

Just an interesting little idea that came up when I was thinking about all this--the seven principles can sort of be categorized into three groups, as follows. (I say "sort of"--obviously there are a lot of nuances and overlaps that this ignores. But it's still interesting.)

Inherent Worth Principles:
~Justice ("Justice, equity, and...")/Acceptance ("Acceptance of...")
~World Community

Responsible Search/Right of Conscience Principles:
~Spiritual Growth
~Democratic Process

The Interdependant Web Principle
(I've always thought the Interdependant Web principle was sort of the odd one out--it doesn't "follow" from or relate to any of the other principles in any direct way. So it's in it's very own category.)

Old FaceBook Note: My thoughts on the UU principles (for my fellow UUs)- Part 2

For UU info: www.uua.org.

For me, the most important principle is "The free and responsible search for truth and meaning". It is adherence to this principle that prevents Unitarian-Universalism from developing any sort of dogma. For instance, while the principle of "The inherent worth and dignity and each and every person" is a good principle, indeed probably THE most undeniably sacred principle we have (excluding, of course, the free and responsible search for truth and meaning), nevertheless it is theoretically possible that this principle is, in fact, "false" (in quotations because it is impossible for a value judgement such as "worth" to be strictly false), and if contemplation, revelation, and experience reveal it to be false, we need to be able to reject it through the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.(The Inherent Worth principle is an interesting example because, even though it is less important in my mind than the Free and Responsible Search princple, nevertheless the latter, in many ways, depends on the former.)This principle also prevents us from enforcing a viewpoint, however noble it may be, on individuals within our community (and in the world at large)--and that we cannot deny them participation in the community--once again, avoiding dogma (as you may be able to tell, I approach these questions from an individualistic perspective). At the same time, it prevents the individual from enforcing THEIR viewpoint. (Although in both these cases, it is important to be pragmatic: sometimes [indeed usually] the needs of the community require that we enforce some sort of practical viewpoint, usually about proper behavior, to ensure that things run smoothly).However, this does NOT mean that we shouldn't advocate our viewpoints, as a community and as individuals, and advocating them forcefully (but not through use of force) when there is a need to do so. This is because the one's search for truth and meaning has to be free AND responsible. To often the responsibility part is forgotten. UUism is accused by others as being a religion where "you can believe anything you want", and I think often even we as UUs also think that we CAN believe whatever we want. But that is not, in my opinion, responsible. For me, being responsible in one's search for truth and meaning means constantly challenging one's own beliefs, constantly submitting them to change and improvement, on logical, empirical, and spiritual grounds. It also means not being afraid of having one's beliefs criticized and challenged by others, but instead considering others' arguments and changing one's beliefs appropriately. On my part, I try to distrust any comfortably held belief. I also believe I have the right to challenge the beliefs of others, not because I want to convince them of the rightness, necessarily, of my beliefs (although being human, especially a teenage human, it's unlikely I am anything approaching pure in this regard [or any for regards for that matter]), but because I want to "rock the boat" a little, and get them thinking. (Obviously it is unfair for me to insist on challenging the beliefs of someone who is equally insistant that they want me to stop doing so.) There is something that one of the people who ran the "Coming of Age" thing said that sticks with me: "it's not that one has the right to their beliefs, but that they have the right to DEFEND their beliefs".

Old FaceBook Note: My thoughts on the UU principles (for my fellow UUs)-Part 1

For info on Unitarian-Universalism: www.uua.org.

As an exercise, I decided to figure out how I'd organize the 7 principles if it was up to me to do so. I used the following criteria:
Historical Importance
Philosophical Importance
Extent to which people overall consider the principles to be fundamental to their UU identity
A whole lot of personal preference (this was the main criterion, in fact)
and some other stuff which I'll go into eventually.
Obviously, things like "Philosophical Importance" are rather pretentious-sounding, and I'll try to explain my reasoning for the placement of each individual principle in future posts. Mostly I just did this for fun.

So here are the original 7 principles:
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

And here is how I reorganized them:
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning (and the right of conscience);
Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations (and acceptance of one another);
Encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part;
The use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

My basic idea is that the principles are organized in such a way that they are kind of like Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics, in the sense that the ones at the top override the ones at the bottom (not that they are usually contradictory). Also, I imagine that the ones at the top are considered more "sacred", in the sense that they are less open to change than the ones at the bottom (as I said, I'll explain my reasoning).
You'll probably notice that some of the principles look rather different. This is because some of the principles as originally stated were really two principles that had been combined. While these combined principles are similar and closely related, such combinations made it so that they wouldn't fit properly into the system I was trying to devise. I didn't want to get rid of any part of the 7 principles as originally stated, but I also didn't want to turn any one of the principles into two and thereby expand the number of principles to more than seven (seven is a good number for numerical [look up the number 7 in religion, mythology, etc.] and poetic reasons [doesn't "Our 7 principles" just simply sound better than "Our 8 principles" or "Our 9 principles"?].) So what I did was combine the part of the principle that was causing problems with another principle that it fit with better (in my system). So with "Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth..." I moved the "Acceptance" part into the "Justice" principle. And with "The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process", I moved "The right of conscience" into the "Responsible search" principle.

Old Credo

This is something I wrote up for a church "Coming of Age" project about a year ago. Some of the stuff still holds, some of it doesn't, but I thought it would make a good intro to this adventure in blogging:

I believe that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. I am a skeptic and aknowlege that everything I know is known only through my senses and my opininions, which may be deceiving me.

I call myself an “Athgnostic”, sort of a cross between an agnostic and an atheist. I don’t, in my heart, believe in god and, more and more, I don’t feel a desire for god, which is how I am an Atheist. However, I intellectually acknowledge room, and quite a lot room, in fact, for doubt about gods non-existence, which is how I am an agnostic. But I don’t believe or want there to be one.

I’m doubting more and more the existence of an afterlife, not only because of evidence (which is ambiguous on both sides of the debate), but also because I am wondering whether there even needs to be one. As I believe Buddha said, and Hume definitely said (as long as I trust my philosophy textbook), and that I first came across in a book by Richard Dawkins, we are not the same person as we were, say, 10 years ago, especially someone like me who is 15 and ten years ago was 5. So then, in a way, who we were 10 years ago is dead, and our biological death is only the next step in that cycle of change.

I believe in a spirituality based science. Science can satisfy the spiritual need. Imagine: everything we know was once compressed into a dense point of matter; everything was once indistuingishable from everything else, was once all one and the same. The theory of evolution says that all creatured evolved from a common ancestor. We are attempting to find the “theory of everything”. That is what science continues, over and over, to discover: that everything, if one searches hard enough, eventually reduces to one substance, ancestor, principle. Everything is, in a sense, one, and in, to me, a much more majestic sense then having all been created by one Judeo-Christian god 6,000 years ago, or any other god. At any other time. I believe this furnishes a sense of empathy towards all other things and people, and a realization that we are no more important, ultimately, then anything else. The human race, if it wants to be important, has to make itself important, and the best and most reliable way that we can insure that we will have the opportunity to do so is by protecting our own existence, and, because of the SCIENTIFC laws of nature, in order to protect our own existence we must protect the existence of what is around us.

I believe the best way to do so that we know of so far is through Utilitarian ethics, the belief, as I interpret it for my own, that what is right is what causes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of beings, what is wrong is what does the opposite. Sometimes we must cause imediate pain, sometimes great, in order to reach this goal. I believe in the golden rule.

I believe that this eliminates the need for blame or the concept of evil. I think what we consider evil (and also what we consider good) is only a combination of people’s disposition and upbringing. Instead of people being evil, they could be considered harmful in the Utilitarian sense of causing pain, and therefore not punished for being evil, but worked with (sometimes including punishment) to hopefully make them, not only less harmful, but hopefully beneficial.

I believe that it is my purpose in life to make and help people examine their won beliefs because I cannot prove that their beliefs are true or false, but I can show with certainty that they are self-contradictory. My hope, that I will never fulfill because I am human, is that I can learn not tto care what people believe as long as their beliefs are self-consistent and aren’t detrimental to an application of Utilitarianism.

I also think it is my purpose to be a UU evangelist. I mean evangelist in the literal sense of the word, in that I want to be someone who spreads the message of UU, and draws people to it. Actually, to be honest, my goal is to become rich and famous so everyone knows about me and, knowing I’m UU, become UU themselves. My hope is to do this though music, film, and other art, and possibly books explaining UU. I do believe that it is the religion that best suits me and that, at the risk of tootling UU’s horn, if more people were UU or followed its ideals (I say ideals instead of principles because the principles, in my opinion, are imperfect and secondary), the world would be a better place