In part 1 I noted that I had previously posted with regards to Unitarian Universalism and had some very interesting comments by a reader. Also, I had previously considered the attempts, hopes and/or wishes of the “New Atheists” to establish a new atheist religion. I have been commenting on a sermon by Unitarian Universalist, Rev. Rod Richards, entitled, Godless: Atheism in Our Language, Our Culture, and Our Movement
Rev. Rod Richards makes a very telling and accurate statement about atheism and apparently, Unitarian Universalism as well:
“But the truth is that atheists may well phrase the question differently. They may look at the wonder of that which is; the unlikely circumstance of our being and the wondrous ability of consciousness; the joys and sorrows of each day; the pain and passion and power of human connection…they may ask one to pay attention to the wind and the stars; to the faces around you; to the challenges we face in the world and the gift of existence itself, and ask: Is this not enough?” [ellipses in original]
Indeed, atheists, et al, are seeking to replace the normal human desire for transcendence, a desire which is illogical and unnatural on atheism, they seek to fill that God shaped void in every human heart by taking awe in nature. Of course, this is neo-Paganism and that which the New Testament predicted:
“_ men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man_
who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:18-23, 25).”
Ridding themselves of God, atheists irrationally still seek for something more grandiose, transcendent and awe inspiring. Christians can likewise take awe of nature, or in nature, but would see it as awe in God’s creation and not awe in the beauty of an accident.
In other words, Christians do not receive a gift and say, “Oh gift, you are so wonderful, I am in awe of you gift, I love you gift, I adore you gift.” Rather, they would say, “This is a wonderful gift and I am in awe and adoration of the God who gave it to us.”
Yet, Rev. Rod Richards was not done but continued his “Is this not enough?” statement thusly,
“Can we afford to focus on transcendent realms when so much is right in front of us?Can we afford to squander what is before us in hopes of some unclear future reward?
Is religion meant to pull us away from this life, or to ground us in its beauty?”
Of course, this is falsely dichotomous: we do not have to choose one over the other and in fact it is those Judeo-Christians (and other theists) who believe in this world and also the one to come who have been known throughout history to establish, fund and manage charities, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, disaster relief organizations, hospitals, universities, adoption agencies, foster homes, etc., etc., etc.
Meanwhile, atheists are not particularly known for any such thing. In fact, religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals,
“…’For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice’…
people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least.’”1
“In 2000, religious people gave about three and a half times as much as secular people…br />religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals…religious people are more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood, and return money when they are accidentally given too much change. ‘There is not one measurably significant way I have ever found in which religious people are not more charitable than nonreligious people,’ Mr. [Arthur] Brooks says…households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more…
religious people, on average, give 54 percent more per year than secular people to human-welfare charities.”2
[atheists and agnostics] “are less likely than active-faith Americans to…volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit…to describe themselves as ‘active in the community’…and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person…The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics.
In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults…atheists and agnostics were more likely than were Christians to be focused on…acquiring wealth.’”3
Moreover, in a time of world-wide recession the atheists of the UK and USA have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars/pounds not in order to help anyone in any way but in order to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves.
Now, to the issue of atheists in the church attending services: of course, they should not be withheld from doing so. They are to be welcomed, loved, dialogued with and only ousted if it becomes obvious that they are not there to learn or merely dialogue but if they are the militant activist type who turn every sermon into an occasion to besmirch God and His followers.
Yet, the question that remains in my mind, “Why would atheists attend church services?”Surely, for various reasons and certainly I could not generalize in stating “Any atheist that does so is doing so because…”One reason, of course, would be to learn what “the other side” has to say or in order to gain knowledge that goes beyond the Sunday School level (a level at which many, particularly the most outspoken New Atheist celebrity types, are stuck).
Yet, Rev. Rod Richards presents another reason. He had concluded his sermon by, again, approvingly and uncritically quoting Prof. Richard Dawkins’ statement, “There is more than just grandeur in this view of life…There is deep refreshment to be had from standing up and facing straight into the strong keen wind of understanding” [ellipses in original].
As it turns out, and “coincidence” is not a kosher word, I found myself reading Rev. Rod Richards’ sermon on the same day that I was reading Magnus Linklater’s article, Like Any Half-Decent Atheist, I’m Fond of a Bit Of Religion. In that article he notes that he finds “the militant convictions of the anti-religionists so chilling” and that he finds himself “repelled by” the manner in which Prof. Richard Dawkins argues against religious arguments and states, “Methinks the Professor takes a little too much satisfaction in the eloquence of his own metaphors and too little account of the richness of the alternatives.”
In light of these sentiments, he further writes that despite the fact that he does indeed agree with atheists arguing against theists:
“I cannot, however, share Professor Dawkins’s contempt for what he sees as the vacuity of those who proclaim their doubts about an external God, but still cling to the traditions or the comfort of organised [sic] religion…I stood, earlier this week, at a funeral where the bereaved family – not themselves believers – took deep solace from a Presbyterian service, with hymns whose lines were rich in language and faith. We listened to words from Proverbs about the virtuous woman who is ‘a crown to her husband’, and felt that the surroundings of an ancient church were perfectly in tune with the messages of love and remembrance that ran through the service.By the end of it, my atheism was still intact, but I was very glad to have been there. I cannot, like Professor Dawkins, think the less of anyone who takes pleasure from a familiar liturgy, nor deride those who fall back on a Church whose central tenets they reject…He compares those who take comfort from traditional religion to people stuck for the night on a bare mountain, who warm to the appearance of a large St Bernard dog, ‘not forgetting, of course, the brandy barrel around its neck’.
Death, he says, is something to be approached without hope or fear. It is far more invigorating to face ‘the strong keen wind of understanding’, which comes with a complete absence of faith, than to cling to ‘the security blanket of ignorance’.”
Does the last line sound familiar? Indeed, it was the one quoted, in part, by Rev. Rod Richards who apparently, was kind enough, this time, to remove the reference to the ignorance of those with whom Prof. Richard Dawkins disagrees (in that same statement Prof. Richard Dawkins makes further reference to “cheap comforts” and “comfortable lies”).
I am empathetic to the fact that to people such as Rev. Rod Richards taking deep solace from a service, with hymns with rich in language and faith is a wonderful thing and, in fact, that which he drove towards in his sermon. You can have it all: the community, the communion, the “church,” the hymns, the religious regalia, the rich language, the “faith” and still maintain your atheism.
Yet, I, now I speak as a Judeo-Christian, find myself deeply saddened by this. Why?God has made it clear that religion is of no effect; at most it once served the benefit of raising up a people, who had been indoctrinated and institutionalized as slaves for centuries, into people who would, and this is key, know God.
God has made it clear that even professing belief in Him, that is to say; making a mere intellectual ascent, is of no effect,
“You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble!” (James 2:19)
To loosely paraphrase: You believe that there is one God? Well, that’s just super. You are holding the very same theological position as demons and they, at least, have the good sense to tremble.
Nay, belief is not the point, relationship is the point, Jesus said,
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matthew 7:21-23).
We did this and we did that, great, but the point is that for whatever reason they did not, perhaps they did not care to, develop a relationship with God, with Jesus. Thank God that God does not base our salvation according to deeds; for this would set up a competition and who could compete with a Mother Theresa or a Father Damien?
I sympathize and can empathize with the family and it is certainly difficult to be critical of their attendance at a funeral. Yet, I must point out that it is philosophically, psychologically, and theologically fascinating that they find any sort of comfort in a display, for the eyes and ears, of that which they do not believe.
I could not imagine myself at a Unitarian Universalist service and singing the praises of nature’s laws or stroking my ego by engaging in the “spiritual” equivalent of self-esteem-positive-affirmation.
Ultimately, it appears that what atheists seek and find in Unitarian Universalism is the same thing that the liberals of any religion find there: comfort.Yet, it is the sort of comfort that comes by seeking fulfillment in empty form; all of the religious fineries without that to which religion is supposed to point: God.It is the fulfillment of merely looking at a buffet, not eating anything, and then thinking that you have the energy to run a marathon.It is an empty shell, a white washed sepulcher.It is the sort of comfort that CS Lewis elucidated so very well:
“One reason why many people find Creative Evolution [aka Life-Force philosophy] so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.
When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest.
If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children.
The Life-Force is a sort of tame God.
You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you.
All the thrills of religion and none of the cost.
Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?”4
Honestly, I cannot discern any difference between Rev. Rod Richards’ sermon and the atheist propaganda with which I am constantly dealing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Twitter: #Unitarian, #Universalism, #Theology
Facebook: #Unitarian, #Universalism, #Theology
‹ The Godless Church of Unitarian Universalism, part 1 of 2 up