sometimes it's very frustrating to remain UU when my own religion keeps trying to exclude me

[edenfalling]

I borrowed a book from our DRE a couple weeks ago, mostly for my general edification but at least partially because I knew I was going to have a kid in RE this year who has a history of being disruptive in class -- very high energy and all over the place. So I picked up Jennifer's copy of Welcoming Children with Special Needs: A Guidebook for Faith Communities, by Sally Patton.

...I am reminded yet again why I find the vast majority of books with a religious perspective (rather than books about religion from a historical or sociological or comparative religions perspective) cloying at best and outright infuriating at worst.

I mean, this one opens the introduction with the following sentence: "If we believe that every person is born with a mission and a purpose, what does this mean for our ministry to children with special challenges?"

To which my immediate response is, "But I don't believe that. I don't think anyone is born with a mission and a purpose. That implies there is a "meaning of life" to which individual lives conform. But there is no meaning to life. The universe just is. Life just is. If anyone thinks they have a purpose, it is because they chose to have that purpose and live accordingly. If anyone thinks their life has meaning, it's because they chose to invest it with that meaning. I think choice is much more awe-inspiring than some deity or principle handing out assignments."

That is a perfectly valid religious perspective, damn it all, and I wish one day I would encounter a book written by someone who shares that idea without being a Richard Dawkins-style anti-organized-religion militant atheist.

*sulks*

I can't speak for the rest of the book, as I'm still in the introductory chapters where Patton talks about general theory and congregational task forces and stuff. I may report back when I reach the parts with more practical classroom details.

Comments

[grikmeer.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem there, at least from my perspective, is that you are only the second religious person I've met and/or heard of who doesn't believe that there is some external meaning to life.

I have pretty much the same perspective as you, although I don't describe it as religious. I probably fall into your 'militant atheist' category. I've never liked the term 'Militant' atheist, while I know that by the dictionary definition it could be applicable, the connotations of military structure and behaviour seem inappropriate to me.

[edenfalling]

Yeah, I know I am a minority view among people who choose to belong to and participate in an organized religious group. But still! UUism is explicitly an organized religion based on values rather than beliefs, and secular humanism has been a huge influence on the denomination over the decades. Yet our books still seem to espouse the "belief and meaning" aspect of religion. *sigh*

In point of fact, I am all for more ritual-based and let's-invoke-feelings-of-spiritual-connection/awe worship services, rather than the lecture-style services one often encounters in UU congregations, but I don't see that "wow, the universe is awesome and we're all a part of it," necessarily leads to "wow, the universe has meaning, and therefore so does my life." *deeper sigh*

Mmm, yeah, "militant" atheist is a bit of a contradiction in terms by some definitions of "militant." I just don't know another way to get the idea across without spending a paragraph explaining myself. I can edit it out of the post if you'd like. :-)

(Tangentially, I think what mostly gets my back up about Dawkins is not his personal beliefs about the universe -- I agree with most of those. What drives me nuts is his attitude toward religion in general, as if he's trying to define all religion as about god(s)-and-only-god(s), and take things like a sense of awe and wonder at the universe and say, "But of course that's not a religious impulse; that's just being scientifically aware," or something like that. *makes face* I really do have to get all the way through his book about religion one of these days, so I can argue with all the facts, but the two times I've tried I just got so angry I had to return it to the library unfinished lest I throw it across the room. *deepest sigh*

[grikmeer.livejournal.com]

I actually agree largely with what Dawkins says in The God Delusion. Although he does specify in the book that he's talking about god-based religions, which may well be why he appears to be ignoring godless belief systems.

For the most part, I think the awe and wonder of the universe is enough, without having to dress it up in ritual and services. As soon as you start doing that, something changes and people start turning it into a new brand of religion.

One of the most surprisingly dangerous belief systems, which seems to have flourished in just that way, are some of the 'new age' believers. The people who insist that homoeopathy should be paid for by the NHS (in my country - it is at the moment) or by insurance providers (in yours - some do, some don't) despite the fact that it DOESN'T work. Every single test, every shred of evidence shows that it doesn't work any better than placebo. Or the faith healers, or psychics etc. etc.

I'm all for awe and wonder; Carl Sagan's Cosmos reduces me to tears of joy every time I watch it. I just like there to be evidence for the wonderful things out there. And if there isn't evidence, then in all likelihood, it's just a pleasant (or not-so-pleasant, in the case of the Bible and the Qur'an) fairy story...

[edenfalling]

Homeopathy is just... argh. It makes no sense in about a thousand ways. I mean, small quantities of a substance have stronger effects than large quantities? Water has memory? Seriously, no.

I actually grew up holding the Bible on exactly the same mental level as fairy tales -- I had a collection of Grimm, a collection of Anderson, a book of Greek myths, a book of Norse myths, and a book of Bibles stories. So the Judeo-Christian god has, for me, the exact same degree of reality as Snow White's evil stepmother. Which is not to say they have no reality -- stories can have very powerful effects on people's thoughts and actions -- but it's not the same reality as, say, the chair I am sitting on as I type these words. That god is a symbol, nothing more, nothing less.

I like rituals and services because they create a sense of community. I think community, charity, and social justice are facets of organized religion that often get overlooked when people focus on belief. (Also, music!) If I didn't think those things were important, I would go off and be skeptical and vaguely spiritual on my own, as many people who are raised UU tend to do. But I do think community is important -- it is something that I have decided to care about -- and so I am a signed and pledging member of my congregation, I teach religious education each year, I attend services now and then, and I occasionally volunteer in other ways as well. That is what works for me right now. :-)

[grikmeer.livejournal.com]

Oh, and no need to remove 'militant' atheist. It's an understandable definition. I'm just not keen on the connection with the I.R.A. (being half-Irish living in England'll do that to you ;) )

[emmee-kay.livejournal.com]

Annoying. I really would have thought that the UU would be beyond that line of thinking, and that their textbooks would have more arm-waving about whether or not there is a "god-given mission" to one's life. What with their tradition of accepting scientific inquiry and scepticism. (At least, given my brief experience with them when I lived elsewhere. I'm very fond of the denomination. There just isn't a local congregation.) Maybe the operative word is "if"? (Now I've got to go and look up the UU principles again.)

Quick joke: How do you know a Unitarian is mad at you?
Answer: You wake up to find a burning question mark on your lawn.

[emmee-kay.livejournal.com]

I was thinking about something Anne Lamott wrote (and please don't judge me by her Jesus-freakiness (her words) - but I'm not so Jesus-focusy).

About how she had a friend who gave birth to a baby that had some problems and how they were atheists and they could not derive comfort from a sense of purpose for their child, unlike her. (I may be misremembering.)

So, maybe if someone has a special needs child, it helps them (or gives comfort somehow) to believe there is a special mission or god-given intent for that child, instead of random, statistical happenstance?

I don't know - I don't mean to argue your point. It's just a thought.

[edenfalling]

I can certainly see how a belief in purpose and meaning could be more important for someone dealing with more encompassing challenges than I have to deal with. :-) I just find it annoying to have people presuppose that I also believe in external purpose and meaning.

I have run across this assumption before, in less fraught contexts. For example, there is a lovely man who helps organize the lay-led summer services at my church. Each year he picks a theme, and people give sermons closely (or tenuously) related to it. A couple years ago, he picked a theme of "the meaning of life," or something along those lines. I was in a young adult group at the time, and four of us jointly led one of the services. In my section, I said something to the effect of, "I don't believe there is any purpose or meaning to life. In fact, when I was trying to find one, that only worsened my clinical depression. I believe that not searching for purpose and meaning -- accepting that the world just is and I just am -- is one of the changes in my habits of thought that helped me climb out of my mental well and back to level ground." Which is pretty clear, right? Except that after the service, the very nice man came up and said to me, "So you believe that the purpose of life is to accept yourself and find peace with the world?" and I just wanted to beat my head into the wall, because he had completely missed the point. *sigh*