No February Meeting;

In This Issue…

"Science and Religion: Conflict or Conciliation." By Gene Barmore.

Quote of the Month by Rev. Karen Stoyanoff.

"Understanding Unitarian Universalism." By Dave Silva.

"Humanism." By Rev. Karen Stoyanoff.

"Joseph Campbell and the Masks of Eternity." By Clay Costner, Ph.D.

"I Am Now a Believer!" By Benito Franqui.

"Reflections on the Question: Must a Moral Person Be Altruistic and Compassionate?" By Juan Bernal, Ph.D.

"Pretty Good Joke." Humor contributed by Harry Becker.

At Our December 19^th Meeting. Sunday 2pm

"Science and Religion: Conflict or Conciliation"

A Panel Discussion

By Gene Barmore

The relationship of science and religion will be the subject of a panel discussion at the December 19 meeting. The July/August issue of the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER is devoted to this subject, and is the principal basis for the panel’s offerings. A copy of the magazine will be available for circulation among the membership.

Benito Franqui will discuss the ideas espoused by Stephen Jay Gould in the magazine and in his recent book, "ROCKS OF AGES." Gould maintains that a complete separation of the two areas of teaching authority is best for both. That religion should yield to science the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory), while science should not encroach upon religion’s area of authority, moral meaning and values.

Juan Bernal will discuss Richard Dawkins's quite contrary views, arguing that morals are largely societal, not scriptural, and that religion necessarily invades scientific areas when it teaches such concepts as the assumption of Mary and the existence of angels.

Gene Barmore will explain the "accommodation" model and the engagement" model of the relationship as proposed by Eugenie Scott. There are two quite different engagement models. One is the "theistic science" of fundamentalist creationism. Says Scott, "Its growth would be detrimental to science as a whole, and to public understanding of science." But she sees the mainstream science and religion movement" as contributing to public acceptance of teaching evolution in the public schools.

A general discussion will follow the panel.

Quote of the Month

Humanism would worship, or celebrate, work… growth… love… family… death… life… and reverence for the unity of nature. And that's just a small list of the values that Humanists would hold dear.

Karen Stoyanoff, from her sermon "Humanism" The complete text can be viewed on the internet at www.ocuuc.org or at HAOC's website listed on the front pape.

UNDERSTANDING UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM

By Dave Silva

After listening to Reverend Karen Stoyanoff, at our last meeting, and the discussion that followed I think I understand UU philosophy in a way I had not before. I belong to a UU Fellowship that meets once a month with a dinner and speaker on topics as diverse as "The importance of Plants in Our Lives" to "Human Rights Violations Against Women in Afghanistan".

The people there were very nice and those who weren't freethinkers were very liberal in their views. However, they seemed to lack focus; they all seemed to believe something slightly different from each other. What was it that bound them together?

For the Humanist words like "church" and "religion" often conjure up negative images such as, dogma authoritarianism, children being indoctrinated with faith in miracles and the supernatural. Then again, "church" can mean people getting together with friends and neighbors in harmony and community. What if you could eliminate those bad things and still keep the good?

Karen said that there came a time in her life where she had to reject certain orthodox church beliefs. She had to make her own spiritual journey based on her common sense and experience. This is what makes the UU church radically different from other western religions. The individual embarks on a spiritual quest that isn't dictated by dogma. UU's are free to choose ideas from Christianity, Humanism, Buddhism or maybe the U.S Constitution; in fact, they are encouraged to do so.

How can such individual diversity work under one banner? The key is acceptance …. not tolerance, but acceptance. While many churches pride themselves on being tolerant a gay person I know put it this way, "Would you want to be tolerated?" Karen and her husband hold different views on aspects of UU philosophy, but that simply isn't a problem. That doesn't mean that UU's don't have principles that are clearly defined; you can find them listed under principles and purposes at their website. UU programs provide support for individuals in the hard work of living their values.

Pat Bryant said that it takes about seven weeks to get a real feel of what UU is about. An example of their diverse activities is on Dec. 22^nd, at 4:30, they will hold "Second Annual Solstice Sunset Potluck and First Annual Spiral Dance."

We were glad to meet Karen and all the UU's who came to our meeting and let them know they are always welcome.

Humanism

The Rev. Karen Stoyanoff, Ph.D., Revised for OCUUC March 23,1999

Well, speaking of being flexible.. When I first thought about this morning’s service, it occurred

to me that in an introductory sermon about humanism, I probably wouldn’t have a lot to say, so it was a great Sunday to have all these extra "things" in it; but you know how life is . as I started putting the sermon together it got longer and longer. so, I’m going to try and roll with the punches here and see if I can bring us in close to on-time.

Our list of sources of wisdom makes clear that we draw from many places. We have an obligation to explore the world’s religions, in our quest for knowledge and understanding. And our Fifth "source" specifically invites us to look to humanist teachings, which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason, and the results of science, and warn us against the idolatries of the mind and spirit.

This morning what I’m going to do is present an introductory look at this 20th Century philosophy — that is so closely associated with both Unitarians and Universalists; and in the process, I going to note that this movement once again proves that there really is, "nothing new, under the sun." It’s universal in its content, and in its application. You will hear echoes of the values that are found in many religions. And, it is clearly reflected in the Closing Words that I have chosen for today. I’ll invite you to listen and hear this: Closing Words that come from an ancient, Sanskrit scroll. Humanism, is something that has been with us --always.

Now, often, humanists are accused of thinking negatively, and sometimes when we hear what they have to say it’s possible to believe that, or instance: humanists will say that they know there is no supreme power, with a human face, that controls us. And they will say, as was said in one of the books that I looked at this week, that they don’t believe that they are "in the waiting

• room" to enter either heaven or hell; and they don’t believe that there are any sacred scriptures, or divine revelations.

But in spite of the fact this sounds negative, probably the most predominant characteristic of humanism, is its optimism. They are definitely positivists! And they claim that, for themselves. They reinforce the positive aspects of thinking rationally... what we have held dear, and it no longer works, and it no longer reflects the way we understand our universe.

And seventh: humanists believe -- experience is our guide. If things are evolving, than we need to be open to change. We also need to understand that we have a lot of knowledge, from what has happened in our life, and we need to pay attention to it .. we need to learn from the things that have been true in the past —and I like this balance and this tension, between the need to look forward, to be open to change, to be willing to give up, and the need to learn from what life has offered us up to now.

Certainly, as a humanist, one would tell you that this means you practice the scientific method and learn from observation, and it also means you learn from history, always remembering:

evolution.

And then, there’s an "eighth" point, which I thought was really wonderful as maybe a summation of that which is significant about humanism, and that is, humanists believe that the meaning of life is what we give to it.

I think I could probably take the points from this and do a whole next year’s worth of sermons,

if I just use each one of these . .each one of those points is so FULL, and has so much richness in it, that each one is worth looking at, as an individual thing —but certainly, an understanding, that "the meaning of life is what we give to it" . what a wonderful and also almost terrifying responsibility that offers to us! == LIFE WILL BE WHAT WE MAKE IT.

O.K. Now another point about humanism, that I think is worth mentioning in this introductory approach to it, is that humanism brings together both the subjective and the objective, because this is another way in which people often misunderstand humanism; they think that humanists are only pragmatists and that they only want to believe in what can be scientifically proven. But that’s missing the point . .of what makes life as a humanist very rich. It’s no accident that I chose to do my first meditation in this congregation, on the Sunday that I was talking about humanism. I want you to be aware, that humanists are first of all, fully capable of awe at the marvels of the world, such as the beauties of nature; secondly, they are fully capable of being passionate about causes, of responding to the world, not only through reason but also, through the emotion that being part of community, part of the "interdependent web" is always going to generate. And thirdly, they are capable of introspection --to increase both self-understanding and to incorporate knowledge and experience into the whole of their lives. ALL of these things, are in addition to, a real concentration on scientific understanding, on observation, and dealing with reality as we know it.

And then I think the one other that, maybe is most important to me, is that humanists are fully capable of Love. You cannot be part of. community’ —you cannot cherish the earth --without Love. And that is a subjective thing. And all of these points lead to a sense of worship; now there are some humanists . .1 dealt with a whole congregation of them last year, who had real trouble with the word "worship" because they saw that word as meaning: God. Or a supernatural being. And they didn’t See, how it connects to other kinds of appreciation, and love, and a sense of wonder.

But humanists would be willing to celebrate the wonders, and recognize the beauty and the glory, of what life has to offer. They don’t automatically oppose ceremony and ritual —they understand that for some people it helps them to feel things more deeply. And this is a significant part, of fully experiencing life.

One of the sources I consulted on humanism suggested that the symbols and rituals of humanism would center around some different things; so I want to offer you those possibilities:

Humanism would worship, or celebrate, work.. growth.. love .. family.. death.. life., and reverence for the unity of nature. And that’s just a small list of the values that humanists would hold dear.

SO, What does this have to do with us? With our religion as Unitarian- Universalists? Have you ever been someplace where someone said to you: "UU’s don’t believe in God? Then they aren’t really a religion?" I have. And I find that very upsetting. It was said, by the way, at the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions although I am happy to report NOT about UU’s; but I still felt a little bit like maybe I should go hide in a corner because if anyone spotted me it might be expanded. At any rate, I think that an understanding of humanists, and humanism, can help us to understand why we are a religion. Some people would call a religion something that was about a system of faith or worship; and faith is a big issue. One of our predominant UU ministers does a whole revival service, in which he talks about how humanist UU’s have "faith."

Most of you in this room, have ‘Faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow.(And I don’t want to know, if you’re one of the ones who doesn’t have faith in that!) (Chuckles.) But there are things that we have faith in, even when we don’t define it in exactly the same way that people who have a "theology" that involves a supernatural have.

If you want to talk more about faith (this is going to be a small commercial): I invite you to come to the first "Movies With the Minister", in which this is going to be the topic of our discussion, and we can go into that more. But at any rate, I think worship and religion shouldn’t only be defined as relating to God, but rather the time we spend, appreciating or even adoring, whatever it is that we are in awe of, or we hold dear. There are other definitions of religion, and worship, which bring us even closer to a humanist philosophy. A. Eustis Hayden, who was a professor of comparative religion at the University of Chicago, said that religion is "the shared quest of the good life", and Alfred North Whitehead said, "it simply is, what the individual does with his solitariness." And if we look at it that way, and we understand that all of us are here — trying to figure out what life means, and how we can live life, most fully, and in a way that fits our values-- humanism is definitely a religion.

So what do we gain from humanism? Well first of all, if we espouse humanist philosophy, the battle between science and religion dies down, because there is no argument. Humanists would say science is the "tool" that teaches us the meaning of life, that teaches us how we may understand what life is about. And this echoes also the theology of Henry Nelson Weinman, whom I talked about a couple weeks ago. And our spirituality then, is no longer inconsistent with our reality: the things that we feel close about . .the things that we feel in awe of.. are no longer in opposition to that which say is our understanding of what life is all about.

Some people seem to think that humanists and theists must be at odds with one another: well Cynthia Johnson, who is our UU minister in Oklahoma City, told me a few years ago about the

concept of the "rational mystic" . and that is what I decided I would call myself. The rational mystic is someone who understands their world primarily with their rational sense, but is open to awe and wonder and beauty, and an appreciation of it. The question of whether you are a "theist" or a "non-theist" becomes absolutely irrelevant when you look at it that way. We are ALL humanists --every one of us in this room, holds dear most if not all of the things that I have named today as humanist beliefs. Our (UUA) Principles shout them out! We may differ in how we package those beliefs and understandings and values; some of us may not want to stop with humanist beliefs —but fundamentally we are in accord.

And today I’d like to close with a quote from John Dietrich, one of the authors of the Humanist Manifesto. He said,

For centuries, the idea of God has been the very heart of religion; it has been said, . no god, no religion’ — but humanism thinks of religion as something very different, and far deeper than any belief in god. To humanism, religion is not the attempt to establish right relations with a supernatural being, but rather the up-reaching and aspiring impulse in a human life. It is life striving for its completest fulfillment, and anything which contributes to this fulfillment is religious, whether it be associated with the idea of god, or not.

May it be so.

Joseph Campbell and the Masks of Eternity

By Clay Costner, Ph.D

Joseph Campbell was President of The American Society for the Study of Religion. He died in 1988. He was a Professor at Sara Lawrence College, prolific writer, scholar supreme and student and teacher of the profound truths found in all of the great mythologies, (including religious mythologies), of the world. A few thoughts of Joseph Campbell follow:

"God transcends thought, He is beyond being. Is He or is He not? He who thinks he knows, knows not. He who thinks he doesn’t know, knows." I was reminded of a story about Socrates and the Sophists. The Sophists were teachers in Socrates’ day, who charged money for their teaching and they claimed to know everything. Socrates would not accept money for his teaching. Socrates said of the Sophists: "They think that they know everything, but they know nothing. I know nothing and I know that I know nothing." I believe that Socrates concluded that he was at least smarter than the Sophists, because at least he knew that he knew nothing. I was reminded what Dave Davis once said about truth. "Know the Truth and the Truth shall make you arrogant." The Sophists were certainly arrogant, Socrates was not.

Campbell said "every religion is true as METAPHORICAL." Campbell’s religion seems to be very similar to that of Albert Einstein who was a humanist and pacifist. Einstein claimed to have a profound religious view of the Great Mysteriousness of the Universe. As a child, Campbell was raised a Catholic? "I was taught that I had an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. This angel and devil were facts, where the Church tried to taucratize (spelling not found) or put into words, the metaphors." Campbell once met a Priest after a swimming pool workout. The priest started the conversation that went like this.

Priest: "Are you a priest?" Campbell: "No." Priest: "Are you a Catholic?" Campbell:

"I was." Priest: "Do you believe in a personal God?" Campbell: "No." Priest: "I guess that there is no way by logic to prove to you that there is a personal God?" Campbell: If there were then there would be no need of Faith!" Priest: "Good day, professor."

In one mythology, God rides by on a horse with a blue hat on one side and a red hat on the other side. The next time he rides by he turns his hat around so that some people see God as wearing a red hat and some a blue hat. And then Campbell says that some myths suggest that "Spreading strife is God’s greatest joy." Later he says, "Religion is a defense against a religious experience." "An image of God (the Unknowable) is a final obstruction." I once read a book titled: "Your God is too small!" My conclusion was that this man’s image of God was also too small.

Campbell says, "Myths refer to what can’t be known and what can’t be named. As a youth. I was taught that God was a bearded old man with not very pleasant attributes." "God is a thought, that transcends all thought." Campbell talks of the "rapture of being alive", "following your bliss", and "What is the meaning of the Flower?, The Pieta?, The Flea?, The Universe?" All good points for discussion.

Campbell suggests: "God is within you, there is a divinity in nature." "In the Western tradition Nature is corrupt." And there is a duality of good and bad. "In Japan. most have never heard of the fall in Eden, and yet there is a glorious interest in the beauty of nature."

According to one of the Eastern Gods "Enumbrete"( spelling not found.) "I am in this creation, the hands together signifies, God is within you or the Creator is within." At one point, Campbell says to Bill Moyers: "You are God!" See, Tolstoy’s short story: "God is within you." Again, Enumbrete (I think Campbell said that be was one of the Hindu Gods", said, "Life begins with the eating of the fruit." Enumbrete said: "Who told you to eat the fruit? Snake did! Who gave you the fruit? She did!" Campbell says that the snake sheds its skin representing a new life of the Spirit, and that women represent life.

Campbell quotes Shopenhauer in saying: "The world should never have been created." Campbell disagrees and says that it is "childish to say no to life." He quotes Kazansakis’ Zorba, who says: "Life is trouble, only death is not." In the Hindu tradition, "the universe is divine." Campbell says, "Who are we to say no, who are we to judge?" Buddha, says that "all life is sorrowful," and Joyce claims that "Life is a nightmare from which I am trying to Awake?" Campbell suggests that Nihilism is not necessary instead we should say that, "I will participate in life" At another point, he suggests "that we should enter the army to stop a man like Hitler." "Say yes to life."

Campbell said that religion is "the ambiance in which you live and is beautiful." He also said that losing one’s faith is no fun. His started with Biology, and the Scopes Trial of 1925. He said that the Virgin Birth represents the birth in the heart of the Spirit. "Christ and Buddha are identical ideas, ultimates that transcend all thought. Transcending all and not capable of words." (my reaction) Jesus said, "Love your Enemies." Buddha said, "Never hurt anyone." Too often in History, Christians have said, "Convert to Christianity of die." Tens of Thousands of Hindus were killed in the ₁₆th century because they refused to convert to Christianity.

He again quotes Shopenhauer saying in his "Foundations of Morality." There is more concern for others, than for self."

A final thought for now! Campbell talks about the Artherian legends of the middle ages and Parcifil who chose his wife voluntarily because of his love for her, no clergy was involved. He suggested that this was the beginning of the idea that one should many for love and not for other reasons, such as the parent’s choice.

There is much more food for thought in Campbell. If you have some ideas on Campbell’s assertions, lets hear it?

I Am Now a Believer!

By Benito Franqui

I now believe in God! No, I have not been converted to Christianity or any other traditional theistic belief. The catch is: I define "God" as the ultimate mystery of existence. This is essentially equivalent to the agnostic position.

So, you may ask: "What is the big deal? What practical use can this hairsplitting have?" Am I merely playing silly semantic games?

When interacting with believers, many skeptics choose to take a hard—line, confrontational attitude. They may openly describe themselves as atheists or secular humanists. By adopting these labels, skeptics make it easier for believers to demonize them as "godless" atheists or secular humanists.

By claiming to believe in God, skeptics can deny the believers access to these rhetorical weapons. Instead, the skeptics may politely invite the believers to relate how the believers have been able to penetrate the ultimate mystery.

As soon as the believers mention the Bible as the key, the skeptic may ask: Was the Bible not written by MEN?

What kind of men were they? Did they enjoy a high standard of living? Were they scientifically literate? Or were they instead primitive, superstitious people with axes to grind?

If the believers answer "But they were divinely inspired", the skeptics can counter with: "If so, why can’t we also claim to be divinely inspired?"

While by claiming to also believe in God skeptics will still be probably unable to significantly shake the believers’ faith in the Bible, this claim may at least help to make skeptic—believer interactions more peaceful. And the more peaceful the interactions are, the clearer the communication. And the clearer the communication, the lesser the probability of misunderstanding. It might be worth a try.

Reflections on the question: Must a moral person be altruistic and compassionate?

By Juan Bernal, Ph.D

There are different types of morally relevant circumstances. With some morally relevant actions and inter-actions, a person’s feelings of love, compassion, benevolence, altruism, concern for others, kinship with others. Etc. play significant roles in determining that person’s actions. Without doubt, such feelings can be the force that moves us to act in morally good ways, even morally heroic ways. Examples are cases in which a person sacrifices his benefit in order to benefit others, such as a mother ignoring her own needs in order to provide for her children. Obviously, here feelings of love, kinship and compassion are the driving force behind the heroic moral action.

But there are other morally relevant circumstances in which the role of such feelings is doubtful. One can be a morally conscientious person yet not necessarily be a compassionate, loving person. For example, an office worker may not love or have any strong feelings for his fellow office workers, yet he can certainly behave towards them in ethically decent ways. He does not harm them, exploit or deceive them. He treats them fairly and respects their dignity, and so on. A second example: Joe probably does not love his neighbor; he may not feel much of anything toward him; yet Joe respects his neighbor’s rights and avoids any actions that might harm him or damage his property. In response to a question, Joe might say:

"Whether I like him or not is irrelevant; what is important is that this is how I ought to behave toward him."

Someone might respond that feelings are still relevant to these moral situations. For in our dealings with others we at least have a feeling of human kinship. We recognize that the other person is a fellow human being, and therefore have certain feelings of human concern towards him. Our perceptions and interactions with him are "colored" very differently from what they are when we deal non-human entities.

Yes, there probably are feelings involved. Being human, we may never be entirely devoid of some feeling and emotion. But these feelings are not necessarily those of compassion, love or altruism. And the feelings may not be relevant to the moral question. (Certainly, no less a moral philosopher than Immanuel Kant would agree with this.)

For my final point, consider the following imaginary situation:

The Ethical Mr. Data (the loyal android in the Star Strek T.V. series) speaks:

"As much as possible I avoid actions that result in harm to others. I have been programmed to respect person’s rights and to avoid harming them. I do not knowingly do anything that violates other person’s rights or prevent them from satisfying their needs. My creators instilled in me the Golden Rule: Do not do to others as you would not want done to you, which guides much of my inter-android, inter-personal behavior..

"Nonetheless, I am entirely devoid of any feelings of benevolence or compassion; I am not altruistic in the sense that I experience good feelings when others benefit. I don’t act as I do because of love or concern for others; feelings do not play any role in directing my behavior, since I have never experienced any feelings.

"If my behavior is correctly characterized as "morally good," it results from the fact that my behavior obeys certain principles and ethical rules, and from the fact that it is behavior that avoids harm to others. Feelings or emotion are completely irrelevant to the moral question: Am I doing what I ought to do?

[Is the ethical "Mr. Data an impossibility? ]

Pretty Good

Jokes

from Prairie Home Companion

Contributed by Harry Becker

Three friends die in a car accident and they go to an orientation in Heaven. They are all asked, "When you are in your casket and friends and family are mourning you, what would you like to hear them say about you?"

The first guy says, "I would like to hear them say that I was a great doctor in my time and a great family man."

The second guy says, "I would like to hear that I was a wonderful husband and a school teacher who made a huge difference in our children of tomorrow’

The last guy replies, "I would like I to heat them say.. .LOOK, HE'S Alive

A juggler, driving to his next performance was stopped by the police.

"What are those knives doing in your car?" asked the officer.

"I juggle them in my act’

"Oh yeah?" says the cop. "Let’s see you do it" So the juggler starts tossing and juggling the knives.

A guy driving by sees this and says, "Wow, am I glad I quit drinking. Look at the test they’re making you do now!"