Wednesday, 13 September 2006

More about atheism . . .

Kia ora koutou,

Anna Dunford was kind enough to direct me to this very interesting discussion about atheist Friends:

http://quakerphilosopher.blogspot.com/

There's really so much on there that interests/ annoys/inspires me that I don't know quite where to start . . . but the following words really speak for me, so I'll quote them (they're by one of the very outnumbered atheist Quakers taking part in the conversation):

"I do think of myself as a deep atheist. I have an extremely high level of confidence that the creator of the universe does not speak to me, does not speak to any of us, in fact does not exist. I wouldn't call it certainty, but I'd put it well north of 99 percent. And the depth of my conviction absolutely does not lead me to scoff, nor to feel uncomfortable in worship with believers. That would be terribly unfriendly, and I stand in solidarity with any Christian Friend who has been treated that way. Some of the loveliest, deepest, most thoughtful people I know are believers of various sorts. I do think they are mistaken on that particular question, as they think I am mistaken. But our F/friendship together is of far greater importance to me than our agreement."

My understanding of the other posts is that many of the authors struggle with the idea of an atheist quaker. Perhaps this is somewhat similar to the way I struggle to understand the world view of a religious scientist?

One of the questions asked (several times, actually) was something like 'why do atheists seek to join quakers when they do not believe in the same things as other people who are part of this established group?' Although I can think of several valid answers to that, it's not quite the right question in my opinion. In my experience the vast majority of atheist, non-theist and agnostic quakers were born into it. My family have been Quakers (in New Zealand and England) for at least five generations, and atheist Quakers for at least the last three. At the World Gathering of Young Friends I met or heard about atheist Friends from many many countries, and this leads me to suspect NZ may not be unique in this respect.

If atheist quakers come from within the society rather than without, this puts quite a different perspective on several of the other issues raised. Atheism is obviously one of the 'traditional' paths of Friends. A belief that is part of the family of Quaker beliefs. However, I am not terribly convinced by the idea that things are right simply because there is a precedent for them (incidently, I am even less convinced by the idea that older ideas are more pure and precious than newer evolutions). For me this is a question of tolerance. I do not want people who join Quakers and bring with them treasured christocentric beliefs to abandon these in favour of atheism simply because that is so common within my particular quaker circle! Firstly, this just seems mean, but secondly, I don't think it's justifiable to exclude people from Quakers on the basis of their beliefs if we claim sincerely to have no creed.

Perhaps a major issue here is to do with definitions. My experiences at the World Gathering convinced me that it is foolish and unhelpful to assume you know what is meant when others use words such as 'god', 'the inner light', 'Christian', 'atheist', etc. In my experience, even people using precisely the same language often turn out to mean very different things. While I appreciate that many people find it easier to get along with each other if they can find some common ground, I believe our ultimate challenge is to learn to get along in spite of our differences . . . because we can either celebrate diversity or try and squash it, and trying to make everyone the same almost always ends in violence.

Leith @ 20:38 PM Add Comment

Julian: We have connection to people, and we have connection to ideas. For some, in some contexts one can be more important than the other. Both of them seem important in creating the certainty we need in our lives. My worldviews give me a framework for making sense of life. Without them I wouldn't know how to respond, everything would be bewildering. They are a cognitive construct, a kind of internal map that lets me make my way in the world. We also need to be connected to people, to love and be loved. I've always felt a strong connection to you Leith, a sense that we have much to learn from each other, and a deep respect for you and your actions. Because of this I think, I'm able to work with the difference in our worldviews. I'm not Christocentric, in fact I'm so universalist that I'm sometimes not far off being nontheist. But I do believe in god. And if I had to choose between being friends with someone I didn't feel connected to but had the same ideas as me, and someone I loved but who had different worldviews, well it's not a difficult decision... (09/16/06)

ross: oh c'mon julian dont leave us hanging! are you gonna beat the atheist with the stick of intolerance or is love and fluffies gonna shine through at the end... its all a big trick to make us buy the next book isn't it? as to the speaking to me i think that, although the use of words and phrases like "thats just mean" make me chuckle, its a wonderful view of not just tolerance (because tolerance seems so "mean", or at least to leave enough room for meanness) but actual love for diversity between/of people. i like it :) it makes me furry on the inside. (05/17/07)

Monday, 14 August 2006

Exempt bodies

Hey guys,

This is a little random . . . but hopefully interesting! I've been thinking lately about marriage/civil unions and how they fit with my beliefs. I just had a look at the Births, Deaths and Marriages website (Dept. of Internal Affairs) www.bdm.govt.nz and found the following information about organisations that are exempt from the standard requirements around marriage/civil unions. My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Quakers are one of these groups. I'm not entirely sure what form the Quaker exemption takes, so if anybody knows please could they post it here?! The basic tone of my wonderings is this:

1. Do I feel a standard marriage/civil union would fit comfortably with my beliefs?

2. If not, would a Quaker wedding/civil union?

3. If not, is anybody else in the same boat, and should we start up a new 'body' and apply for a new exemption so that we could have important and legally recognised ceremonies of this sort that are consistent with our beliefs/values?

My current feeling is that I don't quite like standard marriage/CU requirements because you have to say who you're being married "by". If I get married I intend to marry myself, lol, not be acted upon by some random third party. Even if that 3rd party was Quakers, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with that. I've been reading again about medieval marriage and it appeals to me that, historically, any two people could marry each other by simply making a statement to that effect. I know this will seem really petty to some people, but it really grates on me that I can't just do that! When did the other rules sneak in?

Anyway, looking forward to hearing your wise words, and here's the bit about exempt bodies from the Civil Union Act 2004 (available on line from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes&clientid=157055&viewtype=contents)

Civil Union Act 2004

Section 1.

EXEMPT BODIES

1.Application to become exempt body—

(1)A body that wishes to become an exempt body must apply to the Registrar-General for exemption in the prescribed form.

(2)The application must set out—

(a)the name and contact address of the body; and

(b)the objects and beliefs of the body; and

(c)the approximate number of its members who are of or over the age of 16; and

(d)an explanation of why the objects and beliefs of the body are inconsistent with the requirements of this Act for the solemnisation of a civil union; and

(e)the rules and procedures that the body proposes to apply when solemnising a civil union.

(3)The application must be signed by at least 10 members of the body who are of or over the age of 16, each of whom must give their age and address, and the signatures must be accompanied by a statutory declaration, signed by a person who is not a member, to the effect that the signatories are who they claim to be and are members of the body.

2.Registrar-General or Minister may grant exemption—

(1)The Registrar-General may agree to grant the exemption applied for if any prescribed application fee is paid and the Registrar-General is satisfied that—

(a)the objects and beliefs of the body are inconsistent with the requirements of this Act for the solemnisation of a civil union; and

(b)the rules and procedures that the body proposes to apply when solemnising a civil union are generally consistent with this Act and are otherwise satisfactory.

(2)If the Registrar-General fails or refuses to agree to exempt the body, he or she must refer the matter to the Minister.

(3)The Minister must agree to grant the exemption sought if he or she is satisfied as to the matters referred to in subclause (1), but, if the Minister is not so satisfied, he or she must refuse the application.

(4)The Registrar-General must advise the applicant of the result of the application.

(5)When the Registrar-General or the Minister agrees to exempt a body from the requirements of this Act for the solemnisation of a civil union, the Registrar-General must give notice in the Gazette of that fact, and the body is exempt from the date specified in the notice.

3.Exempt body to notify changes—

(1)An exempt body must notify the Registrar-General if—

(a)it changes its name; or

(b)it changes its objects and beliefs in a way that impacts on why it considers that the requirements of this Act for the solemnisation of a civil union are inconsistent with those objects and beliefs; or

(c)it changes its rules and procedures for solemnising civil unions.

(2)If the body notifies the Registrar-General that it has changed its name, the Registrar-General must give notice of that fact in the Gazette.

(3)The Registrar-General must ask the Minister to cancel the exemption of an exempt body if the Registrar-General is satisfied that,—

(a)as a result of changes referred to in subclause (1)(b) or (c), the body should no longer be an exempt body; or (b)the body has failed to conduct one or more civil unions in accordance with its rules and procedures as most recently notified to the Registrar-General.

(4)If the Minister decides that the body should no longer be an exempt body, the Registrar-General must give notice in the Gazette that the body is no longer an exempt body, and notify the body accordingly.

(5)A body ceases to be an exempt body on the date on which the notice referred to in subclause (4) is published in the Gazette.

16.Solemnisation by exempt body—

(1)A civil union may be solemnised by an exempt body if it is solemnised in accordance with the rules and procedures of the body as most recently notified to the Registrar-General in accordance with Schedule 1.

(2)When a civil union is solemnised by an exempt body, the obligations imposed on civil union celebrants by section 62B of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act 1995 must be performed by the person or office holder, or in the manner, as set out in the rules and procedures of the exempt body that have been most recently notified to the Registrar-General in accordance with Schedule 1.

Leith @ 18:33 PM Add Comment

Friday, 23 June 2006

Quaker discourses . . .

Right, just to make up for months of ignoring my blog, here are a few more thoughts . . .

I've been wondering since YF camp about the ways in which we talk about Friends and Quakerism. Social constructionists claim that we socially construct our understandings of the world through language, so that the discourses we have about things have real effects in the real world. It's not just talk. In the light of this, I've been considering the following question:

What is a 'good' quaker like?

Now obviously there's not going to be a single answer, and I'm mostly interested in the variation. What kind of values/beliefs/actions get emphasised by different people? What, for that matter, is a 'good person' like? I suspect that one of the reasons YFs often don't go on to become members (not to imply that they should, because that's not my position at all, this is just one of many implications of the ways we talk about ourselves) is that they are not comfortable with some constructions of the 'good quaker'. For example, I think some people would talk about regular attendence at Meeting as being an important part of quakerism. Perhaps believing in God is another aspect of the quaker ideal to some Friends. Any thoughts?

Leith @ 21:05 PM Add Comment

My WGYF report . . .

Well, my WGYF report has now been published in the NZ Quaker Newsletter, so I reckon maybe there's a need for a general post about that. I have to admit I was hoping to be very slightly contentious, so I'd be really interested to hear whether or not anybody thinks I was (lol)! Penny for your thoughts?

Leith @ 20:50 PM Add Comment

anna d: Well it prompted ministry this morning in Wellington (even tho' they did think you'd been to a recent FWCC event not WGYF!) about being accepted and 'why are we here' =) (06/24/06)

Julian: Well, I don't know how you do it Leith, but you've done it again. Reading your report again yesterday in the Newsletter, combined with a particular piece of Ministry at Meeting today has brought me to the point where I'm finally ready to apply for membership. You have challenged and helped expand my faith more than anyone else I know. I want to thank you for being you. (06/24/06)

Monday, 27 February 2006

Next question :0)

Okay okay . . . I know it's pretty slack to still be on the question from December . . . even if it was a really good one in my opinion (lol)!

I've been waiting for inspiration on the new question, and think I've found it, but I'm not sure exactly how to formulate it so bear with me.

Have recently made a friend in the airforce, and we've been talking a lot about whether or not there is ever a reason to kill. One question that has come up, fairly inevitably I suppose, is 'if somebody was trying to murder your family, right there in front of you, and the only way to stop them was to kill them, would you do it?'

Now, I've gotta admit my honest answer is that I simply don't know. On the one hand this seems like pacifism 101 . . . obviously killing is wrong and I'm totally against it. But would I really be prepared to sacrifice my child, or my sister, or my neice for the sake of an abstract principle? Or would my love for them, and my profound need to protect them from harm overide that? My thoughts are still tumbling around on this one, and the only insight I've got clear at the moment is that maybe we won't find ethical solutions to heart-wrenching questions like this as long as we continue to accept violence as a potential solution. Hmmm, so, throwing the issue open to everyone . . . let's hear your thoughts!

Leith @ 13:41 PM Add Comment

Sebastian O: Talking with a Friend of mine, she was telling me about her first husband, a bit of an odd case he was, he was a conscientious objector in the 60s but when he had his interview with the draft board what he said was "I refuse to kill someone who I don't know, I would never kill someone who I don't know and you(Govt.) can't tell me whom to kill", I didn't know whether to be amused or shocked, then i found out that he believed it most pacifists were wimpy because most pacifist couldn't kill a person or wouldn't in a given situation, but always let it open to "I don't know"s in questions such as "and what would you do in self deffense"...he was obsessed with the samurai or so i was told but he was a pacifists as well, he said that THEN it is you make a conscious choice for peace and are able to answer with more than "I don't know", though not in agreement with that, I myself have questioned a lot of times wether I am a pacifist because it's the view i am naturally inclined to, or wether it's truly a conscious decisition, at 54 kg and 6'1'' i know violence is not what works for me but even then one day as i walked i asked myself "what will you do when you have to kill in order to survive" and then the answer in my mind was "die" and this reminded me of Gandhi, it said something like "first they insult you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you and then it's when you've succeeded", i know the jewish faith says that if someone else's life is in danger you should not hestitate in helping them even if involves killing someone, this i disagree with, islam also mentions that you're allowed to attack someone who is against the church, god or you, this i can't agree with either, but i do realize that I've always been of the thought that there's always an individual option when faced with pressure from outside, no matter who wants to convince you there's no way out there's always a choice you can make up yourself, and this is what i think it's right...i don't think i could ever kill someone when i was 10 years old and would get into fist fights i remember well that i would close my eyes before hitting and even hestitate because i was afraid of harming the otehr person, other times in my life when i've been tried to mug what i've usually done is run away and that has worked for me, however if it involved my family, i wouldn't attack, nor "deffend"...at an extreme i guess i could try and disarm the other person and as contradictory as it sounds, even if it got "violent" i wouldn't try to hurt the person...someone said it's easier to say what you will do but like in the catcher in the rye, you never know what you're going to act like, but i do believe that in general one's ethics are not based on how relative they are to every situation, you don't make a rule of how you are suposed to react to every situation but you keep in mind that violence, killing, harming others is out of the choices to take to solve any situation. Say someone comes running to you with a gun pointed at your head or a relative, someone hands you a gun quickly, this person screams as he/she advances towards you and you have to choose, even then there's no immorality in dying, but it is always immoral to kill. PS: I hate the word "moral", I preffer "ethics". (02/27/06)

Sebastian O: That's a darn wee font for comments by the way. (02/27/06)

Anna D: Having spent ages on the phone last night listening to someone who was feeling they couldn't come to Meeting because they had hit someone who had tried to mug them and felt he had let Friends down by doing so, it felt really weird finding this as your next question! I hesitantly describe myself as a pacifist - hesitantly because whilst I subscribe to the ideal I've never really been put in a position of actually having to test it. I couldn't knowingly kill anyone and don't expect anyone to do so on my behalf. For me this extends to animals too, altho' any insects that find their way in to the kitchen are more likely to be be splatted than rescued! When I worked with people with challenging behaviour we were taught breakaway techniques and non-violent restraint which I hope I'd be able to remember if put on the spot (ironically the training came after our worst cases had left!). I had no problem with those methods and see them in much the same light as non-violent direct action. Whatever our response tho in any given situation I hope that Friends would be supportive, loving and caring as living after any situation that raises such issues is fraught with emotion as well as principles. (02/27/06)

Daniel Morris: Well, here goes nothing...I have briefly read the threads on here, and although not part of your group, and my fundamental views differ somewhat, they might at the very least give you an insight onto how the other side think:) I wouldn't have ever called myself a pacifist, and until recently have never heard of quakers, but here's how i see it... I do not believe in the death penalty, (a given on here) and i certainly don't believe in the needless killings of anyone...but as Leith said in the question, what happens if you are put in a situation so horrific that the only outcome would be someone's death, their's, your's or possiably someone's you know? I can not say what i WOULD do in that situation , but i can say I hope I would be able to save the life of myself/friend/family for the following reasons.. 1: as a human being , the person who's threating your/other lives has made a choice. And by making a choice that will result in someone else's death, how can they not expect anything but the utmost resistance on the victims behalf. I have never knowingly killed an animal larger than an insect. If i find a spider inside, i will take it outside,why kill it, it is just doing what it does? But people are conscious and make choices, if someone consciously made a choice to kill me or someone i knew, and there was no alternitave, i know what i try to do. 2:If you are able to stick true to your values, and the worst happens, what happens when they try to kill someone else?... Assuming you value human life above all else, and all lifes are equal, then this comes down to a simple equasion. Would you do something you don't want to do, and kill one person,or would you, by inaction, let the deaths of at one , and likely more take place? Same kind of question, different scenario.. What if tommorrow another country invaded ours with thousands of armed troops, whose orders were to inflict as many casualties as possiable. If everyone in this country was a pacifist, including the military and the police, what would happen? I think as a principal, pacifism is fantastic, except for one thing... not everyone is a pacifist. some scenarios for you here... 1:If everyone in the world was a pacifist, no problem, noone would ever invade, happy ending:) 2:If everyone in one big group (i.e. New Zealand) was a pacifist, big problem! Other big groups see NZ as an easy target, know we are fundamentily hindered by our refusal to kill, we ourselves then become killed, or us and future generations have our freedom taken away. Not a happy ending:( 3: As we live in an impefect world i believe we need in any large group, people who are prepared to do what is neccecary if the worst happens. And this i believe is the reality today. I think having a majority of people as pacifists is good, better than a minority even, but they must realise that in order for them to enjoy their freedoms, there must also be, within their own group, people who are prepared to take the most extreme of measures if the need arises. You may say "But i don't want these people to protect me!, i don't want them to kill in my name" Well that may be you view, but it doesn't stop them from being killed themselves, as part of thir duty. When the kill, they are not simply taking lifes, they are losing their own innocence, so others may live. Hmm , dunno if that made sense. What i'm trying to say, is that lacking every single person in the world sharing the pacifist view point, the next best solotion is to have a few people in your group who don't. I'm sorry if i kinda got off the topic , but maybe it helped show a bit of background for why i said what i said. If you strongly disagree with what i said that is fine, it shows to me that even if we we don't live in a perfect world , it's likely we've got the next best thing:) (02/28/06)

ria: hmm, i am also undecided on this issue (= as has been said, its very hard to know what one would actually do in such a situation, on top of the trouble of deciding what one should do.... the trouble with posing such a question, is that it inevtably leads to the "what if..." where u would be forced to choose between something u hold extremely dear (like urs or others' lives), and killing/harming somebody. such scenarios have been described above, and when reading them, it strikes me that in a way they are quite dangerous and almost trick questions- they say: what if there is no other choice, just the choice between 2 unthinkable evils. this makes the assumption that such a situation is possible.. Maybe the difference for a pacifist is that they dont believe this, but instead believe there is always another way out, always some other action u could take... im not saying there is- im not sure, its just a thought... perhaps as soon as u admit the possibility that such a situation could occur and that if so u may act and kill or harm somebody in defense or whatever, u give urself an easy way out rather than forcing u to find other solutions... perhaps the important bit is deciding beforehand that u wouldnt- u can always act differently if such a situation does arrive, follow ur best judgement, perhaps it just helps to force u to act only in the most extreme circumstances, to consider more carefully because u would have to go against all that u hold dear... i think it would make it harder which might be a good thing... maybe? having said that however, i suspect if i found myself in such a situation, if it were possible for me to save lives of myself or those i love, i would do so in any way i could... (02/28/06)

ralph: I think its the wrong question, sort of. Pacafism is not about killing its about war. Violent solutions just dont work - violence leads to more violence. I can be a pacafist and still be prepared to kill on an individual basis. Way way way before you have somone trying to kill your son, loved one ... you took the wrong turning. When we let discontent grown, when we took more than our share of resources, when we didnt say "Hey thats not right... (02/28/06)

Avon: Hey cool site Leith, but it's stopping me from doing my work :) I agree with Ria that it is really a trick question. This question is always raised in regards to armed conflict and consciencious objectors - thus your airforce friend raised it. They are actually jumping from one issue (is it ethical or right to take a job that by it's nature involves being prepared to kill, whether directly or by helping others to kill better) and turning it into a personal question (if something happened in your personal everyday life, how would you react). These are not really linked, in my mind. I agree with the 'odd case' who said he would not kill someone because x told him to. I totally abhor killing (as happens in any war) ordinary people who have done nothing wrong except being a member (or soldier) of a particular country, whose ruler doesn't agree with your ruler (or you). In my personal life, I do whatever I can to avoid the situation of anyone killing anyone. And if I live somewhere where that situation was likely, say South Africa, I run away. I retreat. And like Ralph said, I don't drive around wearing jewels while others starve and then wondering "why did those bad people rob me??" To say that others are violent so I must be violent, others have guns so I must have bigger guns...that is a copout. It starts with you, and you are always responsible for your own actions. (03/01/06)

Julian: There you go again Leith, asking all the easy questions... Reading through these threads has really prompted some new thoughts on this issue. I'm intrigued by Ralph's comment that one can be opposed to war but sanction killing in a personal situation. I don't know if I agree but it's a fascinating moral dilema. I love Avon's point about the difference between choosing a military job, and an abstract ethical question. To me violence is more than just killing. Violence is a choice. It manifests in acts of war, in physical violence against others, in verbal or emotional abuse. It is an intent, a will to dominate by force. While it seems interesting to debate relative ethics based on arbitrary scenarios, I'm not sure it answers the deeper questions. What you do in your life day to day, how you treat people now, this seems much more important than what you think you might do in a hypothetical situation. So, if someone joins the military, intent on working in peace keeping roles, is this different to a gung-ho person who really quite likes the idea of shooting guns at foreigners? It seems so to me. This peacekeeper's intent to protect and serve, is that any different from a person who joins the police force? And in what way is that different to the actions of non violent activists who put themselves in dangerous situations to protect us all from overtly militaristic or oppressive governments. So, it seems to me that it's not even one's actions, it's the intent behind those actions that counts. And we each individually, are the only ones able to judge our own intent. (03/04/06)

Wednesday, 14 December 2005

Question of the month (December 2005)

What is love? Is it something you have or something you do? Why is it important? Are there different kinds of it? Can it change? Is it eternal? Can you do without it? How do our different discourses about love affect the way we live our lives?

Leith @ 18:26 PM Add Comment

Anna D: Whoa Leith, talk about the big ones! I guess we're all sitting waiting for someone else to go first (I know I was!) so here is something to get things moving - I'll try to come back later with something more but for now this will have to do... 'Love is a many splendid thing' as the quote goes and has about as many different definitions as the Eskimos have for snow if not more, yet we somehow seem to expect people to know what we mean by using just the one - which can often seem inadequate, misleading, downright confusing and sometimes scary! I love sunsets and stars, my cat, my family, my friends, hot chocolate on a winters evening, sitting contemplatively on a hillside, splodging along a beach, playing in the snow... yet none of these are the same kinds of love, nor do they cover the kind of bursting at the seams experiences of love that come from moments of shared togetherness be they emotional, physical or spiritual. They don't cover the sense of divine love (for lack of a better discription) that links us all at a fundamental (elemental?) level. Love is. It is something we have within us, that we feel, do , give and share and probably many other verbs. To narrow it down to a smaller definition is like narrowing god down to a Charlton Heston lookalike sitting someplace on a cloud - it is so much more! Apart from now having the Howard Jones song stuck in my head all kinds of thoughts on love are now whizzing around being incoherent so I'll leave this now and hope that someone else can pick up the ball and run with it! (12/17/05)

Leith: Here’s what I think about love . . .

Love is what I feel when I look for the beauty in the world around me, the goodness in another person. Sometimes their inner light shines so brightly I can’t help but see it, but often my own concerns blind me to their beauty, and I have to choose to look before I can notice and feel. It helps when I remember that every person is perfect in all the ways that are important; every person is precious regardless of what they do or say or think or look like. Every person has inherent value. Every person is mine to treasure. Sometimes it helps to live in the moment, instead of in my head.

There is never a shortage of love, because love is a property of me, not of the world. I can always make more love . . . it’s as easy as making a wish. Love is unconditional, and kind. It says more about the g (01/15/06)

Leith: okay, that's weird, it cut my comment in half. Here's the rest :0)

. . .iver than the receiver. Love is doing the right thing, even if somebody already told you to and made you want to do the opposite! Love is respecting other people’s truth. I find that hard to do all the time. Sometimes it helps to ‘consider the creative possibility that arise when there are differences of opinion’.

Love is both the most and the least selfish thing I know of. When I am filled with love for another person I can’t help but put them first. Altruism becomes inevitable. The paradox of this is that loving fills me with joy and wonder. When I love I become bigger somehow. I smile without knowing why. I am at peace with myself, and content that ‘all is right with the world’. Love is something I do, and doing it makes me see the world in a different way. (01/15/06)

Charlotte : I like that definition Leith....love is something you do. |a friend said to me once that love is a verb. To me this means that love is not a concept or an idea, it only gains reality by being put into action. I am reminded of that famous bible passage from Corinthians:Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud...Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. What this says to me if that love is the bottom line, the fundamental, the thread that links up all that is good in the world. Its something to aspire to and reach for. I may have said i love you before but the love i was feeling wasn't the love described here. It wasn't patient, kind, selfless. So was it love at all? Could what we so often think of as love really be needilness, familiarity, a desire to be important to someone? The more I think about it, love that is, the more the answer keeps slipping away. (01/25/06)

Anna D: You ask can love change? I've been thinking about this a lot recently and whilst I think the answer is yes I think what happens more often is our interpretation of that love, our perception of it changes. As something people crave in it's different forms it is all too easy to see love for something/one for what you want it to be rather than for what it is. What it is may be just as precious and beautiful as what you'd rather it was but to don those rose tinted spectacles and see only what you want to see is all too easily done - I know I'm guilty of it! When it feels like our love has changed all too often it is more likely to be that we have woken up to what has really been there all along rather than what we wanted there to be - this can be either a disappointment or a great joy! But equally our understanding of someone elses love (in all its forms) for us can change. As someone who has a whole heap of insecurities I need to hear words to validate my interpretation of someones actions - to really know that I'm not getting it all wrong. It is easy for me to get caught up in this need and not see/trust the evidence before my eyes for what it is and as some people just don't use words to express such things I cause myself a lot of needless uncertainty. I guess this can be where the love is patient can come in - some of us take longer to work these things out than others... (02/01/06)

Leith: That's a really interesting comment Anna :0)

In the middle you say "When it feels like our love has changed all too often it is more likely to be that we have woken up to what has really been there all along rather than what we wanted there to be". It seems to me that you're saying the love itself hasn't actually changed . . . it was always like that, but now you see the 'truth' about the love, rather than having a faulty perception of it. Is that right? I'm not sure if I'm getting you properly . . .

If that is kinda what you mean . . . I'm not sure that that's quite how I see the world (. . . this is me trying to respectfully and lovingly disagree =) ) . . . I'm with you on it being the perception that changes, rather than the love itself, but I think our understanding of the love IS 'reality' - or as close to it as it's possible to get. So I don't think the new perception/understanding is any true-er than the old one. The example I'm thinking of is an romantic couple:

they go along thinking 'we're in love, we're in love, 'we're in love' . . . and then one day one of them thinks 'no we're not'. It's pretty easy to follow that thought with 'we were never REALLY in love . . . we just thought we were' or 'there was something wrong with our love that made it imperfect and doomed to failure'. I don't think that means the original love wasn't true, I think it's just a consequence of human beings liking things to make sense and be consistent. When they break up it becomes necessary to somehow explain how something like love could just stop. An easy way of doing that is to claim it was never really there in the first place.

I guess I think that our understandings of the world are pretty powerful, and pretty revisionist (that is, we don't remember what actually happened, we remember what 'must have' happened in light of our current understandings . . . there is actually heaps of experimental psychological evidence for memory being reconstructive like this). And I find the idea of 'cognitive dissonance' useful . . . the concept that if there is some discrepancy between our beliefs and our actions, one or the other will change so they're more consistant. So, for example, if you make somebody act really mean towards another person, they start to think that person is not as nice. Once again, there are heaps of (slightly scary) psych studies showing exactly that.

I also think that in a situation involving love, it's kind of a pity for people to limit themselves in this way. If we come to understand our love in a different way, and we assume it must have always been like that, we can lose the really cool things about our original love. I don't mean that love couldn't or shouldn't change . . . just that I'd rather have the best possible love with each person in my life, because why settle for less! (02/01/06)

Julian: All your wonderful comments have led me to thinking about some distinctions. There's love as a verb, William Penn's "Let us then try what Love will do". This is active, it eminates from us. To me it seems wholly good. It is a conscious choice to give unconditionally. Then there is love as attachment. To 'fall in love' seems like something that is being done to us, almost an accident, outside our control. To love someone so much it would cause you terrible pain if they were hurt feels similar. Is this love as a need? Or is it love as a bond? We talk about 'bonding' with people as a good thing, but bonds can be constraining too. I find this very challenging, I can see the negative aspects of this kind of love, this attachment. I don't however want to be without it. I like being attached to my friends, my family. Zen teaches us to let go of attachment, but I don't particularly want to. It seems like it's worth the risk. Maybe it is the same as 'love as a verb'. There's always a risk of being hurt, but we choose to do it because we have faith that good will come of it. (02/04/06)

Anna D: pssst, Leith! We're still on December, it's nearly March... see you at YF camp! A xx (02/22/06)

Monday, 21 November 2005

Question of the month (November) . . .

What does the word 'atheist' mean to you? Why would you call yourself an atheist or refrain from calling yourself an atheist?

Leith @ 19:45 PM Add Comment

Leith: Okay . . . just to start the ball rolling. I am happy to call myself an atheist. I always suspected that would appall or offend some Friends, so before I attended the Gathering I only really discussed it freely with YFs. Two things at the Gathering have changed that. Firstly, the variety of beliefs at the Gathering made the idea that mine were not 'Quakerly' totally absurd. Secondly, every single person I met there accepted me and my atheism. The open sharing of our (often) differing beliefs was beautiful and supportive. I had been worried that my beliefs might hurt somebody. Now I think that I can speak my own truth while simultaneously opening a space for others to do the same.

Like Ralph (see the post below), my use of the word 'atheism' simply indicates that I don't believe in any kind of deity. It doesn't mean that I would refute God's existance given sufficient proof. I try to avoid setting my views in stone. But, on the basis of the evidence available to me (and keeping in mind the sources of evidence, and what I know of psychology and philosophy), I find the concept of a supernatural being quite impossible. Some people might see this as agnosticism. I find that the word atheist 'fits' me better because I 'know' (as far as that is possible) that there is no God.

I found it interesting that the people I spoke to at the Gathering had quite different understandings of 'atheism', and it struck me that we are not really communicating at all when we hide behind religious jargon. I thought that some written discussion about these kinds of things might be fascinating.

I will be particularly pleased if people share their wisdom and ask questions about other's understandings, so that this grows into a true discussion. A good question can last a lifetime! (11/21/05)

(Anon): its interesting that many people that i have talked to who believe in God believe there is decisive 'proof'. Evidence can always be interpreted in many different ways, which makes the word 'proof' itself interesting too... (11/22/05)

Joe Bloggs: I'm not particularly happy in labelling myself an atheist as I feel it doesn't exactly represent my beliefs. To me, to be an atheist means to deny the possibility of god. I am uncomfortable in setting myself against the possibility of god as I find it hard to see that there is any strong evidence one way or another. Basically i'm not comfortable denying the existance of god (or any of the various equivalents) and equally uncomfortable believing in the existance of god. I'd like to propose a new catagory of "hedgingmybetsists" (11/23/05)

Joe Bloggs: I'm not particularly happy in labelling myself an atheist as I feel it doesn't exactly represent my beliefs. To me, to be an atheist means to deny the possibility of god. I am uncomfortable in setting myself against the possibility of god as I find it hard to see that there is any strong evidence one way or another. Basically i'm not comfortable denying the existance of god (or any of the various equivalents) and equally uncomfortable believing in the existance of god. I'd like to propose a new catagory of "hedgingmybetsists" (11/23/05)

Joe Bloggs: Dirty "Add Comment" button lloking like it's done nothing and tricking me into posting twice (11/23/05)

Anna D: I don't see god as a supreme being, a dieity (probably just as well as I don't think I can spell it either!) of someone 'out there', in fact the 'g word' is one I have struggled with for years but still I couldn't quite feel comfortable calling myself an atheist, more an agnostic I guess, altho' there seem to be as many definitions of that too - what I meant by it was believing that there was something but not knowing what. However these days (since the Triennial my personal theology has had a rapid shake up) I've got to the point where I do use god reasonably comfortably (but usually without the capitalisation) to define the sense of a connecting force/presence/divine essense present in all living things and around us. I've never been any good at debate on any subject as I don't think quick enough and never have good answers up my sleeve to difficult questions like 'prove it' 'cos I usually can't! But somehow that doesn't seem to matter, there is enough evidence for me in my experience of the interconnectedness of all things, in the beauty of a gathered Meeting, of ministry speaking to my condition when I've needed it (even if I haven't liked the answer!) to know enough that there is 'something' there. I guess it doesn't have to be called 'god' and if I could come up with a better name without sounding like a Star Wars fanatic I'd probably use it. I found Colin Saxton's concept quite helpful (which I missed but Jonathan has referred to in his reporting back) about god not being like us and to try to package god into a human form (or any other) is to limit god - I can't relate to the god the father kind of god at all, god the mother/mother nature etc makes far more sense to me but even so it doesn't quite 'fit', there being simply a 'good' force doesn't work as you can't have light without dark and following that line of thought gets me into all kinds of things I haven't worked through yet. So for now (no doubt it'll change over time) I have this concept of there being something that I can't quite define, but for now I'll call god, which is an integral part of all things. Connecting with it is like tuning into a wavelength and being in harmony with that part that is within you and within others/that which is around you, so I guess when a gathered Meeting for Worship happens for me it is when we are all in tune with each other and that within us. Does this make even the remotest bit of sense to anyone other than me?! I feel like I've been working this one out as I type... (11/27/05)

thom o: hey guys, what a beautiful blog you have, well done leith, and thanks for the link anna. personally i found it counter-productive to analyse my opinions on god in the wake of the wgyf. i didn´t want to humanise it, or pigeon-hole it, or create a coherent conception of it - but inevitably through thinking about it i did, and soon god had again become a stereotype of others´ belief - a protagonist in a script, rather than an elusive beautiful mystery. so after briefly driving myself nuts looking for a reason to it all, i decided instead not to try and make life too coherent, but just accept my limited human understanding and enjoy this love and life - unsurprisingly i feel a lot more connected with the universal for doing so. as for religious jargon, whats the big deal? i jive talk and i aint no gangsta. i speak spanish and i aint no spaniard. words are just the bottle to carry the wine of ideas inside, so stop reading the label and have a drink. enjoy your summer and country you lucky lucky people. abrazos from españa. thomas. (12/02/05)

ria: but thats the thing isnt it? words are just words, tools for portraying ideas... but its interesting considering how different people use them, what they mean to different people.. ive discovered that even people i grew up with, and who think and believe things very similar to me can have very different interpretations of certain words.. it makes u wonder just how useful they are? are they hearing what u think you are saying? can u trully be portraying the idea u intend if the other person thinks the words have different meanings or significance? maybe so.. perhaps to use a tool effectively though, one must first have some understanding of it... (12/04/05)

Ralph's thoughts . . .

The World Gathering has sparked a few interesting discussions amongst my family. The following are some of Dad's thoughts . . .

It sort of seems simple to me (a dangerous sign maybe). Early quakers existed in a time and framework in which belief in God and general christianity were an integral part of their existence, so they spoke and thought in these terms. To me as an atheist quaker these parts are more or less irrelevant. What's important to me are the other things they found and sought and said and did. The ideas and actions behind the "god words". I long ago became quite comfortable hearing ministry in meeting in language that could grate but is best to just let flow by and wait to see if it still speaks to me - it often does. There are many aspects of Quakerism I think are very very important ideas. One can express them in god words or other words - doesn't really matter. The only danger in the god words are that people can end up thinking that's the important bit - I think they are wrong and I am quite happy to say so and discuss it. For me this is just the same as George Fox saying

- the church building and the minister are not the important bits,

- no creed,

- seeking after truth rather than thinking you know it all,

- consensus as a way of making important decisions,

- that of god in every man,

- people are basically good,

- silence (it's so much more inclusive than speach or songs),

- ministry coming out of a silence and being spoken into a silence . . .

Oh dear this is getting longer. . .

I'm an atheist. For me that means "I dont beleive in god" simple. It doesnt mean I couldn't conceive of there being one - I just dont believe there is. It's not something I have a choice about - I don't beleive in fairies or martians - new evidence could easily change my mind. That is in no way a problem. New evidence on martians seems unlikely but entirely possible but on fairies even more unlikely...

I like your idea of let's see what love can do but I also find it useful and interesting to discuss what values and ideas we do have in common and where we disagree. In disucssing why we beleive action A or B is right or wrong we may progress. I think it is important not to just dismiss people as bad. Understanding the reasons behind actions always gives you a better chance of changing the actions or of having your views and actions changed. Either could well be a step forward.

Dr Ralph Pugmire

Leith @ 19:43 PM Add Comment

(Anon): its interesting isnt it- i cant make up my mind about that sort of thing... on the one hand, a belief in searching for truth, rather than thinking you'v found it (perhaps combined with the idea that you can never know anything for sure as it has to come through your senses which can easily be tricked etc.) can lead on to the idea that it is wrong to inflict your opinion on others, as they have as much 'right' to their beliefs as you do to yours. Yet it provokes the question: what if their beliefs conflict with yours directly? where does the ballance lie? and especially if you believe in heaven and/or hell how can you not try to "save" them? i think both "let us then try what love will do" and your ideas on the importance of discussion help to resolve this. "love" and openness to discussion, while keeping the above ideas in mind, allow you to continue your search for truth and allow others to do so as well by considering in what ways your ideas fit or dont fit with them. (11/22/05)

(Anon): i always find that interesting as well, that sometimes in discussion with Christians they take my admission that i could be wrong in a way almost as proof that i am wrong, while they 'know' they are right. They dont have all the answers either but they have 'faith'. But that is perhaps one of my deepest beliefs, that to think you 'know' can be dangerous and/or foolhardy, and one of my biggest problems with 'Christianity' as i see it. You are constantly coming across new evidence which must be taken into account, and you must be open to considering it and coming up with your reasoned conclusions. This cant really be done with a creed. There's nothing wrong with beliefs being fluid or flexible- i think its even a good thing, -yet its easy to get caught up in defending your beliefs just for the sake of it. Atheism for me i think allows this fluidity and helps to stop me getting bogged down with a certain idea. (11/22/05)

ria: (sorry, those were me.. i guess if im going to attempt to speak my truth i should own up to it - there are u happy leithy?) (: (12/04/05)