My World Gathering

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)

(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)

Leith: The sentence in the middle of this email has had me thinking a lot lately. An organisation which supports people in finding their own beliefs is a bit unusual, particularly when there are religious connections . . . but why?

Is there really anything wrong with Quakers (or some other hypothetical organisation, if that is less scary!) being committed to people rather than principles? Couldn't Quakerism be about supporting people in their attempts to live moral lives even though we don't agree on the exact morals involved? Couldn't we VALUE critique and diversity for their own sakes?

And on a related topic . . . what does it mean if we don't have a doctrine? Some Friends/Quakers/people may see nothing wrong with having a doctrine, but I grew up being told that Quakers don't have a (uniform!) set of beliefs, or book of rules (they're more like guidelines!) because we don't claim to know the Truth. However, as soon as you get down to some serious talking, it seems like us individual Quakers are all pretty convinced WE know what basic Quakerism is all about, although we're a little bit cagey about the whole issue of whether or not we have or need to have anything in common with other Quakers!

(I mean, we don't need to believe the same things - obviously that would go against the whole 'lack of doctrine' thing - but we all know there is that of God in everyone . . . I mean, that's what Quakers are, they're people who look for the good in others . . . . . . . . . don't they???)

P.S. What exactly is 'Truth'? I've spent some time studying this for my PhD, and the concept seems to get more and more complicated, and less and less plausible, in direct proportion to the amount of thought about it! (11/14/05)

mez: this will be a quick one. Just on the point of fundamentalist Q's and non-theist Q's both staying quakers cos the agree on the big issues... well... i dunno. i reckon there's probably plenty of room for pretty varying beliefs, even on the big stuff. sometimes its a struggle if such differences exist within meetings/yearly meetings... but it seems to work ok with people on opposite sides of the world. I don't know that quakers on different parts of the world are much more similar than two other random people on other sides of the world... we came across this question at wgyf, what do we have in common. In our group, we never came up with a conclusive answer. It proved rather hard to find similarities. (and yet this wasn't a problem, peopel weren't going around saying 'oh how can you be a quaker then!!) anyway i will post again later when i have more time. (03/15/06)

ria: hey Leithy, here we go, iv finally been to look at this one too.. it is an interesting letter but i think ill hav to get u to explain parts of it to me- i feel like im missing half the conversation, or perhaps dont hav enough general knowledge to get some of the allusions... luv, (11/05/05)

Julian Carver: I have struggled for a few weeks now trying to make sense of what your report means to me. Your comments on there being no common ground when it came to beliefs, and the only resort being to try what Love would do, stopped me in my tracks. It has forced me to delve much deeper into what I mean when I say 'God' or 'that of God'. These feel like these have become placeholders, even platitudes, that have stopped me really understanding what I mean. It seems to me that beliefs, if anything, just get in the way of Love, get in the way of accepting one another. Who we are, what we do seem to be so much deeper, to hold so much more promise in connecting with each other, than any (allbeit fascinating) discussion about whether we believe the same things. To love people because they simply are, that seems better to me than looking for shared beliefs. To love them simply because they exist, rather than because we can see goodness in them, that seems more powerful. And maybe that is for me what seeking 'that of God' in people is. Not neccessarily looking for, or finding sameness, or goodness (or even difference). Perhaps for me 'that of God' is simply that they are. And I don't have to agree with them. I just have to love them. (11/05/05)

Leith: Thankyou for that Julian :0) I don't want to put anyone off voicing other opinions on this stuff, but I also know what it's like to feel you have been 'heard', and I really want to tell you how beautiful I think your comment is.

I've heard people translate 'there is that of God in everyone' into 'there is that which is good in everyone' (maybe in attempts to make it more 'true' for non-religious Friends). But, for me, the translation doesn't mean the same thing. And that's complicated, because when I hear the word 'God' in this saying, I certainly don't understand it to mean 'deity' or 'spirit' or any of the other common meanings of the word. What I think of is much closer to what you describe . . . a sense that a person (or animal, or plant . . .) is of value. There is no 'because'. (11/06/05)

Anna D: Maybe that of god is perhaps that essential 'oneness' (maybe I've read too many Richard Bach books...). That which links us all together literally through our physical atomic structure ( I'm not a scientist - hope I'm using the right words here), that which links us back to the star dust from whence all matter on earth originally came - it fits with there being that of god in all things as well as all people, that which links what 'is' with what could have been and what might be. I seem to remember reading something recently that said many scientists are agreeing that there is an unmeasurable 'force' or something if you go down to the tiniest level which makes the difference between something being alive or not and so on - wish I could remember it better. For me anyhow it was a pretty good explanation of that of god in every one - that which makes something 'real'. (11/06/05)

Leith: That's a cool comment Anna, thanks! There is something appealing about everything being made out of the same kind of stuff, if you look closely enough :0) I'm just thinking, though, about the usefulness/truthfulness of retaining the word 'God' when the concept seems to have evolved into something quite different from the usual construction of a diety . . . (11/15/05)