Open Letter to Leadership of the U.S. Army

Dear Leadership of the U.S. Army:

       

      I am writing to urge you to expedite the addition of Heathen to the Army’s religious preference list. I understand that you are currently reworking how such an addition is processed; however, it is my understanding that members of the Heathen community first requested this addition 6 years ago.     

        
       I thank all of you for defending this amazing country and all the freedoms that I have as a citizen. I understand many individuals sacrificed their lives for my freedom. Do not ask those Heathens who serve to limit their freedoms.

        
       Part of the delay may be that there is a suspicion that Ásatrú isn’t a religion. I sympathize with and understand the tough decisions that you have to make in regards to these choices. However, I am convinced that Heathens are devout and religious.

        
       As a religion critic, something akin to an art critic, a question that often arises is “what is religion”. While there is no fool proof way of answering this question, there are two criteria that I think are sufficient in this particular case. 1) They have beliefs about the Ultimate. 2) They have or at least are attempting to join in community with each other. In my opinion there is no good reason not to add Heathen to the Army’s religious preference list.

        
       If you would like to ask me further questions about my opinion on this matter feel free to email me at areligioncritic@gmail.com.

With respect,

        
        Daniel Ansted

        (A Religion Critic)   


The Response: 

Mr. Ansted,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the addition of "Heathen" as a faith code.  The Department of Defense is currently reviewing the faith code policy and application of faith codes across all services.   This review will include the Service/Department process for addition faith codes to the personnel systems.  
Thank you for your continued support of and interest in the men and women serving in our military services.
RespectfullyThe Armed Forces Chaplains Board Executive Director

Spotlight on Atheism and Humanism V: Interview of Greg Epstein

       

       To my knowledge, religious criticism, as a comparison with art criticism, is a project of my own creation (if anyone knows differently please let me know). With that caveat, I would encourage any critic to practice self-criticism; not practicing self-criticism is a discredit to your project, doubly so if you are starting from scratch. I have had the good fortune to interview and learn from Greg Epstein, a humanist chaplain and leader of the Humanist Hub (featured in my previous post).

         

        One important lesson I learned from the following interview is always re-read someone’s book directly before interviewing them. Reading a book with the purpose of asking the author questions will help you immensely, regardless of your perceived familiarity with it.

        Epstein was polite and expanded on points he made in his book and due to his patience this interview is of great value to those wishing to better understand this version of humanism.

  

Q: Is the Humanist Hub religious?

A: No. Anthropologically speaking, if you are a follower of Clifford Geertz, sure it’s religious. So it depends on your definition, but we have to make a decision and to avoid confusion we are not religious.

Q: I’m generally a Durkheimian, is the Humanist Hub religious in this respect?

A: In many ways it is a religion, if using other theorists, Weber Rappaport and others.

Q: I noticed in your service and on your website you emphasize ‘reason’. What do you mean by ‘reason’?

A: We do use reason, but we use it less than other humanistic organizations. For instance, there is the United Coalition of Reason. But we are less enthusiastic about it being primary and we don’t have a monopoly on the term.

Reason corresponds to thinking about reality and connotes using all faculties of investigation. It is not wishing that reality is something else. Steven Pinker, the cognitive scientist, says reason is the ability to use our highest intellectual functions that have evolved to solve problems.

Q: I generally like to ask a question or two about the organization. What was it like recently switching from solely serving Harvard students to serving the broader community? For instance, did it go smoothly?

A: I don’t think smoothly is descriptive, because human communities hardly ever go smoothly. But it has gone well. There is a huge demand for this type of organization and a huge non-religious population that really does want community in a professionally facilitated way.

It is becoming increasingly well facilitated. The Humanist Hub is not funded by Harvard. But to be affiliated we have to spend a significant percentage serving Harvard students. We have broadened the scope to serve dozens more.

Q: In your book you state that a better question about God is “what do you believe about God.” So what do you believe about God?

A: Like I say in my book, I believe that God is the most influential literary character created. More is explained about the world, more about ourselves through this concept. It’s empowering to have all of these things fall into place with greater clarity of the universe and ourselves.       

Q: Is humanism a logical conclusion of the Protestant Reformation?

A: Organized humanism is not a natural product of the Protestant Reformation, but more accurately a product of human experience. There are humanist ideas in both Eastern and Western traditions. It’s global and the way you presented the question presents humanism as being Eurocentric, as if it’s THE experience of humanism.

Different cultures have just as much to say about humanism. There is more said in the ancient Indian traditions about atheism and agnosticism then in the entire ancient Greek cannon.

Q: What is the inherent nature of humankind? Are we inherently good or inherently bad?

A: There is no simplistic answer. Evolution has no moral design. We evolved both to cooperate and to be selfish. Humans continue expanding the circle of human concern, as argued by Peter Singer and Martha Nussbaum. We are trying to become conscious of our own evolution. And we are imperfect in this attempt.

Humanism isn’t about human perfection or human perfectibility; it is recognizing that we are only human.  

Bottom Line:

       

            After the interview, I unexpectedly spent a lot of time thinking about the question: “How Western is humanism?” And I am very grateful to Epstein for bringing this question to my attention. My view on this question has evolved and is still evolving. I currently believe that humanist-like ideas are extremely widespread (historically and globally), but that humanism as a belief system and as a way of life is primarily contemporary and Western.

     

        My primary concern is the applicability of translation; Eastern religions often have different metaphysical systems (underlying assumptions about the universe) than Western ones. For instance, Confucianism’s cosmology/metaphysics starts with the individual and addresses their participation in the cosmos. In Confucianism, there is no God, and perhaps not even a static order to the universe. Epstein’s Humanist Hub is a ‘godless congregation,’ in the context of a God-filled society.

        What would such an organization look like inside a context that stresses God/gods less (i.e. many Eastern societies)? Would one call less theistic traditions ‘humanistic religions’? How would/does humanism change these less theistic religious cosmologies? How would/do less theistic religious cosmologies change humanism?

        All of these questions point to the difficulty of translating abstract concepts, like humanism, from one context to another. These questions are potentially answerable and likely someone has already written on these questions. (If you know of someone working on the translation of humanist concepts and worldviews between Eastern and Western traditions, please comment).

        These difficult questions are the beginning of a conversation, not the end; I welcome responses.   

Current events post II: Laudato Si and Republican Catholic Candidates

Laudato Si: a no-win scenario for Catholic Republican candidates.

           

          Laudato Si is the recent Papal encyclical addressing the imminent dangers of climate change. Laudato Si poses a serious, probably unsolvable, challenge to Catholic Republican candidates for president like Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum.      

           

          The majority of the Republican base in a recent Public Policy Polling national survey would support establishing Christianity as the official national religion, suggesting that they would support more religion in politics. However, Republicans also do not want candidates kowtowing to Papal authority. Additionally, the Catholic Republican presidential candidates cannot agree with the Pope on climate change without greatly upsetting their base. With the release of Laudato Si, added to the official social teaching of the Catholic Church, a potential inconsistency became concrete.

           

          In reference to Laudato Si, Rick Santorum said to radio host Dom Giardano: “We probably are better off leaving science to the scientists, and focusing on what we’re really good at, which is theology and morality.” Notice, in this quote, that theology and morality are in the Church’s domain. However, in the last election cycle Santorum stated that JFK’s speech arguing for the absolute separation of religion and politics into their own domains ‘made him throw up.’ Now that religion has become inconvenient to his politics Santorum is, at least in this instance, advocating for separation.

           

          Jeb Bush is even more blatant, telling Politico: “I think religion ought to be about making us better as people, less about things [that] end up getting into the political realm.” However, in May of this year at the commencement address at Liberty University he stated that if elected he would let his Christian (Catholic) faith influence his decisions. If religion is less about the political realm, why would his faith influence his decisions?

            

          All of these comments by Santorum and Bush were made before Laudato Si was officially released and to my knowledge neither of them commented on the full version. However, Pope Francis argues consistently in this encyclical that politics, morality, and theology, are not separate in the climate change crisis. In fact, this triad is radically singular in Laudato Si. Not only is the Pope arguing his position well in Laudato Si, he is (obviously) the head of Catholicism, the professed religion of both Santorum and Bush. If the Pope, as spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, does not have the authority to comment on politics, why should we believe Santorum or Bush would be instructed by their faith if elected? We shouldn’t.

Spotlight on Atheism and Humanism IV: The Humanist Hub

       

Creating Meaning Together: The Humanist Hub

       As ‘A Religion Critic,’ I have had no other experience that has challenged me (in a good way) than my visit to the Humanist Hub. I have been humbled twice, once at the meeting itself and again in my interview with Greg Epstein, leader of the Hub (also forthcoming). In writing this, I find it difficult to give context to the origins of humanism. Nevertheless context matters, regardless of the difficulty. I also gained a deep respect for Greg Epstein in the process, though our interaction was brief. 

       

        Whereas, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other major religions have a specific place and time in which they developed, humanist ideas do not. There are examples of humanist ideas in Eastern and Western religious texts, from the Rg Veda to Ecclesiastes. In the contemporary period there are many non-religious humanists from many cultures (unlike Epstein, I still suspect that the number of professing living humanists is less than 1 billion). In these respects, humanism is global.

       

       The Humanist Hub does have a place and time in which it originated. They were founded in 1974 as the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard, originally serving only Harvard University students; however, recently they have broadened their scope to serve people of all ages and backgrounds. It is this Western liberal context that MOST influences them. Though they work extremely hard at realizing the larger context of humanism, which is the most that can be expected of them.

       

        When entering the Humanist Hub natural light, at least on sunny days, illuminates most of the room. On one side there are comfortable chairs away from the center. This center has folding chairs in several rows. When I got there, a few minutes past starting time, there was a middle aged musician with the appearance of a hippy strumming a guitar, while the rest of the ‘congregation’ conversed among themselves. (Epstein himself calls the Humanist Hub a godless congregation).

       

        During this time I was able to look at their book shelf. It was adorned with Doubt, Pagans and Christians, Skeptical Inquirer (magazine), various books by New Atheist authors, and more. The books suggested skepticism towards religious claims, i.e. God, that was continued politely and non-dogmatically both in Epstein’s talk and discussions with the other congregants.

       

        The meeting was called to order and a musician played an original song called “In This Place.” It praised the Humanist Hub, for its openness to freethinking and dialogue. In form, but not content, this song reminded me of the Christian hymn with the same title. At my previous visit the same person sang a song about how wonderful it is that all that you see is all there is, implying that there is no world of spirits, God, or gods; there is just the natural world.

       

        The music portion was short. I get the sense that people do not usually sing along. However, it was the singer’s birthday this week; so, encouraged and backed up by the entire congregation, he sang happy birthday to himself.

        The talk was primarily about spirituality, at least what it was and wasn’t according to Epstein. He started with the observation that many in the humanist community were arguing over two incompatible views. The first group really wants humanism to be spiritual and the second really doesn’t want it to be spiritual.

       

        My initial reaction was that this is silly; ‘spirituality’ has so many meanings that the word is essentially useless. But if I am being fair ‘God’ has just as many meanings. Borrowing from Epstein, but replacing ‘God’ with ‘spirituality,’ the first question that should be asked is: what do you believe about spirituality. This question is necessary before you decide whether spirituality should be important to humanism or not.

       

        Epstein did something very similar. He started out by giving us examples of what spiritualty isn’t. Spiritualty is not religion. It does not make religious concepts, such as God, Karma, afterlife, dogma, or ‘cat’ma, central. It is not Eastern mysticism interpreted uncritically. Spirituality is not the idea that everything happens for a reason (it doesn’t, he stated forcefully, then retracted slightly; saying that this was his firm opinion). Most importantly to Epstein, spirituality is not going it alone contra to the 19^th century transcendentalist Emerson.

        When discussing Eastern mysticism, Epstein screened a College Humor video featuring an imagined Ghandi in an exaggerated version of an American yoga class: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMc9s8oDWE. Many of the congregation participated in a discussion about the Hindu concept of ‘yoga’ and whether it: has changed, is syncretic (combination of two or more religions/cultures), and/or racist/insensitive to people of Indian descent. This discussion was reminiscent of discussions in graduate religion courses.

       

       

        During this talk there were several references to the television show Mad Men. It seemed to function almost like a sacred text to this congregation or at least to Epstein. He referenced it several times, sometimes offering interpretations, and sometimes refraining from interpretation. One thing that he took from Mad Men was that people often believe that they should feel a certain way or do certain things; and when they don’t, they feel guilty. We broke into small groups and I heard, for the first time, what I would like to call atheist guilt.

       

        Atheist guilt is the feeling that you only live one life and this one life has to be lived well. Failing to live your life well means there is no second chance and no possibility of redemption on your deathbed. So then how do you plan your one life to make it the most meaningful in the time you have? This was quite likely the most ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious’ atheist discussion I have been able to witness. (Both ‘spiritual’ and ‘religious’ are words that should be taken with a huge grain of salt in this context).

       

        I did not share with this small group and being at such a great advantage doesn’t sit well with me, especially since I am writing about them. So (to the Humanist Hub members that I heard speak) my elephant is this: I fail in my interpersonal relationships. And when I think about my failures I get overwhelmed and do nothing or at least very little.

       

        In my understanding of Epstein’s talk, the answer to what humanist spirituality could be is: sharing in the struggle, sorrows, and joys of life together.

Bottom Line:

       

        To me, this meeting was beautiful. I often imagine ideas as a gallery. We have existentialist ideas, religious ideas, political ideas, and etc… I imagine myself viewing them from a distance and seeing them, much like art, as a reflection of their time as well as for their beauty, truth, and usefulness.

       

        Epstein helped enable a community, or at least this single meeting, to produce, or at VERY least ornately organize and pack, beautiful and deep ideas.

       

        Admittedly part of this reaction is that godless congregations are a relatively new idea. New art forms can be attractive and seductive precisely because they have not yet been seen. But, this is not wholly relevant in this case. I reviewed the book Religion for Atheists and visited Sunday Assembly Boston and saw potential in each (despite my criticisms); but both seemed incomplete. The Humanist Hub does not.

       

        I did give good without God, Epstein’s book, a mediocre review. I do stand by my critiques; but like religion, this version of humanism can’t be captured in a book. Minor errors like pointing out bad use of numbers, using the wrong terminology when discussing science, or even logical errors can’t take away from something deeper.