Book Review: The Outsider Test for Faith

Want to know which religion is true? Wish that someone did the hard work to develop a single method by which to judge every religion? Go no further, John Loftus will rid the word of religious diversity. Read his book to find out how! 

Given that I bill myself as a religion critic, when I find a methodology that might aid my endeavors, like John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith, I take notice. 

However, after analyzing this test, I find it limited. His test requires that you accept religious diversity as a serious problem that must be solved. 

According to Loftus, at best there can only be one true religion and joining for non-rational, or at least non-intellectual reasons seems to be a nonstarter for Loftus.   

Admittedly, his test is seriously damaging to two types of religious people; the apologist who defends the rationality of Christianity and fundamentalists. 

However, if you are neither of these the test is much less critical. (He admits this, though he thinks that pluralistic expressions of Christianity should be equivalent to not being Christian at all)

The Outsider Test for Faith depends on people caring enough to be strictly rational in their religious belief systems. 

For instance, Loftus and a fideist, someone that believes that Christianity should rest on faith instead of reason, would only end up talking past each other.

Summary:

• Religious geographic distribution is not uniform and religion is generally dependent on culture and non-rational or irrational thinking patterns.
• Religious diversity is a problem; at best one religion is true.
• The best way to test whether your religion is true is from the perspective of a skeptical outsider.
• It is obligatory that our beliefs be predicated on rational foundations, otherwise we base our beliefs on irrational premises.
• Religion is based on faith, and faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities.

Extended Critique and Analysis:

Loftus first proposed the Outsider Test for Faith on his blog www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com, but the version I will be discussing is in his book The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion is True.

                

His test is that every Christian, Hindu, Jew, and etc… should critically assess the truth or falsity of their religion like they assess the truth or falsity of other religions. 

For Loftus, religion (though not explicitly defined) is primarily belief in a supernatural God, gods, or force that is passed down through culture. 

The problem: Of these two components of religion (belief and culture), he only critiques religious belief systems, and instead of critiquing the cultural aspects of religion, he uses them to help conclude that the religion you learned on 'mama's knees' is likely false. He should treat both aspects in similar ways.

Think about this for one second, if, unlike Loftus, you focus on the culture aspect and also maintain that religious diversity is a problem then you are essentially trying to eliminate a type of culture from the world!!

However, Loftus and all of the critics of Loftus I am aware of only focus on debunking his test. Though, I should note that in terms of critiquing supernatural beliefs I am largely in agreement with Loftus, with one exception. I accept fideism as a legitimate epistemological option-- people can base knowledge claims on revelation. 

Fideism means that knowledge depends on faith or revelation. I would certainly place limits, admittedly derived from reason, on fideism (i.e. if someone's reveled faith goes against basic morality I would be the first to offer criticism. And there are certainly examples!).

(The exact nature of these limits will not be my focus here) 

Second, truth is defined as something that is extremely probable. Absolute truth is a nonstarter for Loftus, and for good epistemological reasons.

Since faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities and probability is all that matters for knowledge, faith is directly opposed to an honest search for truth.  

Opposite Loftus, I do think that fideism should be a live option. Though as long as this caveat is acknowledged, I don't have any problems with this conception of truth. 

I am not advocating one of these conflicting epistemologies, fideism and probabilism, over another, at least not here. 

When necessary I will critique religious (and atheist) epistemologies, but this is not my primary concern at present.  

My present concern is Loftus' theoretically uninformed and inconsistent theory of religion.

Theoretically Uninformed Theory of Religion  


Some scholars, do think like Loftus, that religion is primarily about belief. However, there are many other conceptions of religion.  

There are theorists who claim that religion is about morality (i.e. Karen Armstrong), that religion is dependent on material conditions, is oppressive, and the sigh of the oppressed (i.e. Karl Marx). 

Others argue that community/society (i.e. Emile Durkheim), or relatedly religion can be thought of as culture (i.e. Reza Aslan). 

These are just a few examples of possible theories and more are being created.

Loftus often claims that if many people disagree, then you should be less certain about your belief. Thus, he should critically analyze his presumptions about religion. 


Inconsistent Theory of Religion

There are two main parts to Loftus' conception: culture, (pg. 103), and belief in a supernatural God, gods, and/or forces (pg. 126).

I am going to focus primarily on the belief aspect. Loftus is at best unclear and at worst inconsistent on this point. 

Here are two quotes from page 126:

"There are even atheistic religions..."

And:

"... no matter how you define religion it must include the belief in one or more supernatural forces or beings, and atheists don't have them."

If there is a way to give these two quotes (on the same page) a consistent interpretation, I am lost as to how. 

Another Test:

Loftus' test is premised on a misconception and/or a confused conception of religion. 

I align myself more with the cultural or society camp when I think about religion. Thus, as a religion critic, I see religion as a part of and suffused with culture that should open itself up to critique. 

This culture includes belief, but it also includes rituals such as: weddings, funerals, birth, reintegration, rites of passage, and etc.... It also includes morality and can include positions on economy. 

Religion has touched almost every aspect of every culture at least indirectly.
   
Because my conception of religion differs greatly from Loftus', my test for religion is going to look a lot different, and he will not like it. 

Let's look deeper into his conception by asking whether music could be critiqued in a similar way according to his test. The short answer is no, but the reason is interesting.

First, he does discuss why moral/political beliefs probably cannot be assessed using the Outsider Test for Ideas (based on the Outsider Test for Faith) 

1) ethical duties generally have a world wide consensus, unlike religion 2) moral/political views do not make extraordinary claims, like religion does. And 3) morality and political structures are actually forced on us, unlike religion (at least in many cultures). 

Music like religion, does not have a worldwide consensus in terms of preferred styles (1) and music tastes are not forced on us (3). 

By and large music does not make extraordinary claims (2); however, I have already conceded that his test works for religious beliefs, if the goal is rationality.   

Consider this quote:

"When it comes to Christianity, I agree with the Protestant criticism of the Catholics as well as the Catholic criticism of the Protestants. I agree with the fundamentalist criticism of the liberals as well as the liberal criticisms of the fundamentalists. In addition, I agree with the Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish criticisms of Christianity as well as the Christian criticism of Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. When they criticize each other I think they're right" (pg. 200).

He uses this to suggest that all these traditions debunk each other and all he has to do is report the disagreements. Again this is great if you think of religion solely in terms of belief or are separating out the belief component of religion for analysis. 

However, lets imagine Loftus as a music critic (music after all is cultural, just as he admits religion is). 

Take a second to think about it. 

Here is what I imagine him saying:

"When it comes to the the punk movement, I agree with the 70s pop critics as well as the 70s punk movements criticisms of 70s pop. I agree with the criticism of rappers from the East coast and their criticism of West coast rappers. In addition, I agree with the country music, popular, operatic, and hindustani criticisms of ska."

Yes, this is silly! But intentionally so. I am trying to get you to think about religion in a different way. 

And if you follow this critique of Loftus, you should find that true and false are only applicable to one aspect of religion.

Thus, I propose a different test that I will likely refine later. The Outsider Test for Religious Group Membership. One aspect of this test would cover belief and would read simply: after critically examining the beliefs of this group I can reasonably join without compromising my own core beliefs. 

Again if you temper fideism with reason and are doing no harm, I have no problem 'punting to faith,' as Loftus calls it. But admittedly if you do punt to faith you are not actually taking his test.  

Other aspects of the test would include morality, community fit, and aesthetic considerations (i.e. do I find it enjoyable). But ultimately the person would have to create and weigh what was most important for them in a religious community. 

This test could have multiple outcomes: 

Maybe the religion you were born into doesn't work for them on a psychological level, then they can explore others or not join at all. 

Maybe your family, which is very important to you, all go to the same church and despite their doubts they suppress them to maintain this connection. And there is a conscious weighing of these factors. 

Maybe you are a true believer who have genuinely considered other religious options. 

You should also assess your religion on the basis of morality. Are you asked to do things that you are morally uncomfortable with, then leave. Are you uncomfortable with how the group talks about certain members of the out group, then leave. And etc.... 

Not taking all of these aspects (and more) into consideration and focusing solely on belief when considering religion is like writing about apple pie without mentioning the crust.

Bottom Line:

The Outsider Test for Faith should pose a serious problem for the apologist (the person who insists that Christianity is rational); however, it does not pose a serious problem for a fideist (they will not take the test). 

However, the bigger concern is that Loftus' test only adequately addresses the belief portion of religion and fails to adequately address other aspects of religion.   

He does think the belief portion supports the immoral and dangerous aspects of religion; but I am not convinced of this. 

Another analogy: bracketing out the beliefs of dangerous religions is like talking about guns without ammunition. 

I agree that beliefs are part of religion, but it takes groups of people to form a dangerous religion. 

There are group dynamics at play as well as beliefs for all types of religion and cannot just be dismissed as merely emotional reasons for joining a faith.  

Spotlight on Confucianism IV: Reflections and Recap

Often I end a series with a critique. However, I already have several loose threads and adding another to the tapestry would be too much. 

Instead I am going to briefly answer three questions from my current perspective:

1) Is Confucianism a religion?
2) What are the similarities between Confucianism and Humanism?
3) Who might benefit by contemplating the beliefs and traditions of Confucianism?

1) Is Confucianism a religion?

Though I have discussed this question, I have yet to take a firm stance. My answer is that Confucianism is a religion, but there are a few caveats.  

Confucian ideas used for purely political ends, such as in the Han dynasty, are not religious. But the practice of divination, the belief in Heaven as guide for morality, and even the Confucian analysis of self should all be considered religious. 

Confucianism fits most academic theories of religion. It is about community (Emile Durkheim), though it does merge the sacred and the secular. Self, family, and community are ultimate concerns (Paul Tillich). And, some Confucians even report experiencing Heaven (William James).

But, if you believe that religion is defined by a belief in a personal God or gods (and would not substitute an impersonal metaphysical principle), then you would likely disagree with me. Though if this is the case, perhaps you would disqualify Christian Science as well. 

2) Should we compare Confucianism or other Eastern traditions/ideas to Western Humanism?

American Humanist Association advertising campaign.

First what is humanism? Humanism has two meanings, one general and one specific. The general definition is 'a system of thought that attaches prime importance to human needs'. Confucianism is a subset of this type of humanism. 

The more specific meaning of humanism focuses on rationality, empiricism, and materialism (the belief that all existence is comprised of matter and energy). Confucianism is typically not humanism according to this definition.

Here's why:

In Confucianism, T'ien is the source of morality, the metaphysical principle, and the first instance of the metaphysical principle. T'ien and materialism are incompatible, because a typical humanist would likely not accept the metaphysical underpinnings of Confucian divination. 

(Thanks to Greg Epstein for gently chastising me into thinking about humanism more globally)

3) Who might benefit by contemplating the beliefs and traditions of Confucianism?

An illustration of the perceived difference between Cofucianism (left) and Daoism (right)

Previously, I wrote a harsh review of Alaine de Botton's Religion for Atheists. My chief critique was that he only picked aspects of religion that he liked without a theoretical perspective or even specific practical considerations. 

I also thought that it was problematic to take specific festivals and rituals out of their original context without due care. 

I hope to avoid my own critiques by being specific who I think aspects of Confucianism might help. I have Asperger's, an autism spectrum 'disorder'. 

From a purely personal perspective, I never felt like belief in God or attending church helped me with social belonging.

When I read about the Confucian method of first cultivating myself and then expanding outwards, this made sense to me. Sure, there is prayer and other ways of self-cultivation in Christianity, but this is usually focused on an individual's relationship with God. 

I had immense difficulty understanding human people and I felt everyone wanted me to have a relationship with a God-person, whose intentions are admittedly outside of everyone's grasp.

Without an overall plan for self improvement, I studied humans academically: first psychology, then philosophy, then history, and finally religion. Currently, I think religion best encapsulates humanity. (But this is an argument I will write later).

As I understand it, this strategy is not unlike the Neo-Confucian concept of ko wu (the investigation of things). By practicing ko wu, you develop an understanding of Principle. 

Also, Confucianism focuses on guiding individuals as individuals, as opposed to one approach fits all (terrible for those who are demonstrably different). For instance, Confucius gives advice to his students based on what that person needs to work on, as opposed to a generalized set of rules. 

There is focus on definite moral rules as well (i.e. respect elders, fulfill your roles well, and etc...). Though, an emphasis on specific rules would help, it would be difficult to implement this in an American context beyond the family. And perhaps a failure of Confucianism is that it creates a misguided holism of the religious, ethical, and political. 

However, it seems like a good model to follow for those who are demonstrably different, as they can be formally taught ethical and moral theories that they could potentially put into practice in their own lives. 

Bottom line: 

Overall I have so far enjoyed Confucianism. Though, for my blog I am moving on to other religions. I am looking forward to further investigating Confucianism, particularly the philosophy of Chu Hsi. 

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.   

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. 

Spotlight on Atheism and Humanism III: Sunday Assembly Boston

       

        Atheism is likely a logical result of Western reactions to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In the West, humanism has had similar origins. In particular, Christianity has dominated the Anglo-American world until non-belief became a viable intellectual option towards the end of the 19^th century.

James Turner, a prominent historian, argues that non-belief became a viable option not as a result of actions or beliefs of the less devout, but rather due to devout Christians expecting God to conform to human standards of morality and reason. Now, in the 21^st century, non-believers are starting to come together in communities that could potentially be considered religious.

The Boston chapter of Sunday Assembly is one of two such communities in the Greater Boston Area. Sunday Assembly was first founded in England when two comedians Pippa Evans and Sanderson Jones missed the community of church, but not its beliefs. Thus, their goal was to start a community based on non-belief.

Sunday Assembly Boston meetings are typically held in a space shared with Democracy Now. The assemblers that were gathered at the first meeting I attended were mostly younger and white, though a few were a bit older. From what I could glean, it seemed that most of them were atheist or agnostic, but I was told that there are even some traditionally religious people who occasionally attend.  

            

         The chairs were set up in rows almost like pews, and since the meeting was delayed I inquired about the leadership structure of Sunday Assembly. I learned that the founders wanted it to be egalitarian with no single leader. Ironically, a good portion of this meeting emphasized that Sunday Assembly Boston was following the leadership of its founders.

Continuing to ask about the governance of Sunday Assembly, I asked, if they did not want to have a single leader why did they not organize the chairs in a circle like the Quakers. He was unfamiliar with them and any other congregational style of church governance. (In fairness, the majority of churches with a congregational style of church governance have pew seating).

         In retrospect, it is not surprising that he was unaware of the Quakers; Sunday Assembly was modeled on contemporary evangelical Christianity and the Anglican Church. The founders did not search for different types of religious community, but settled on familiar models.

A leader was wearing a shirt with ‘live better’ inside a triangle. This triangle was an awkward design. The words were difficult to distinguish due to the letters being stacked on top of each other like an eye exam chart. When I asked several of the leaders about this design, they did not have an answer, though at my second visit they did.

          When the meeting started, we stood up to sing Michael Jackson's Man in the Mirror played on a speaker system. The assemblers (congregants?) sang along mostly without any gusto or enthusiasm reminiscent of Eddie Izzard's sketch mocking the singing at Anglican churches. Though, the enthusiasm at my second visit was much better.

         

We then broke into pairs and played Tic-Tac-Toe with a twist. Instead of a normal 3 x 3 grid, we were given a 4 x 4 grid adding 7 more squares to the typical Tic-Tac-Toe board. We were told that the objective was to score as many points as possible and that each Tic-Tac-Toe was worth one point. The point of this exercise was to contemplate the possibility that life is not composed only of win-lose situations, but also win-win situations (and presumably also lose-lose situations though this was not made explicit).

There were two speakers. These speakers told their life stories with emphasis on their humanistic achievements. The second speaker was an astronomer who advocated his own motto: ruth and truth. Ruth means compassion and is the root of ruthless. Thus, he was advocating compassion and truth as humanist ideals.

         

The first speaker dominated the question and answer portion of the second speaker, asking him how he reconciles his Unitarianism with his humanism. This repeated questioning betrayed the questioner's lack of understanding of Unitarian Universalism, because from its inception to its current practice Unitarian Universalism is deeply connected to humanism. 

         While this was an interesting exchange the questioner was not affiliated with Sunday Assembly. However, this and other aspects of the meeting left me with the impression that assemblers and their speakers do not know much about their religious options.

         We sang two more songs at the end of the meeting, including David Bowie’s Space Oddity. Though they changed some of the lyrics: “And may God’s love be with you” was changed to “And may our love be with you,” removing even ornamental (and historical) references to God.

         Before deciding to officially review Sunday Assembly Boston I decided to attend a second Assembly. This meeting was held in a lecture hall at Harvard University giving it a less religious feeling than the first.

Pop songs were still sung and there was still a speaker. However, this speaker was much better and the songs were sung with more enthusiasm. They even gave context to the song choice and speaker, making it feel much less haphazard. 

The speaker was a national poetry slam winner, who was working on a graduate degree in education at Harvard University. His poems were mostly about race, poverty, and family and were thought provoking as well as entertaining. You should check him out at www.clintsmithiii.com

I found it commendable that some of the leaders remembered my first visit and were better prepared for questions. One person even joked that I was not being asking difficult enough questions.

          Why triangles? They have a history of being used as symbols for certain members of the downtrodden like homosexuals, who were forced to wear pink triangles in Nazi concentration camps. Why not Unitarian Universalism? Sunday Assembly provides community to those who want a place free of any mention of God. Etc.... 

         Being a relatively new organization (to date the Boston chapter has had only 14 meetings) their lack of organization and coherent belief systems (at least in their first meeting) are somewhat unsurprising. And they are quite likely still evolving.

Bottom line:

         Is Sunday Assembly religious? Even the assemblers were divided on this question. And frankly, I am puzzled as well. If I strictly adhere to my preferred conception of religion as community, then I have to say that they are religious. However, the flaw of this theory is that organizations not normally considered religious could easily be included in the category of religion. 

          Sunday Assembly fits the community theory, but does not require its members to have any specific metaphysical system. Though, arguably, the de facto metaphysic is materialistic. Nor does it require specific actions, like prayer, meditation, chanting, or reading of a Holy Text outside of the meeting.

        Would I join? Probably not. I do applaud their attempt at a non-religious community, but despite their advertisements, I feel as though my appreciation of religion would cause friction in their community. Though, I will likely visit again to see what they are up to. 

        My next post will be about the Humanist Hub, loosely affiliated with Harvard University, which I think is a better model of what organized non-belief can be.