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.