"I would like my life to be a statement of love and compassion -- and where it isn't, that's where my work lies." -- Ram Dass
Ten years ago, in the summer before my freshman year of high school, I went with my church to the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota to do home repairs and work with at-risk youth. We stayed and worked in what was then the poorest county in the United States of America, and it was a hugely educational and personally transformative experience.
Though the last ten years have seen me change my philosophy in several dramatic ways -- from born-again Christian to rejectionist atheist to my current work as a Secular Humanist and interfaith activist -- reservations in South Dakota continue to face similar challenges to those I encountered in my youth. Today, the poorest county in the U.S. has shifted a bit north: Ziebach County, home to Eagle Butte, South Dakota, hub of the Cheyenne River Reservation. Located approximately 200 miles northeast of Pine Ridge, Eagle Butte is geographically and economically isolated, enabling devastating poverty and social difficulties for its residents -- particularly for its children.
Fortunately, the Cheyenne River Youth Project (CRYP) exists. Founded in 1988, the CRYP provides an after-school safe space for youth and offers artistic, athletic, nutritional and mentorship opportunities. As the Interfaith and Community Service Fellow for the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard, I had the opportunity to collaborate with the Humanist Graduate Community at Harvard to plan and lead a service trip to work at the CRYP last month.
The CRYP opened their doors to our group for a week, allowing several of our most skilled graduate students to not only assist in site maintenance and upkeep, but to serve as consultants to CRYP staff, designing materials to promote organizational sustainability and volunteer consistency. We also did a lot of direct work with the youth served by the program -- while I let kids dress me up in a ridiculous butterfly costume, bury me in foam stamps, and climb all over me (leaving me with purple bruises for weeks), others from our group encouraged the youth to open up about their lives, lost to them in ping pong, and cooked up a storm.
It was an incredible week; not only because of the work we were able to do, but also because of the tight bond we formed as a group. Both within our group and among those we collaborated with, I saw such profound love and reciprocity -- whether it was the conversations we had with fellow volunteers about the Humanist value of working to better the conditions of life for all, or the simple joy in a little girl's eyes when one of our student leaders, an Applied Physics Ph.D. candidate named A.J. Kumar, gave her a piggyback ride. At every moment, I was reminded of one of my favorite Gandhi quotes: "The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others." Not only did we find ourselves -- we found one another, and those we worked in solidarity with. Our experiences that week truly put the "human" in Humanism.
A month after our trip, I am reminded once again of the fundamental importance of Humanist service work. Just a few days ago, I organized and ran a community service project for the American Humanist Association's (AHA) annual conference -- the first time the AHA has featured one at its annual conference. After years of attending interfaith conferences and Humanist/atheist conferences but only encountering community service events at the former, I realized that if my community wants to be seen as equally ethical individuals, we will need to make good on our values. That we must actualize our commitments to justice and compassion -- for our own sake, if not in respect to how we're perceived by others.
It was open to the public, and of the 400 conference attendees, about 40 participated in the service project. I was very pleased with the turnout, and happy to hear many who couldn't make it express their belief that it had value; but someday, I'd like to see nearly everyone who attends the AHA conference participate in a group service project. I don't think it is sufficient to gather for education and fellowship -- we must also act upon the values we discuss.
This is a call to Humanists and atheists everywhere: Can we set aside intellectualizing and debating, even just for a moment, and start putting our money where other people's mouths are? I hear a lot of talk among my fellow Humanists about truth and knowledge -- but not yet enough about love and compassion. The Humanist case for compassion and engagement is so compelling that it should be more than an afterthought.
Until we make this a priority, we will likely continue to be seen by many as mean-spirited and immoral -- and we will be hypocritical for making the criticizing of the religious our top priority while failing to act on our values with the incredible frequency that religious people do. In this year's groundbreaking American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, Robert Putnam and David Campbell revealed that the religious easily beat the nonreligious in the arena of civic engagement -- that those actively involved in religious communities are much more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer their time to causes, give more money to charity (both religious and secular), and be more involved in their broader communities.
Until we can show that the nonreligious care just as much about improving the world as the religious do, we've got no business saying that "religion poisons everything." We've got to shift our priorities and start focusing on how Humanism can make a positive contribution to the world. Otherwise, we give people no compelling reason to believe us when we say that we are "good without God."
HCH's student intern Charlotte Arsenault -- a future Humanist hospice Chaplain and one of the most compassionate people I know -- participated in the AHA conference service project, wearing one of our "Good (Without God)" t-shirts. While working, she was asked by a man: "Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous for you to say that you are 'Good'? Wouldn't you be better off saying you have the 'intention' of being good without God?"
She replied that because our organization emphasizes and engages in service work frequently, we can say that we are good without God; and that, perhaps more importantly, wearing the shirt is a reminder and a challenge to her to actually be good, to be a representative of Humanism, and to hold herself up to the standards that she expects from the Humanist movement. He said that he understood, and they proceeded to have a rich conversation on nonreligious ethics.
The Black Eyed Peas once asked, "Where is the love?" It may sound cheesy, but how we respond to this question through our actions will determine the direction and impact of the Humanist movement. And if we neglect the question altogether, I believe that we have no right to call ourselves Humanists.
Ten years after I traveled to South Dakota on a Christian mission trip, I can safely say that it and experiences like it have been more rewarding than any conference I've ever attended, as valuable as they often are. But communities like the one we have at Harvard, where the mutual goals of love and service remain at the forefront of our actions, present a hope I long to see actualized in religious and nonreligious communities alike -- for the sake of Humanism, and for the sake of all humans.
Follow Chris Stedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisDStedman
As if with "the invisible man who lives in the sky" is compelling reason, why do atheists need to prove to theists that their moral foundation is without merit?
Yes, you believe hierarchy with god on the top floor. Research shows that in spite of the numerous possibilities (because it is an energy system) for moral codification, the brain will select 1 of 2 cognitive models. The least path of resistance, the default model is authoritarian.
Romans 8:
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you..
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
Knowledge is indeed the path that shatters the chains of ignorance.
Though here's my take. Firstly there's atheists as in a mere lack of a believe that any god exists and atheists as in people who require evidence for god and value not harming other people. The later are more precisely called secular humanists (I use lower case for a reason), but to make my point let's call the later simply "atheist". I want to distinguish between two different attitudes towards atheism and religion amongst such atheists. There are atheists like Stedman who doesn't believe in god but still believes in religion, enough so to create a new religion for themselves called Secular Humanism complete with chaplains, fellowship, and interfaith work. As we can't have companionship without a religious congregation and we can't do charity without religion. Though naturally they will never admit they've made a religion of Secular Humanism. And then there are atheists like Dawkins who actually reject religion, don't practice it, and publicly criticize it; these atheists are who Stedman is calling "rejectionist atheists".
Note that "rejectionist atheist" is also a derogatory term for us, not like you didn't figure that out already. Note such a pro-religion, anti-Gnu-Atheist sentiment of Secular Humanists, I personally tend to not call myself a secular humanist. In any case, I don't like such derogatory terms.
I prefer to say I am "good without both god and religion".
I accept that the theists have it basically right, although I have no transparently real god in my head. Science tells us so. Look at the scientific evidence (or the evidence of the state of the world) that rational consciousness is in no way running the show. Don't blame religion for the way life is and make everyone else "stupid". Evolutionary biology explains why life is the way it is and, from inside the mechanism, it's non rational. We need the bad stuff and the good stuff to survive. Good and bad are between the ears; consciously felt physical emotional bodily responses.
Unfortunately, they have no theory. The simply mock Follower of Christ, Talk as you will, you will get nowhere. Guess why they mean it when they say, No Nothing, But Humanist desires, wants and emotions
The reason for being Spirit
A second problem with Stedman's statement here is a confusion of motives. Why are we talking in public? What are we trying to achieve?
As an atheist/humanist, I don't write things on HuffPo because I think I have valuable insights on love and compassion. I see no reason you would care about my opinion on those issues, so I keep it to myself (unless you ask). I wish you happiness but can't tell you how to obtain it.
I'm only here because of politics. In our political debates people often advance positions they reach by faith. E.g., they won't let me marry another man. To achieve what I think is equal freedom I have to attack the factuality of their claims. Those claims are based on faith, so I challenge the notion that faith is a viable way of knowing the truth. I'm qualified in this because I'm skilled with science, a way of knowing that is actually proven to *work*. I argue this topic because I think our nation will suffer if we promote faith over reason in political debate.
Also, the main problem with religion isn't political. Most religious people are decent people, many support same-sex marriage. (And many don't.) The problem with religion isn't homophobia, it's that religion is a load of BS. That's where your point about confusion of motives comes in. I actually care about truth and knowledge and there is nothing wrong with mean talking a lot about that. If Stedman wants to talk more about love and compassion, good for him, but that's not what I'm motivated by. I think most of us are trying to achieve a society that thinks critically and isn't superstitious, and we aren't going to talk about "love and compassion" at the expense being honest and thinking critically about what's true.
I think your comment is more or less correct and is excellent (Faved!). Just those two points occurred to me while reading your comment.
One point that I didn't include was that *talking* about love and compassion doesn't make one person better than another. Nor can such talk make listeners more compassionate or loving, unless it's effective.
Religion may talk a lot about these topics, but are they effective? I don't see how they can claim to be. Studies of divorce rates reveal that atheists enjoy much lower divorce rate than Mormons, Baptists or Jews. Catholics have a rate identical to atheists. At the very least this implies that religion doesn't improve *this* aspect of adherents' love and compassion. When you consider how strongly Catholcism condemns divorce (while atheists do not), how can you conclude that any of these religions teach anything about love that isn't common knowledge to everyone?
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm - make your own judgment on the validity of the survey.)
You came close to breaking through to the other side by talking about "trying to acheive" MOTIVATION.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Is most widley accepted by us who have to motivate others to reach their full potentia. Use by TV Media and Politicians selling propaganda or business selling products to understand Motivation for their Mammon
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid. I see Atheist as D-Needs only
The most fundamental and basic four layers of the pyramid contain what Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "d-needs": esteem , friendship and love, security, and physical needs. With the exception of the most fundamental (physiological) needs, if these "deficiency needs" are not met, the body gives no physical indication but the individual feels anxious and tense. Maslow's theory suggests that the most basic level of needs must be met before the individual will strongly desire (or focus motivation upon) the secondary or higher level needs. Maslow also coined the term Metamotivation to describe the motivation of people who go beyond the scope of the basic needs and strive for constant betterment.[7] Metamotivated people are driven by B-needs (Being Needs), instead of deficiency needs (D-Needs).
Christ loving his enemies, surely did not create and use the Atomic Bomb, Drones, unprovoked wars, occupation, taking Mexican and Western Indian Land, Renting or Enslaving others, running line of income off others seat, genius and talant for simply Trading Ownership of Stock
As a result, a *person*, that is an Atheist, is likely to be good based on the exact same factors as anyone else would be good, and that is whether your *parents* have instilled and fostered a person that is motivated to be good.
The point is, we have a daunting challenge. It will take a very long time and it will need to be done small steps at a time. We may, in fact, not have enough time and these religious dogmas may cause our extinction before we cause theirs.
Chris I do agree with you in that as Atheists, we have an obligation to humanity to present an alternative view. This, in my opinion needs to be done in three ways;
• Through discussions and publications promoting science and reasons as the tools in explaining reality and not ancient myths.
• Demonstrating that as an Atheist, you can live within a moral code driven by the achievement of the greatest degree of happiness for the largest number of people.
• Achieving peace and happiness in this life which, even if you are an Atheist, is mysterious and wondrous at times. Let’s face it; you were never going to get the 72 virgins anyway.
They taugh of the duality of nature, Science is still trying to figure out. It has come a long way, but an infinity still waits science to just merely understand nature. Since it does not define or create nature at all.
These great teachers spoke of nature as being a duality of love/hate, happy/sad, life/death all based on the Humanistic uncontrolled desires and wants and senses and emotions.
These great teachers gave very strong physical and metaphysical practices exercises for each to change his behavior to become Spirit. Beyond the human nature to respond to stimuli for personal gratification alone.
I am so glad the Atheist have found this great knowledge and experience. Care to share it
2) Why do we need to make people "like" us to have our worldviews recognized as valid?
3) We atheists could have the highest rates of charity giving and volunteering and it would change nothing. It isn't lack of charity work that makes them dislike and distrust us. It is because they base their moral viewpoint on the Bible (or whatever scripture) as guidebook. We, ah, don't. So, any without the right belief is immoral. It isn't even really much of an insult from them.
Also, I reject the notion that we have a humanist community. Including that we must engage in fellowship. Primarily that we must wear our atheism/humanism on our sleeves will doing good works. In a sense, I'm not good without god, I'm good as a person. If I do good deeds as a person, not as an atheist or humanist.
I reject the notion that religion has anything to do with morality or doing good. If I want society to adopt that view, I should live by it. Not join in interfaith work as a humanist.
Chris Stedman, you just don't get it. I'm not merely good without god. I'm good without religion. I'm good without chaplains and fellowship and humanist charities. Most importantly, I'm good as a person.
Exactly! I want to be seen as a person--for the sort of person I am---not as a(an) atheist, humanist, or part of any other group. Just as me.
The Black Person's Obligation to Serve: Being "Good without White Skin" Requires Action
It is this conversation that is so badly needed in the US. For many of us who supported Obama, there is a great deal of disappointment that he has not made this the centerpiece of his agenda. Instead, we just have more endless wars.
I think of service to others as something tangible--food, medical supplies, wells, seed, farming tools---and the physical labor and education and training to help people grow food, purify water, build hospitals and stock them with supplies AND medical personnel. . .
If you do volunteer work, I'm sure you have worked with atheists and not known it as well.
But how can people know, and how can you help change their stereotypes, if you don't tell them? It seems like it's the kind of thing that conversation comes to naturally pretty often, especially "I started doing this work because..." talk. On the other hand, I can see how it could be a bit of a risk - it could make for a VERY long day if you were among disrespectful religious folks (which, I'm sorry to say, is a pretty high percentage).
How silly is this statement. We will be seen as immoral and mean-spirited by the religious because they are taught to see us that way. It doesn't matter what we do, or what they see us doing.
I posted before that I had worked as a youth service club leader for over a decade with a Catholic woman whom I considered a friend. She knows the countless hours of volunteer work I put in over a 20-year-period with the kids and with a nursing home, the humane shelter, park district, food pantry, library, schools, and other causes. But, when she found out (after 10 years of friendship) that I was an atheist, suddenly I was not a person she wanted to be near. She could no longer see me as "good", no matter how many hours I gave to the community.
We should do good for others because it is the right thing to do. Helping others to impress religious people is just as bad as their doing it to earn god-points.